Socialism’s basic premise is that the value of anyone’s life is found only its contribution to the social good. No individual life has value in and of itself.
–Commenter Pat Frank, at What’s Up With That
"It is not worth the while to go round the world to count the cats in Zanzibar" – Henry David Thoreau
Socialism’s basic premise is that the value of anyone’s life is found only its contribution to the social good. No individual life has value in and of itself.
–Commenter Pat Frank, at What’s Up With That
Over the past 48 hours, delegates, MPs, journalists and exhibitors who are attending the annual gathering of the nation’s governing party have been punched, spat at, kicked, subjected to racist abuse, sexist abuse and other general threats of violence.
I’m not a Tory, not by a long chalk, but it’s a personal thing. I don’t like the intrusive and nanny state aspects of the Tories, as a result, I don’t tend to vote for them, except as a protest and I don’t fund them.
But some on the left, firmly believe that having their arguments decisively, if not overwhelmingly, rejected at the ballot box, feel they have the right to turn up outside the Tory party conference and intimidate, spit and throw eggs at the attendees for little more than supporting a different political vision.
So inured are we to the childish, yet violent behaviour of the left, that for the most part we are more disgusted than surprised, but could you imagine the opposite happening? A bunch of sneering Young Conservatives turning up to protest at the Labour Party conference? No – me neither.
This is the fundamental problem at the heart of the left – that when their arguments are rejected by the electorate, they don’t seek better arguments, they just reach into their grab-bag of socialist solutions for what has worked in the past and try and apply that.
The problem being that strikes and sit-ins and the rest of the panoply of student union politics seldom works in the real world for the simple fact that the real world is not made up of 20-something’s who’ve never had a job and have too much time on their hands.
As the left crumbles, expect more intimidation and “Direct Action”, but the more they do it, the more the general populace will become alienated by it and contemptuous of those who practice it.
Rod Liddle, Sun columnist, goes off on one.
TALLY Ho! No sooner are the Conservatives back in office than they’ve decided to have a go at the poor foxes once again.
Actually I am of the opinion that they are trying to fix a half-arsed law that does little for either camp. Trying to turn it into a Toffs or Us campaign because it suits your townie tunnel vision is unworthy of decent journalism. But then, this is the Sun we are talking about.
Probably because there’s not much important going on in the world, is there?
When trying to repeal bad laws you have to begin somewhere. The fox hunting travesty is as good a place to start as any.
Just the EU falling to bits and jihadi maniacs chopping heads off all over the place and Britain swamped by more and more immigration.
More bad laws to repeal, yes?
The Prime Minister wanted to waste some parliamentary time loosening the laws on fox hunting.
I assume this was David Cameron’s gift to his local pals — the Cotswold Posse.
All those rich monkeys in his constituency who enjoy nothing more than ripping a defenceless animal to bits.
But wait! Riding to the rescue are the Scottish nationalists!
Because Toffs on horseback are far more dangerous than the SNP interfering in English matters that should not concern them? Your priorities are as skewed as the perceived ones you are whinging about, Ron.
They’ve said they will vote against any Tory proposals to relax the hunting ban. Despite the fact that they shouldn’t have anything to do with the matter because the rules don’t apply to Scotland.
But Ron agrees with them so it’s okay for the SNP to gang up in the House of Commons in precisely the way they promised not to. The English faction of Parliament should interfere right back and give the SNP a bloody nose. Oh, wait. We don’t get to practice that privilege. But that’s okay because foxes are cute and cuddly and never kill livestock. Evah!
Opportunistic hypocrites, says Mr Cameron. But the foxes don’t care where salvation comes from — any port in a storm.
I despise Cameron but he has a point. As for any port in a storm, it depends what is waiting for you on the dock. In the foxes case it’s poison, lethal gas or a spade over the head. At least they have a chance to escape horse and hounds.
My own guess is that the SNP are furiously against fox hunting because most members of the party have the same coloured fur as a fox.
Waaaaaycist! That’s waaaaycist against gingers that is. To presume they have fur and not hair. Tut tut.
They’re worried the hunters might get confused. The toffs out on horseback spending the entire day pursuing what they think is a fox — and then they find the hounds have just eaten Nicola Sturgeon.
