I see-sawed over the climate issue for a while, even semi-buying into Al Gore's monstrosity of a film for a few days. I have since abandoned such scare mongering fallicies in favour of cynical belief that environmental issues are all just ways to exert more control over us and to extract more money from us while doing it.
This is supported by an article in the Telegraph last Friday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
In this article, a very intelligent man named Nils-Axel Mörner puts some good scientific proof up against one of the key components of the entire argument - rising sea levels. Increased Carbon = Global Warming = Ice Caps Melting = Rising Sea Levels = Mass Destruction.
Given that Nils-Axel Mörner is probably the leading global expert on rising sea levels, I would say that he is perfectly placed to make these observations. Its past time that more people wake up and realize that this is all one big con.
Now, I am not against recycling - it makes sense that we will run out of landfill space at some point. I do resent that our councils just collect it all to sell it on, thereby making yet more money from us on top of exhorbatant council taxes, but that is by the by. But I am against the endless guilt tripping and imposition that the whole damned "environmental movement" subjects us all to ever day.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Facebook Transplant Part 8 - Originally Posted 27/3/09 - St Obama Loses his Halo
I have been thinking about writing this little rant/blog for a few weeks now. I must admit that the cautious optimism that I felt regarding the election of St. Obama has faded almost completely and I now look at him as potentially the worst president in decades.
I read today a very interesting piece in the New York Post. http://www.nypost.com/seven/03252009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_foreign_failures_161154.htm?&page=0. Unfortunately, the UK press, not to mention our government, is so enamoured with St. Obama that any criticism is largely left unuttered, or explained away with vapid clichés and sound bytes. The cult of celebrity of St. Obama seems unassailable – even the snubbing of our personality-deficient Prime Minister is swept under the covers with astonishing speed.
I have been stewing over the “snub” of Gordon Brown for a while now. I personally can’t stand the man, but this is very worrying for the “special relationship” between the USA and UK. For those of you who don’t know, during his recent visit to the US, Brown presented a very thoughtful and pertinent present to St. Obama, and in return was given a crappy boxed set of DVDs. (More info here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1159627/To-special-friend-Gordon-25-DVDs-Obama-gives-Brown-set-classic-movies-Lets-hope-likes-Wizard-Oz.html).In addition, the entire time they were together felt forced and insincere. St. Obama’s staff even cancelled a joint press conference (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5837571.ece).
It’s actually quite pathetic how all of our political big wigs in all major parties pander to the ill informed public approval for St. Obama. Not a single opportunity to attach themselves to his ascendance goes unused – even in Prime Minister’s Question time Labour backbenchers take every chance to try and tie their own faltering government’s feeble attempts to keep the country on track to a “wider plan” being launched by St. Obama.
Why is St. Obama squandering all of the international good will that his election brought? Naiveté? Indifference? Closet isolationism? I have no idea, but he is showing a shameful indifference to international alliances in favour of trying to curry influence with major powers such as China, Russia and even the EU as opposed to supporting the smaller scale but historically far more loyal, reliable, and even moral allies. Instead of rebuilding America's place in the world, I think that he is doing just as much damage as Bush ever did, but this time to steadfast and loyal allies and partners.
His antagonism for the British might be understandable if the rumours of his Grandfather being mistreated in colonial Kenya are actually true. If they are, and there doesn’t seem to be any proof, they demonstrate a worrying inability to let bygones be bygones – hardly something that you want to see in the first black president in US history, and possibly a harbinger of his being unduly influenced by racially motivated groups and ideals during his administration.
His domestic and economic policy is also somewhat worrying. I don’t pretend to have the faintest idea of how to reverse the recession, but something fundamental inside me recoils from the idea that massive deficit spending is the solution. I am not alone either, as can be seen from the comments of the latest EU president (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/26/obamas-budget-policies-under-attack-overseas/ - I love the Czechs).
So, in the two months or so since he has taken over as the most powerful man in the world, the shine has definitely come off St. Obama for me, and I think for a lot of other people, especially the left and liberals, although the latter would not dare to voice their disillusion.
I read today a very interesting piece in the New York Post. http://www.nypost.com/seven/03252009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_foreign_failures_161154.htm?&page=0. Unfortunately, the UK press, not to mention our government, is so enamoured with St. Obama that any criticism is largely left unuttered, or explained away with vapid clichés and sound bytes. The cult of celebrity of St. Obama seems unassailable – even the snubbing of our personality-deficient Prime Minister is swept under the covers with astonishing speed.
I have been stewing over the “snub” of Gordon Brown for a while now. I personally can’t stand the man, but this is very worrying for the “special relationship” between the USA and UK. For those of you who don’t know, during his recent visit to the US, Brown presented a very thoughtful and pertinent present to St. Obama, and in return was given a crappy boxed set of DVDs. (More info here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1159627/To-special-friend-Gordon-25-DVDs-Obama-gives-Brown-set-classic-movies-Lets-hope-likes-Wizard-Oz.html).In addition, the entire time they were together felt forced and insincere. St. Obama’s staff even cancelled a joint press conference (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5837571.ece).
It’s actually quite pathetic how all of our political big wigs in all major parties pander to the ill informed public approval for St. Obama. Not a single opportunity to attach themselves to his ascendance goes unused – even in Prime Minister’s Question time Labour backbenchers take every chance to try and tie their own faltering government’s feeble attempts to keep the country on track to a “wider plan” being launched by St. Obama.
Why is St. Obama squandering all of the international good will that his election brought? Naiveté? Indifference? Closet isolationism? I have no idea, but he is showing a shameful indifference to international alliances in favour of trying to curry influence with major powers such as China, Russia and even the EU as opposed to supporting the smaller scale but historically far more loyal, reliable, and even moral allies. Instead of rebuilding America's place in the world, I think that he is doing just as much damage as Bush ever did, but this time to steadfast and loyal allies and partners.
His antagonism for the British might be understandable if the rumours of his Grandfather being mistreated in colonial Kenya are actually true. If they are, and there doesn’t seem to be any proof, they demonstrate a worrying inability to let bygones be bygones – hardly something that you want to see in the first black president in US history, and possibly a harbinger of his being unduly influenced by racially motivated groups and ideals during his administration.
His domestic and economic policy is also somewhat worrying. I don’t pretend to have the faintest idea of how to reverse the recession, but something fundamental inside me recoils from the idea that massive deficit spending is the solution. I am not alone either, as can be seen from the comments of the latest EU president (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/26/obamas-budget-policies-under-attack-overseas/ - I love the Czechs).
So, in the two months or so since he has taken over as the most powerful man in the world, the shine has definitely come off St. Obama for me, and I think for a lot of other people, especially the left and liberals, although the latter would not dare to voice their disillusion.
Monday, 11 May 2009
Facebook Transplant Part 7 - Originally Posted 24/3/09 - 5 Dead Politicans that are better off that way
This was another "top 5" list that I wanted to do. This time I chose politicians who have been dead for a while.
***
This list does not include the obvious culprits – I think that we can all agree that the world is a better place now that Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Peron, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, Salazar, Robbespiere, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, and their like are dead. Their infamy is beyond dispute, and rightly so.
Instead, this list is meant to highlight some more obscure historical personages who have since shuffled from this mortal coil. In most cases, a more expeditious shuffling would probably have saved us all a lot of trouble, but alas that was not meant to be. This list is made mostly of British and American men, the reasons that I have included them on the list will be self evident in their individual entries. I hasten to add that each of these men were not exclusively bad – many accomplished great things. However, they each in their own way did something that, in my opinion, has had significant and negative repercussions in our world today.
#1 – Harold Wilson
Harold Wilson was a Labour politician who served as Prime Minister twice in the 60s and 70s. The one and only reason that he is on this list is quiet simply Rhodesia. It was during his tenure as PM that the promises of responsible self government and dominion made following the referendum in 1922 (after Southern Rhodesia rejected a union with South Africa) was broken.
This broken promise lead directly to Rhodesia declaring independence from the British Empire in 1965, which lead to 15 years of guerrilla warfare and finally the installation of a Marxist regimen in Zimbabwe, which in turn lead to the shocking conditions and situation in that unhappy land today.
A more expedient and compromising stance might have mitigated Rhodesian nationalism and paved the way to a slower, but far more stable and productive path to democracy, racial and social equality in the country. Once again, the post-WW2 Labour obsession with divesting itself of the colonies as quickly as possible lead to premature and unprepared independence of Zimbabwe, just as it did with so much of Africa and India, leading to atrocities at the time, and often to tragedies to this day.
#2 – Edward Heath
A contemporary of Wilson, Edward Heath was a Conservative politician who served as Prime Minister between Wilson’s times in office. Also culpable of betrayal with regards Rhodesia, the real reason he is on this list is mainly due to his actions in response to the popularity of Enoch Powell.
Heath was ruthless in his hold on power as leader of the Conservatives, and the grass-roots support that Powell received due to his controversial (and somewhat prophetic) opinions about immigration worried him greatly. In response he set out to marginalize and discredit Powell before the latter could challenge Heath’s leadership of the party, a challenge that he might well have succeeded in making.
While this is just the standard political in fighting that we have come to expect, the path that Heath took had a far more long lasting effect than merely neutralizing a rival – it is Heath who was the first Conservative leader to embrace the fallicy of multiculturalism, with all the of the subsequent problems that this “experiment” has resulted in. In many ways, I blame Heath more than the liberal do-gooders and blind idealists for what is going on in Britain today.
To compound his crime of sowing the seeds of the death of British culture and identity, he also set in motion the end of its sovereignty and independence by taking Britain into the EEC in 1973, something which we can see as a very mixed blessing with hindsight.
#3 – Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Now, FDR is arguably the most popular President of the United States ever. He did some amazing things while in office, and I have great admiration for many of his “New Deal” initiatives. I am also grateful for his support, both overt and clandestine, during the dark period of WW2 when Britain stood alone.
However, I cannot forgive him two things. Firstly, he was devoted to the removal of the British Empire as a world power. The aid that he provided was crucial to Britain’s survival, but in gaining that aid Britain effectively allowed Roosevelt to make the Empire too expensive for a debt ridden Britain to maintain. This was a conscious move on his part, and the events that his attitude towards the Empire caused allowed the far-too-rapid dissolution of the Empire and premature independence for dozens of colonies, which in turn has lead to millions of deaths and turmoil that continues today.
FDR was also naively attached to the alliance with Stalin. He spent so much time making sure that the British Empire would cease to exist, he blindly allowed the creation of a far more evil and dangerous Stalinist Empire in Europe, and indeed through much of the territory that once fell under the Union flag. Say what you like about the good and bad of the British Empire, but nothing could ever persuade me to agree that it was more morally defunct than the USSR. The whole Cold War is pretty much his fault in my opinion.
#4 – Gamal Abdel Nasser
The only non-Anglo-American on the list is on here for being the catalyst for the event that first showed that the Cold War could become hot, and indeed the event that removed all doubt that the world was now to be shared between the super powers of the USA and USSR – the Seuz Crisis.
In nationalising the Suez canal in 1956, Nasser caused the humiliation of France and Great Britain when the United States withdrew their support from their allies to avoid confrontation with the Soviet Union, a confrontation which, with historical hindsight, the Soviets would have almost certainly lost even if they did not back down in the face of American ICBMs (the USSR would not be able to match US ICBM numbers for years).
Nasser was also a founding figure in modern Arab nationalism. With is anti-Western rhetoric, he in many ways reignited the mistrust between the West and the region in the post-war period, which when combined with a growing Islamic fundamentalism has lead to the clash of cultures that we all suffer under today.
#5 – Clement Attlee
Clement Attlee won the general election in 1945, ousting Churchill in an example of national betrayal that was merely the forshadowing of the public stupidity and selfishness that we now take for granted in the UK.
While a lot of what Attlee did I agree with – I have often said that I am actually quite socialist when it comes to a lot of social programmes. However, it was the way that he instituted these programmes that has left many of them in shambles today. Instead of social support, his programmes created an environment of social expectation. Instead of helping rebuild a productive society, he helped instead to create a culture of entitlement and sloth. Instead of stream lined and efficient industry and welfare programmes, he over-nationalised most of the countries infrastructure and set in motion the towering edifices of bureaucracy that we labour (no pun intended) under today as tax payers.
So, I blame Attlee not for his policies, but the idealism that his core socialist beliefs lead him to. This idealism was naïve in the extreme for such an experienced politician, and what should have been the shining example of the welfare state in Europe has instead turned into a farcical and horrendously expensive effort that has fallen far behind the rest of Europe in efficacy and standard.