Ron thinks Nicola is a fox. Does he kiss her picture every night before he goes to bed?
Still, at least the Nats are on the right side for once.
No, they’re not. This is political interference on steroids. Will you still feel the same way if they join the Guardianista inspired witch hunt against Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid journalists? Only stupid turkeys vote for Christmas.
The British public is hugely opposed to fox hunting, according to every opinion poll carried out on the matter.
According the opinion polls we were going to have another hung Parliament. How is Coalition 2.0 going for you Ron?
Rightly, they consider it a horrible and barbaric business.
So was the invasion of Iraq but that didn’t stop New Labour did it? They believed that foxes were more deserving of protection than the civilians who died during the ousting of Saddam. They are still dying because IS filled the void. Save your indignation for them, Ron. Let’s have some honest perspective here.
Every bit as barbaric as all those other sports we’ve banned over the years — bear baiting, for example. Or cock fights, or dog fights.
Which take place in pits with no chance of escape.
Just because fox hunting is undertaken, in the main, by posh people, it doesn’t make it any less barbaric. A psychopath wearing a pink jacket is still a psychopath.
Where to begin? Foxes are an apex predator and are culled because they kill livestock. You know, all those cute and fluffy lambs, chickens and ducklings. Dressing up in costume and riding to hounds, in Ron’s world, is psychotic because it is mostly done by toffs even though, in reality, it isn’t. Bashing an animal’s brains out with the back of a shovel gets no mention, presumably because the deed is done by salt of the earth common man and is therefore not psychotic at all. This is pure hypocrisy. It is bare-faced, townie lefty, no nowt bollocks.
But there’s something about the Conservatives that revels in ripping an animal to bits.
I seem to recall a few Conservatives voting for the ban. Must have slipped Ron’s mind.
If they’re not trying to bring back fox hunting they’re gassing badgers — for no sane reason whatsoever.
Because TB infected badgers don’t exist and neither does Bovine TB.
Mr Cameron and his well-bred cronies have no time for our wildlife, as they show time and time again.
There’s an awful lot of Labour voting farmers and country folk in my part of the world who regularly shoot rabbits and crows. Aren’t they wildlife too?
If it’s furry and it’s got a pulse, kill it. If it’s a bird of prey, let the gamekeepers shoot it or poison it.
Your PETA-coat is showing, Ron.
And yet I thought the Conservatives were sick of being portrayed as the “nasty party”?
It’s all Fatcha’s fault.
Here’s the deal, Dave. Sort out the economy. Try to raise the wages of our poorest people a little bit, huh?
Nine quid an hour isn’t enough then? What do you suppose this piece of
Tory socialist insanity is going to do for the economy?
Decide what we’re going to do about IS and all those refugees trying to get into the country.
With all those bleeding hearts and EUphiles voting against him? Not a chance.
And leave the foxes alone.
If you saw what a fox does to livestock it would make you puke, Ron. But since you are a townie you keep yourself insulated against red blooded reality and arrogantly insist that you know what the scamelling hell you are talking about.
Hat tip to the TV Licensing blog
Speaking on BBC1′s the Andrew Marr Show, Lord Hall also said a “household tax” – as proposed by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee – is a “very interesting idea”.
He added there is broad agreement for the licence fee to be reformed to ensure “everyone is paying equally for it and I would go along with that”.
Some will find Lord Hall’s admission that there is no long-term future for the UK’s antiquated “Telly Tax” a refreshing volte-face from the BBC Chief, but the reality is that he needs to protect BBC revenues as well as addressing growing criticism of how TV Licensing operates, specifically:
So it is for these reasons, as well as a desire to silence those proposing a mixed public-service/subscription only model, that Lord Hall is suddenly open and honest about the need for change. In fact I suspect that “revenue neutrality” will be the foundation stone, but that will be revenue neutral from the BBC’s perspective – not the “hard-working families” who have to pay for the BBC’s largess.