***
This list does not include the obvious culprits – I think that we can all agree that the world is a better place now that Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Peron, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, Salazar, Robbespiere, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, and their like are dead. Their infamy is beyond dispute, and rightly so.
Instead, this list is meant to highlight some more obscure historical personages who have since shuffled from this mortal coil. In most cases, a more expeditious shuffling would probably have saved us all a lot of trouble, but alas that was not meant to be. This list is made mostly of British and American men, the reasons that I have included them on the list will be self evident in their individual entries. I hasten to add that each of these men were not exclusively bad – many accomplished great things. However, they each in their own way did something that, in my opinion, has had significant and negative repercussions in our world today.
#1 – Harold Wilson
Harold Wilson was a Labour politician who served as Prime Minister twice in the 60s and 70s. The one and only reason that he is on this list is quiet simply Rhodesia. It was during his tenure as PM that the promises of responsible self government and dominion made following the referendum in 1922 (after Southern Rhodesia rejected a union with South Africa) was broken.
This broken promise lead directly to Rhodesia declaring independence from the British Empire in 1965, which lead to 15 years of guerrilla warfare and finally the installation of a Marxist regimen in Zimbabwe, which in turn lead to the shocking conditions and situation in that unhappy land today.
A more expedient and compromising stance might have mitigated Rhodesian nationalism and paved the way to a slower, but far more stable and productive path to democracy, racial and social equality in the country. Once again, the post-WW2 Labour obsession with divesting itself of the colonies as quickly as possible lead to premature and unprepared independence of Zimbabwe, just as it did with so much of Africa and India, leading to atrocities at the time, and often to tragedies to this day.
#2 – Edward Heath
A contemporary of Wilson, Edward Heath was a Conservative politician who served as Prime Minister between Wilson’s times in office. Also culpable of betrayal with regards Rhodesia, the real reason he is on this list is mainly due to his actions in response to the popularity of Enoch Powell.
Heath was ruthless in his hold on power as leader of the Conservatives, and the grass-roots support that Powell received due to his controversial (and somewhat prophetic) opinions about immigration worried him greatly. In response he set out to marginalize and discredit Powell before the latter could challenge Heath’s leadership of the party, a challenge that he might well have succeeded in making.
While this is just the standard political in fighting that we have come to expect, the path that Heath took had a far more long lasting effect than merely neutralizing a rival – it is Heath who was the first Conservative leader to embrace the fallicy of multiculturalism, with all the of the subsequent problems that this “experiment” has resulted in. In many ways, I blame Heath more than the liberal do-gooders and blind idealists for what is going on in Britain today.
To compound his crime of sowing the seeds of the death of British culture and identity, he also set in motion the end of its sovereignty and independence by taking Britain into the EEC in 1973, something which we can see as a very mixed blessing with hindsight.
#3 – Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Now, FDR is arguably the most popular President of the United States ever. He did some amazing things while in office, and I have great admiration for many of his “New Deal” initiatives. I am also grateful for his support, both overt and clandestine, during the dark period of WW2 when Britain stood alone.
However, I cannot forgive him two things. Firstly, he was devoted to the removal of the British Empire as a world power. The aid that he provided was crucial to Britain’s survival, but in gaining that aid Britain effectively allowed Roosevelt to make the Empire too expensive for a debt ridden Britain to maintain. This was a conscious move on his part, and the events that his attitude towards the Empire caused allowed the far-too-rapid dissolution of the Empire and premature independence for dozens of colonies, which in turn has lead to millions of deaths and turmoil that continues today.
FDR was also naively attached to the alliance with Stalin. He spent so much time making sure that the British Empire would cease to exist, he blindly allowed the creation of a far more evil and dangerous Stalinist Empire in Europe, and indeed through much of the territory that once fell under the Union flag. Say what you like about the good and bad of the British Empire, but nothing could ever persuade me to agree that it was more morally defunct than the USSR. The whole Cold War is pretty much his fault in my opinion.
#4 – Gamal Abdel Nasser
The only non-Anglo-American on the list is on here for being the catalyst for the event that first showed that the Cold War could become hot, and indeed the event that removed all doubt that the world was now to be shared between the super powers of the USA and USSR – the Seuz Crisis.
In nationalising the Suez canal in 1956, Nasser caused the humiliation of France and Great Britain when the United States withdrew their support from their allies to avoid confrontation with the Soviet Union, a confrontation which, with historical hindsight, the Soviets would have almost certainly lost even if they did not back down in the face of American ICBMs (the USSR would not be able to match US ICBM numbers for years).
Nasser was also a founding figure in modern Arab nationalism. With is anti-Western rhetoric, he in many ways reignited the mistrust between the West and the region in the post-war period, which when combined with a growing Islamic fundamentalism has lead to the clash of cultures that we all suffer under today.
#5 – Clement Attlee
Clement Attlee won the general election in 1945, ousting Churchill in an example of national betrayal that was merely the forshadowing of the public stupidity and selfishness that we now take for granted in the UK.
While a lot of what Attlee did I agree with – I have often said that I am actually quite socialist when it comes to a lot of social programmes. However, it was the way that he instituted these programmes that has left many of them in shambles today. Instead of social support, his programmes created an environment of social expectation. Instead of helping rebuild a productive society, he helped instead to create a culture of entitlement and sloth. Instead of stream lined and efficient industry and welfare programmes, he over-nationalised most of the countries infrastructure and set in motion the towering edifices of bureaucracy that we labour (no pun intended) under today as tax payers.
So, I blame Attlee not for his policies, but the idealism that his core socialist beliefs lead him to. This idealism was naïve in the extreme for such an experienced politician, and what should have been the shining example of the welfare state in Europe has instead turned into a farcical and horrendously expensive effort that has fallen far behind the rest of Europe in efficacy and standard.
Facebook Transplant Part 6 - Originally Posted 14/3/09 - Rant about the Luton Protests
After coming back from training in Sweden this week, my wife acquainted me with the following story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4968576/Muslim-extremists-shout-abuse-at-British-soldiers-during-home-coming-march.html
Now, I could obviously not allow such an event to pass without comment.
Once again we see two things here. Firstly, there are British born/resident Moslems who have such a fundamental hatred of the UK and our values, traditions, and international efforts that they feel compelled to demonstrate this hatred against men and women who are just doing their jobs. I could understand (if dislike) demonstration against the government for government policies, but why demonstrate against the army?