The model that Lord Hall is proposing is a “Household Tax” and he is suggesting that it be simply added as a line item on Council Tax bills across the nation. Councils would then remit the money to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport – which then sends the bulk of that money directly to the BBC (less some smaller scale payments to other media companies for their public service commitments)
On the face of it, since the “Telly Tax” is essentially a household tax anyway (save for those ½ million-or-so “TV Refuseniks”), so bundling it as a £145.50 line item within the Council Tax would mean:
However, the one thing which this approach would not deal with (or at least not on the surface), is the accusation that “a fixed fee of £145.50 disproportionately affects the poor”. Here I expect that the provisions covering Council Tax Reduction (previously known as Council Tax Benefit), will be extended to include the TV License component.
So if those in receipt of a Council Tax Reduction are no longer actually paying the cost of their TV License then who will? If your answer to that particular rhetorical question was “Muggins ‘ere”, then I suspect you are correct.
Given a “Revenue Neutral” approach (from the BBC’s perspective), any shortfall would have to be made up from an increase in either general taxation (income tax, etc.) or Council Tax.
Given that the OECD classifies the TV License as “a hypothecated tax for the purpose of funding public broadcasting“, neither approach would increase the overall tax versus GDP (one of Chancellor George “Gideon” Osborne favourite metrics), but I expect the new legislation preventing increases in general taxation to be used to add it onto the Council Tax bill.
Thus those eponymous “hard working families” who actually pay their Council Tax bills in full will be paying a hidden and unknown element to cover those who can’t pay / won’t pay.
Now you can see why Lord “Marxist” Hall is in favour of a “Household Tax” as it has the potential to solve all his current problems…Except BBC profligacy and left-wing bias obviously.
I trained as a Lawyer and my advice to anyone who is thinking of suing any person or organisation for Libel, even if you have been libeled, but especially if you haven’t, is don’t. Take it on the chin, ignore it and move on with your life. Under British Law it is much to much of a gamble either way, as the outcome of this court case today shows.
I have no idea whether Mitchell called the PC a fuckin pleb or not, and could care less. It is not a criminal offence after all. By all accounts Mitchell is a nasty piece of work who is ideally suited to the job of Chief Whip where being a bully is an absolute plus. He was nicknamed “Thrasher” Mitchell when he was a Prefect at Rugby Public school (yes the same one as the fictional Flashman… you just can’t make it up can you?). But there are some very disquieting aspects to the whole “Plebgate” affair.
First; there is the fact that one Police Officer has been jailed for obstructing the course of justice (presumably the one who pretended to be a member of the public who was just passing by and was “shocked” by Mitchell’s language, and just happened to email the Cabinet office using almost word for word what PC Rowland says Mitchell ranted at him, when he wasn’t there at all). Second; that three other Protection Officers have been sacked. And third; that another five are on gardening leave and under investigation, yet the Honourable Justice Mittings finds that there is obviously no conspiracy against Mitchell. Oh fuckin really??
On the balance of probabilities (not beyond reasonable doubt) which is how this case was decided, the good Judge found that…
‘I am satisfied at least on the balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same including the politically toxic word pleb’.
And the Judge then goes on to virtually insult the PC again…
Pc Rowland was ‘not the sort of man who would have had the wit, imagination or inclination to invent on the spur of the moment an account of what a senior politician had said to him in temper’
So which do you prefer then PC Rowland, being called a fuckin Pleb, or thick and unimaginative by a High Court Judge?
And the High Court Judge in question, has a bit of form for being an anti establishment dripping wet Liberal.
Oscar Wilde was a bloody fool to sue for Libel, it destroyed him, and the same has happened to Andrew Mitchell. The court costs are going to be eye-watering. And all he had to say in the first place was… Yes I called him a fuckin Pleb, because he is a fuckin Pleb! What of it?
The often attacked British press is, in reality, one of the glories of this country. In the United States the normal pattern is for there to be a single dominate newspaper in a town or city and for it to reflect the “liberal” left ideology of the education system (the “Schools of Journalism” and so on) – with, by and large, the only choices being to read the leftist line, presented as “objective, scientific, journalism” or read no newspaper. There is the New York Post, which gives an alternative view of New York and other matters, and the financial and business newspaper the Wall Street Journal (both owned by Rupert Murdoch – which is why the totalitarian left hate him, as he is basically all that stands in their way of gaining a leftist monopoly in the press), but there is little other dissent. Just as on television basically the only dissent from the leftist line is “Fox News” (also owned by Mr Murdoch) with all other television stations reflecting the leftist line.