Secondly, the media once again offers biased coverage and does not transmit the full story. After giving air time to the scummy fringe elements that conducted the demonstration (thus awarding them massive publicity), they failed to give equal air time to this movie http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-bbc-didnt-show-about-luton-protest.html (its from a distgusting Scottish nationalist blog but it’s a good, reliable link).
They have also rallied the normal talking head apoligists pointing out that it is a small minority of Moslems, that there moderate majority are just as outraged etc etc ad nauseum.
Now, I know its only 20 people out of the 20000 Moslems that live in Luton. That is not the point. That there are doubtless hundreds who agree with the sentiments but could not bother to show up for the protest is undoubtable. That the media coverage has once again given such scum a platform for their venom and hatred will only exacerbate the problem.
The entire event has also pointed out another distressing trend – a desire not to antagonize the Moslem community on the part of the traditionally apolitical military establishment. Apparently they resisted the whole idea of a parade on these grounds, which I find cowardly in the extreme. Once again the high command plays politics to prevent the brave rank and file (and junior officers) from getting the recognition and applause that they so richly deserve.
Overall it makes me sick – it makes me sick that we can not expect our brave military personnel, who have endured so much under their inept high command and back stabbing and weak governmental leadership, to receive the respect and gratitude that they so richly deserve. It makes me sick that, once again, its blamed on a small fringe of the Moslem community without any governmental exhortations to that community to police itself better, to make concrete, public assertations as to their loyalty and their Britishness.
I really wish people would bloody wake up and start calling it as they see it as oppossed to constantly making excuses. If we had been as weak as this in the 1930s, we would have ended up with Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists in government before we knew it – or at the very least an appeasement government lead by Lord Halifax who stayed neutral in WW2, allowing the evil that was Hitler’s fascism to reign supreme in Europe. It seems as though the blood spilt in the last great war has put fear into our leaders and our society – we no longer have the courage to pay the price that needs to be payed to confront an insiduous, dangerous, and utlimately desructive influence in our world. Radical Islam is in every way as evil as Nazism, perhaps even more so due to its hiding under the guise of religion…
Now, I could obviously not allow such an event to pass without comment.
Once again we see two things here. Firstly, there are British born/resident Moslems who have such a fundamental hatred of the UK and our values, traditions, and international efforts that they feel compelled to demonstrate this hatred against men and women who are just doing their jobs. I could understand (if dislike) demonstration against the government for government policies, but why demonstrate against the army?
Secondly, the media once again offers biased coverage and does not transmit the full story. After giving air time to the scummy fringe elements that conducted the demonstration (thus awarding them massive publicity), they failed to give equal air time to this movie http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-bbc-didnt-show-about-luton-protest.html (its from a distgusting Scottish nationalist blog but it’s a good, reliable link).
They have also rallied the normal talking head apoligists pointing out that it is a small minority of Moslems, that there moderate majority are just as outraged etc etc ad nauseum.
Now, I know its only 20 people out of the 20000 Moslems that live in Luton. That is not the point. That there are doubtless hundreds who agree with the sentiments but could not bother to show up for the protest is undoubtable. That the media coverage has once again given such scum a platform for their venom and hatred will only exacerbate the problem.
The entire event has also pointed out another distressing trend – a desire not to antagonize the Moslem community on the part of the traditionally apolitical military establishment. Apparently they resisted the whole idea of a parade on these grounds, which I find cowardly in the extreme. Once again the high command plays politics to prevent the brave rank and file (and junior officers) from getting the recognition and applause that they so richly deserve.
Overall it makes me sick – it makes me sick that we can not expect our brave military personnel, who have endured so much under their inept high command and back stabbing and weak governmental leadership, to receive the respect and gratitude that they so richly deserve. It makes me sick that, once again, its blamed on a small fringe of the Moslem community without any governmental exhortations to that community to police itself better, to make concrete, public assertations as to their loyalty and their Britishness.
I really wish people would bloody wake up and start calling it as they see it as oppossed to constantly making excuses. If we had been as weak as this in the 1930s, we would have ended up with Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists in government before we knew it – or at the very least an appeasement government lead by Lord Halifax who stayed neutral in WW2, allowing the evil that was Hitler’s fascism to reign supreme in Europe. It seems as though the blood spilt in the last great war has put fear into our leaders and our society – we no longer have the courage to pay the price that needs to be payed to confront an insiduous, dangerous, and utlimately desructive influence in our world. Radical Islam is in every way as evil as Nazism, perhaps even more so due to its hiding under the guise of religion…
Facebook Transplant Part 5 - Originally Posted 5/3/09 - Jimmy Carter Rant
I got sent this from a friend in Australia
http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Docs/Soldier_of_Fortune_CIA_Stings_Rhodesia.pdf
It makes for inetersting reading. Setting aside the politics of Soldier of Fortune, I think that is a good reflection of the politics and betrayals of the late Cold War period, and also a reflection of the skewed morals and priorities with regards Africa that the West sometimes displays, and also about how many of the current problems in Zimbabwe are the result of regional African leaders and the influence that they had with people caught in the throes of post-colonial guilt. Looks like nothing has changed for the better in the last 30 years...
http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Docs/Soldier_of_Fortune_CIA_Stings_Rhodesia.pdf
It makes for inetersting reading. Setting aside the politics of Soldier of Fortune, I think that is a good reflection of the politics and betrayals of the late Cold War period, and also a reflection of the skewed morals and priorities with regards Africa that the West sometimes displays, and also about how many of the current problems in Zimbabwe are the result of regional African leaders and the influence that they had with people caught in the throes of post-colonial guilt. Looks like nothing has changed for the better in the last 30 years...
Saturday, 9 May 2009
Facebook Transplant Part 4 - Originally Posted 26/2/09
This is part 2 of my most loathed list. Following this I have a much longer list of special mentions, which I will post at some point in the future.
***
Here is the remainder of my "Top Ten" list, including the much alluded to #8. I expect this one to get some more arguments and comments going. I hope that you at least find my choices and my reasons for them interesting and food for thought, even if you do not agree with me.
#6 Lord Nazir Ahmed
Nazir Ahmed is the first Moslem peer in British history, which is actually kind of cool. What is not cool at all is that he is using his position to push a very vehement multi-cultural agenda when he should in fact be encouraging British Moslems to integrate and assmiliate into British society.
Lord Ahmed was a leading voice in opposition to Geert Wilder’s last week, allegedly even threatening to rally ten thousand protesters if the Dutch MP was allowed to screen his film in the House of Lords. Yet the same Lord Ahmed has hosted a variety of Islamist clerics and preachers of violence, especially towards Jews, at the Lords in the name of “dialogue”.
Lord Ahmed represents the danger of the “moderate” Moslem majority in the UK. While decrying violence and preaching cooperation and coexistence, an investigation into a lot of his comments and actions show that he does not seek coexistence, instead he strives towards the alteration of traditional British values and freedoms to accommodate Islam. This is a stance common amongst even moderate Moslems, and yet is just as insidious and dangerous in the long term as suicide bombers are in the short one.
On top of this, Lord Ahmed killed someone in December while messing about with his mobile phone while he was driving. He got a 12 week (6 on license) jail sentence for dangerous driving and a one year driving ban – most people get closer to a year in jail for this offense (which is pathetically low as it is), but of course it would not be very politically sensitive to incarcerate such an august personage for taking someone’s life.
His Wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Ahmed
Lord Ahmed also represents the last name on my top-ten list to be involved in some way with a pro-Islamist or anti-Semitic agenda. Lest you think I am just Islamaphobic (ok, I provisionally admit it), lets tear into the last four names on my top ten to see if I can offend anyone else in some way by saying it how I see it.
#7 Thabo Mbeki
Thabo Mbeki, until recently the President of South Africa is on this list for a few reasons. As someone with links to Zimbabwe, I would have to say that my primary reason for loathing and despising Mbeki is that he let Mugabe get away with murder (literally) for so long. As the head of the regional power, he could easily have curbed Mugabe’s excesses years ago, thereby preventing the implosion of the Zimbabwean economy and the starvation and oppression of his people. That he did not is reason enough for scorn.
Not that Thabo does not have anything else to qualify him for this list. Under his watch, crime in South Africa has run rampant, anti-white discrimination camouflaged as affirmative action has caused a massive brain drain in South Africa, and HIV/AIDS has spread with alarming rapidity. The latter fact is in no small part to Mbeki’s saying that it was poverty, not ignorance and irresponsible sex, that caused AIDS.
I must admit to feeling a bit sorry for him and the way he was sent out of office, but he did not deserve to stay given that he has accomplished next to nothing despite the potential for good that he had, both for the region and his own country. Its his own failure to fulfil his and his country’s potential that puts him on the list.
Thabo Mbeki on wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thabo_Mbeki
#8 Nelson Mandela
Ah. We have arrived at possibly the most controversial name on my list. Nelson Mandela. I would wager that many who read this who might have agreed or sympathised with some of my other points would disagree on this one.
I have put Nelson on the list for two reasons, reasons which I believe eclipse his otherwise amazing life and accomplishments, not least of which was keeping South Africa whole post-apartheid and not succumbing to feelings of vengeance and retribution (which he was and is surely entitled to after his treatment).The first reason is much the same as the one I gave for Thabo Mbeki. Nelson Mandela was the one man with the unquestioned moral and political authority to have stopped Robert Mugabe. That he did not could be attributed to his now advanced age, but it would not have taken more than a few press statements and a speech or two to remove the hesitation on the part of regional leaders to unite against the excesses of Mugabe’s regime. The few words and efforts that he did make were no where near what he should have done, and I think were more to play to public opinion rather than any true feeling on his part.
The second reason goes back to few years ago when he publically stated that actions against terrorists in Afghanistan and the imminent war against Iraq was racially motivated and neo-Imperialist in tone. Now, I have my own views about Iraq (more on that on another rant in the future), but I think that Nelson should have known better. A man with his global moral authority and esteem should be more responsible with his statements as they gave a level of moral legitimacy to various anti-war and pro-Islamist lobbies who otherwise would have been restricted to their normal empty rhetoric.
Those are my reasons for putting Nelson on the list. If you disagree, and I am sure that most of you will, argue your case in the comments section.
If you need it, here is Nelson’s wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_mandela
#9 Hugo Chavez
Hugo Chavez is the the current President of Venezuela. He is a militant left winger who has forged his nation into a dangerously undemocratic power in a region of the world (South America) which has a tenuous grasp on democratic principles at the best of times. Endemic corruption and inefficiency has meant that his countries oil wealth has not really benefited its people – once again, a left-wing leader can be seen ripping off his country.
He is also vociferously opposed to the United States, siding with anyone else who also criticizes them, so he has aligned himself with a really nasty bunch of people over the years, especially many of his OPEC colleagues. He goes one step further through anti-Semitic rhetoric and really seems to revel in the notoriety that his statements and stances grant him.
Putting Chavez in my top ten was not an easy decision given the number of other arseholes out there in the world, but in the long run, I see Chavez as more of a danger to peace and prosperity in the Western Hemisphere than the aging Castros in Cuba, and the sooner that his own people see that he is ripping them off and leading them down a dangerous path the better.
Chavez on Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez
#10 Al Gore
Aaaaa Al Gore. Where did it all go wrong? From the comforting non-existence as Vice President to a very charismatic (and in my opinion effective) President to the worlds leading eco-warrior, picking up a Nobel prize along the way.
Al Gore is really on this list since he is the face of something that really strikes a negative chord with me – environmentalism. Now, I am not an idiot. Pollution is bad. No body likes to cough up a lung after breathing caustic fumes. Recycling is good (although I admittedly don’t do any at the moment), afterall, there is not exactly infinite room on the planet for dumping all of our refuse. I think that these points are a given.
But what really burns my arse is the implication that I should curtail my habits and feel guilty about being a consumer. I resent the notion that the developed world should take on the burden of all anti-pollution initiatives while China throws up coal-burning power stations by the score and the fires associated with deforestation cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere than the entire global air-transport sector. I also get really angry at the “facts” being presented as a fait accompli when there is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS about global warming.
So, Al Gore, in making that annoyingly one sided and biased movie, pretty much earned my ire on every one of these points. That he is hailed as such a visionary and paladin of righteousness is nauseating when all he has done is excel at simplistically presenting one side of a complex argument and managing to get it accepted as the one, unblemished and total, truth.Oh yeah, he also “invented” the internet according to him. What a muppet.
Gore’s wiki contenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore
So, that it all – my top ten. I have decided to periodically post some of the runners up – some real idiots, racists, Islamists, bastards, anti-Semites/Zionists, liberals, apologists, appeasers, dictators and wannabe dictators, do-gooders and left-wingers. So far the list has 16 names on it – I am sure that it will grow over time - watch this space.
***
Here is the remainder of my "Top Ten" list, including the much alluded to #8. I expect this one to get some more arguments and comments going. I hope that you at least find my choices and my reasons for them interesting and food for thought, even if you do not agree with me.
#6 Lord Nazir Ahmed
Nazir Ahmed is the first Moslem peer in British history, which is actually kind of cool. What is not cool at all is that he is using his position to push a very vehement multi-cultural agenda when he should in fact be encouraging British Moslems to integrate and assmiliate into British society.
Lord Ahmed was a leading voice in opposition to Geert Wilder’s last week, allegedly even threatening to rally ten thousand protesters if the Dutch MP was allowed to screen his film in the House of Lords. Yet the same Lord Ahmed has hosted a variety of Islamist clerics and preachers of violence, especially towards Jews, at the Lords in the name of “dialogue”.
Lord Ahmed represents the danger of the “moderate” Moslem majority in the UK. While decrying violence and preaching cooperation and coexistence, an investigation into a lot of his comments and actions show that he does not seek coexistence, instead he strives towards the alteration of traditional British values and freedoms to accommodate Islam. This is a stance common amongst even moderate Moslems, and yet is just as insidious and dangerous in the long term as suicide bombers are in the short one.
On top of this, Lord Ahmed killed someone in December while messing about with his mobile phone while he was driving. He got a 12 week (6 on license) jail sentence for dangerous driving and a one year driving ban – most people get closer to a year in jail for this offense (which is pathetically low as it is), but of course it would not be very politically sensitive to incarcerate such an august personage for taking someone’s life.
His Wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Ahmed
Lord Ahmed also represents the last name on my top-ten list to be involved in some way with a pro-Islamist or anti-Semitic agenda. Lest you think I am just Islamaphobic (ok, I provisionally admit it), lets tear into the last four names on my top ten to see if I can offend anyone else in some way by saying it how I see it.
#7 Thabo Mbeki
Thabo Mbeki, until recently the President of South Africa is on this list for a few reasons. As someone with links to Zimbabwe, I would have to say that my primary reason for loathing and despising Mbeki is that he let Mugabe get away with murder (literally) for so long. As the head of the regional power, he could easily have curbed Mugabe’s excesses years ago, thereby preventing the implosion of the Zimbabwean economy and the starvation and oppression of his people. That he did not is reason enough for scorn.
Not that Thabo does not have anything else to qualify him for this list. Under his watch, crime in South Africa has run rampant, anti-white discrimination camouflaged as affirmative action has caused a massive brain drain in South Africa, and HIV/AIDS has spread with alarming rapidity. The latter fact is in no small part to Mbeki’s saying that it was poverty, not ignorance and irresponsible sex, that caused AIDS.
I must admit to feeling a bit sorry for him and the way he was sent out of office, but he did not deserve to stay given that he has accomplished next to nothing despite the potential for good that he had, both for the region and his own country. Its his own failure to fulfil his and his country’s potential that puts him on the list.
Thabo Mbeki on wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thabo_Mbeki
#8 Nelson Mandela
Ah. We have arrived at possibly the most controversial name on my list. Nelson Mandela. I would wager that many who read this who might have agreed or sympathised with some of my other points would disagree on this one.
I have put Nelson on the list for two reasons, reasons which I believe eclipse his otherwise amazing life and accomplishments, not least of which was keeping South Africa whole post-apartheid and not succumbing to feelings of vengeance and retribution (which he was and is surely entitled to after his treatment).The first reason is much the same as the one I gave for Thabo Mbeki. Nelson Mandela was the one man with the unquestioned moral and political authority to have stopped Robert Mugabe. That he did not could be attributed to his now advanced age, but it would not have taken more than a few press statements and a speech or two to remove the hesitation on the part of regional leaders to unite against the excesses of Mugabe’s regime. The few words and efforts that he did make were no where near what he should have done, and I think were more to play to public opinion rather than any true feeling on his part.
The second reason goes back to few years ago when he publically stated that actions against terrorists in Afghanistan and the imminent war against Iraq was racially motivated and neo-Imperialist in tone. Now, I have my own views about Iraq (more on that on another rant in the future), but I think that Nelson should have known better. A man with his global moral authority and esteem should be more responsible with his statements as they gave a level of moral legitimacy to various anti-war and pro-Islamist lobbies who otherwise would have been restricted to their normal empty rhetoric.
Those are my reasons for putting Nelson on the list. If you disagree, and I am sure that most of you will, argue your case in the comments section.
If you need it, here is Nelson’s wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_mandela
#9 Hugo Chavez
Hugo Chavez is the the current President of Venezuela. He is a militant left winger who has forged his nation into a dangerously undemocratic power in a region of the world (South America) which has a tenuous grasp on democratic principles at the best of times. Endemic corruption and inefficiency has meant that his countries oil wealth has not really benefited its people – once again, a left-wing leader can be seen ripping off his country.
He is also vociferously opposed to the United States, siding with anyone else who also criticizes them, so he has aligned himself with a really nasty bunch of people over the years, especially many of his OPEC colleagues. He goes one step further through anti-Semitic rhetoric and really seems to revel in the notoriety that his statements and stances grant him.
Putting Chavez in my top ten was not an easy decision given the number of other arseholes out there in the world, but in the long run, I see Chavez as more of a danger to peace and prosperity in the Western Hemisphere than the aging Castros in Cuba, and the sooner that his own people see that he is ripping them off and leading them down a dangerous path the better.
Chavez on Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez
#10 Al Gore
Aaaaa Al Gore. Where did it all go wrong? From the comforting non-existence as Vice President to a very charismatic (and in my opinion effective) President to the worlds leading eco-warrior, picking up a Nobel prize along the way.
Al Gore is really on this list since he is the face of something that really strikes a negative chord with me – environmentalism. Now, I am not an idiot. Pollution is bad. No body likes to cough up a lung after breathing caustic fumes. Recycling is good (although I admittedly don’t do any at the moment), afterall, there is not exactly infinite room on the planet for dumping all of our refuse. I think that these points are a given.
But what really burns my arse is the implication that I should curtail my habits and feel guilty about being a consumer. I resent the notion that the developed world should take on the burden of all anti-pollution initiatives while China throws up coal-burning power stations by the score and the fires associated with deforestation cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere than the entire global air-transport sector. I also get really angry at the “facts” being presented as a fait accompli when there is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS about global warming.
So, Al Gore, in making that annoyingly one sided and biased movie, pretty much earned my ire on every one of these points. That he is hailed as such a visionary and paladin of righteousness is nauseating when all he has done is excel at simplistically presenting one side of a complex argument and managing to get it accepted as the one, unblemished and total, truth.Oh yeah, he also “invented” the internet according to him. What a muppet.
Gore’s wiki contenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore
So, that it all – my top ten. I have decided to periodically post some of the runners up – some real idiots, racists, Islamists, bastards, anti-Semites/Zionists, liberals, apologists, appeasers, dictators and wannabe dictators, do-gooders and left-wingers. So far the list has 16 names on it – I am sure that it will grow over time - watch this space.
Facebook Transplant Part 3 - Originally Posted 19/2/09 - Most Loathed List Part 1
This was one of what was intended to be a series of "most loathed" lists, and indeed I have published a few such over the weeks. This is the first part of my "Top 10 Most Loathed" list.
***
I have long been considering people that the world would be better without. I have been working on this over the last week or so, and here are #s 1 through 5. I have stuck to living people who have infuriated me in one way or another over the last few years. I hasten to point out that some of the them (ok, one of them, #8) could instead be called one of the good guys, but he has still annoyed the hell out of me of late and so on the list he stays. You will have to wait until Part II to see who he is, which should be posted at some point early next week.
Until then, I present this crop of human refuse. Comments are, as usual, welcome. I dont expect you to all agree with me, but I just wanted to vent my spleen.
#1 Robert Mugabe
The number one spot in this list was a no brainer really. What other individual is more deserving of derision and mockery than this idiot? Handed a prosperous nation with excellent health care, high literacy, abundant resources and enough food output to feed several other nations, over the last quarter of a century he and the corrupt cabal that succours him have raped Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and destroyed it. How no one has yet found a ‘7.62mm solution’ for this bastard is a miracle, and indeed, a damned shame.
I could wax eloquent on the subject of just what a useless waste of skin and bone this octogenarian is, but there are more than enough column inches on this subject around, and in any case most of you are Zimbos or know enough that I do not need to elaborate further.
Here is his wiki link should any of you have been living in a cave the last few years and know nothing about him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_mugabe
#2 George Galloway
Now this individual actually stimulates more pure rage in me than Mugabe does. I am almost numb to Bob’s behaviour these days, yet this scum bag can get my goat simply by appearing on my TV screen or on the pages of a newspaper. Galloway’s ideologies and politics would grate on me at the best of times. He is an old school socialist with both a working class and Scottish chip on his shoulder. He is aggressive in his articulation, blatantly anti-Semitic and too smug and too holier-than-thou by half.
On top of this is the fact that he has his nose firmly rammed up the backside of sectors of the Moslem community in the UK that are either anti-British, anti-Democracy, or pro-extremist, or indeed all three. Having some dubious actions in his past that could, and in a better world, would, equate to treason and providing succour to the enemy makes Galloway one of the most reprehensible and disgusting people in the country.
Galloway left the Labour party a few years back because it was “too” right wing! He went on to found the Respect party, which is basically a platform for Moslem rights and political lobbying interests without any manifesto beyond the gradual creep of Sharia law and Moslem morals into British society in the guise of equal rights and non-discrimination.
Here is this nasty piece of work’s wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway
#3 Jacqui Smith
The current Home Secretary in the Labour party, Jacqui Smith manages to combine the worst elements of political correctness, militant feminism, Moslem extremist appeasement, cowardice, authoritarianism, double standards and apologism all in one pointless little package.
Now, I can live with her trampling liberal sensibilities while getting measures like the 42 days detention law passed since it happens to coincide with my personal preferences, but her “Big Brother” leanings with regards email and mobile phone monitoring is a little too Orwellian for my liking.
What really makes her despicable is her shocking double standards. As Home Secretary she has final word on who can come into this country. She allows radical Islamists more or less free entry in the interests of dialogue, yet she bars people like Geert Wilders on the spurious claim that he would incite social disquiet and could be a danger to the public order.
She is afraid of a small minority to the extent that she will discard centuries of Free Speech tradition to appease the minority of Moslems who are anti-British, anti-Democracy and pro-violence, and for that reason she deserves nothing but mockery and scorn. I hope the current investigation into her finances and expense claims turns up something that will necessitate her resignation and future obscurity.
Her wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqui_Smith
#4 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Going a bit more global, this guy is a real piece of work. Since becoming President of Iran in 2005 he has, amazingly, done more to destabilize the region and alienate the West than the Ayatollah Khomeni managed. His continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, constant pledges to eradicate Israel, and his general belligerence is only equalled by North Korea in its potential for unleashing wide scale military horrors in this generation.
Ahmadinejad is a lodestone for anti-American and anti-Western thought in the “legitimate” political arenas of the world – he was after all elected to his office and therefore is a democratically valid statesman. The post-Khomeni years presented a massive opportunity for Iran to reconcile with an increasingly global society and provide expedient and rational leadership to the Shiite Moslem world. Instead they have firmly aligned themselves in the “us vs. them” world in which we now live.
The problem is that Iranians (Persians) have a habit of Empire building and organizational abilities normally absent in the wider Moslem world for the last 1000 years or so, and that in itself is bloody frightening.
Here is Ahmadinejad’s wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad
#5 Ken Livingstone
Aaaa “Red” Ken. What list of the top arseholes in the world would be complete without his name appearing on it? That he is so far down the list is more a reflection of just how many bastards there are in the world right now rather than the fact that he is not a poor excuse for a human being.
Ken used to be the head honcho of the trade unions in the UK back when they had way too much power and influence. He is an old school socialist, a real class warrior that does everything he can to harm “the establishment”.
When he was mayor of London he made a concerted effort to stimulate multi-culturalism instead of true assimilation. He also instituted a congestion charge for cars entering the city, which caused millions of pounds lost in business but kept the green lobby happy. That he failed to gain a 3rd term as Mayor of London, losing to the awesome Boris Johnson, is one of the few political highlights of the last few years and almost makes me think that the general voting public in the UK are getting some small piece of a clue.
What really burns my arse about Ken Livingstone is very similar to what gets me about George Galloway. Ken is very pro-Moslem to the extent of arguing against any measures to curb terrorism. He hides behind civil liberty arguments but in reality his stance is just one more expression of his anti-establishment ethos. He has also gotten away with some nasty public anti-Semitism that would have resulted in immediate disgrace and resignation for a politician who said similar things about any other minority.
Here is Red Ken’s wiki link. I wish he and George Galloway would just bugger off to some little island somewhere and stay away from us all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone
***
I have long been considering people that the world would be better without. I have been working on this over the last week or so, and here are #s 1 through 5. I have stuck to living people who have infuriated me in one way or another over the last few years. I hasten to point out that some of the them (ok, one of them, #8) could instead be called one of the good guys, but he has still annoyed the hell out of me of late and so on the list he stays. You will have to wait until Part II to see who he is, which should be posted at some point early next week.
Until then, I present this crop of human refuse. Comments are, as usual, welcome. I dont expect you to all agree with me, but I just wanted to vent my spleen.
#1 Robert Mugabe
The number one spot in this list was a no brainer really. What other individual is more deserving of derision and mockery than this idiot? Handed a prosperous nation with excellent health care, high literacy, abundant resources and enough food output to feed several other nations, over the last quarter of a century he and the corrupt cabal that succours him have raped Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and destroyed it. How no one has yet found a ‘7.62mm solution’ for this bastard is a miracle, and indeed, a damned shame.
I could wax eloquent on the subject of just what a useless waste of skin and bone this octogenarian is, but there are more than enough column inches on this subject around, and in any case most of you are Zimbos or know enough that I do not need to elaborate further.
Here is his wiki link should any of you have been living in a cave the last few years and know nothing about him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_mugabe
#2 George Galloway
Now this individual actually stimulates more pure rage in me than Mugabe does. I am almost numb to Bob’s behaviour these days, yet this scum bag can get my goat simply by appearing on my TV screen or on the pages of a newspaper. Galloway’s ideologies and politics would grate on me at the best of times. He is an old school socialist with both a working class and Scottish chip on his shoulder. He is aggressive in his articulation, blatantly anti-Semitic and too smug and too holier-than-thou by half.
On top of this is the fact that he has his nose firmly rammed up the backside of sectors of the Moslem community in the UK that are either anti-British, anti-Democracy, or pro-extremist, or indeed all three. Having some dubious actions in his past that could, and in a better world, would, equate to treason and providing succour to the enemy makes Galloway one of the most reprehensible and disgusting people in the country.
Galloway left the Labour party a few years back because it was “too” right wing! He went on to found the Respect party, which is basically a platform for Moslem rights and political lobbying interests without any manifesto beyond the gradual creep of Sharia law and Moslem morals into British society in the guise of equal rights and non-discrimination.
Here is this nasty piece of work’s wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway
#3 Jacqui Smith
The current Home Secretary in the Labour party, Jacqui Smith manages to combine the worst elements of political correctness, militant feminism, Moslem extremist appeasement, cowardice, authoritarianism, double standards and apologism all in one pointless little package.
Now, I can live with her trampling liberal sensibilities while getting measures like the 42 days detention law passed since it happens to coincide with my personal preferences, but her “Big Brother” leanings with regards email and mobile phone monitoring is a little too Orwellian for my liking.
What really makes her despicable is her shocking double standards. As Home Secretary she has final word on who can come into this country. She allows radical Islamists more or less free entry in the interests of dialogue, yet she bars people like Geert Wilders on the spurious claim that he would incite social disquiet and could be a danger to the public order.
She is afraid of a small minority to the extent that she will discard centuries of Free Speech tradition to appease the minority of Moslems who are anti-British, anti-Democracy and pro-violence, and for that reason she deserves nothing but mockery and scorn. I hope the current investigation into her finances and expense claims turns up something that will necessitate her resignation and future obscurity.
Her wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqui_Smith
#4 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Going a bit more global, this guy is a real piece of work. Since becoming President of Iran in 2005 he has, amazingly, done more to destabilize the region and alienate the West than the Ayatollah Khomeni managed. His continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, constant pledges to eradicate Israel, and his general belligerence is only equalled by North Korea in its potential for unleashing wide scale military horrors in this generation.
Ahmadinejad is a lodestone for anti-American and anti-Western thought in the “legitimate” political arenas of the world – he was after all elected to his office and therefore is a democratically valid statesman. The post-Khomeni years presented a massive opportunity for Iran to reconcile with an increasingly global society and provide expedient and rational leadership to the Shiite Moslem world. Instead they have firmly aligned themselves in the “us vs. them” world in which we now live.
The problem is that Iranians (Persians) have a habit of Empire building and organizational abilities normally absent in the wider Moslem world for the last 1000 years or so, and that in itself is bloody frightening.
Here is Ahmadinejad’s wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad
#5 Ken Livingstone
Aaaa “Red” Ken. What list of the top arseholes in the world would be complete without his name appearing on it? That he is so far down the list is more a reflection of just how many bastards there are in the world right now rather than the fact that he is not a poor excuse for a human being.
Ken used to be the head honcho of the trade unions in the UK back when they had way too much power and influence. He is an old school socialist, a real class warrior that does everything he can to harm “the establishment”.
When he was mayor of London he made a concerted effort to stimulate multi-culturalism instead of true assimilation. He also instituted a congestion charge for cars entering the city, which caused millions of pounds lost in business but kept the green lobby happy. That he failed to gain a 3rd term as Mayor of London, losing to the awesome Boris Johnson, is one of the few political highlights of the last few years and almost makes me think that the general voting public in the UK are getting some small piece of a clue.
What really burns my arse about Ken Livingstone is very similar to what gets me about George Galloway. Ken is very pro-Moslem to the extent of arguing against any measures to curb terrorism. He hides behind civil liberty arguments but in reality his stance is just one more expression of his anti-establishment ethos. He has also gotten away with some nasty public anti-Semitism that would have resulted in immediate disgrace and resignation for a politician who said similar things about any other minority.
Here is Red Ken’s wiki link. I wish he and George Galloway would just bugger off to some little island somewhere and stay away from us all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