In the United Kingdom things are very different. There are many newspapers on the left – such as the “I” and the “Independent” and the “Guardian” and the “Daily Mirror” and the “Financial Times” (anyone who thinks a financial and business newspaper can not be on the left has never met the “FT”), but there are also many newspapers on the “right” (in the conservative or old style liberal sense – not the socialist Fascist sense) – such as the “Daily Telegraph”, the “Express”, the “Daily Mail” and the “Sun”. However, annoying the press may be at times this diversity in the press is one of the glories of this country and people who hate it are like people who hate the Queen or Winston Churchill – they really hate Britain.
The left, at least the totalitarian left, seek constantly to destroy the free press in the United Kingdom. For example with the financial backing of, son of Fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley, Max Mosley (who won a libel case against being accused of being involved in a Nazi themed prostitute event – although he was involved in a Nazi themed prostitute event, work-that-one-out), the left ran a campaign against the newspapers. The left also used a claim in the Guardian newspaper that employees of the Sun newspaper had deleted messages on a murdered girl’s mobile telephone (a claim that turned out to be FALSE – they did “hack” the telephone, in the hope of getting information that would help them crack the case, but they did NOT delete any messages) to get Prime Minister Cameron’s government to impose some censorship on the press. “Hacking” mobile telephones was already illegal (and was done at least as much by Daily Mirror people as by Sun people – but the left does not care about that), and the new censorship rules will not make “hacking” any more illegal – but the left’s objective is censorship, the case of the murdered little girl was just a means-to-an-end to the totalitarian left. And Mr Cameron went along with some of what they wanted (partly because he was embarrassed at employing a person who had once been involved in telephone “hacking” himself) – and he should be ashamed of that.
It should be pointed out that the “Sun” and the, now closed down,”News of the World” are-were Rupert Murdoch newspapers. The leftist campaign against them was nothing to do with them “hacking” telephones more than the leftist “Daily Mirror” people did (they did not “hack” more than Daily Mirror people did) – it was a way of attacking Mr Murdoch, whom (as I have already pointed out) the left see as the main barrier in their way of creating a leftist monopoly in the media of the United States – yes the campaign in Britain was really, in part, about the United States.
However, evil never sleeps and the left have moved on. Far left activist groups have now pushed the management of Waitrose and Tesco supermarkets to physically cover up newspapers.
What exactly has the Tesco chain of supermarkets agreed to do? They have agreed to cover up all but the titles of newspapers that are on sale. The totalitarian leftist activist groups have claimed this will “protect” children (it is always “the children”) from seeing bare breasts. However, women with no tops on are a tradition of page THREE of the Sun newspaper – not the front page, there are no bare breasts on the front page (although there are bare breasts on show in art galleries – no doubt the totalitarian left will now try and get paintings and statues banned, at least if “the children” are their real concern……..).
The cat is let out of the bag by the boasts from the totalitarian left of getting “offensive” headlines covered up – not “just” photographs, HEADLINES.
This makes it clear what this campaign is really about – it is about suppressing, literally “covering up”, any OPINION the left does not like. It is the same sort of thing as the Frankfurt School of Marxism “Political Correctness” or “Critical Theory” that now dominates the education system – turning students into brainwashed zombies who will not tolerate any non “Progressive” opinions.
The evil groups behind the censorship of the press campaign are tiny – organisations such as “Child’s Eyes” and “Stop Page Three” have few members, they could not win any elections. But they do not have to enforce their totalitarian desires by winning elections – not when they are dealing with spineless cowards.
Tesco supermarkets, like so many corporations, is a bureaucracy without any real powerful individual share owners any more. The hired managers are responsible to other hired managers (at Pension Funds and so on – institutional share owners) and they basically want a “quiet life” – they have no passion for what they do, and they have no courage, no principles for which they will risk their jobs. Besides they are mostly ex university students – with all the leftist indoctrination (brainwashing) that a modern school and university “education” implies.
These hired managers at Tesco face ruthless leftist fanatics – who are prepared to do anything, anything at all, to enforce their desire for censorship, so the easy thing to do is to SUBMIT. And, besides, with their “educated” background a lot of the managers half agree with the leftist fanatics – with the totalitarian bullyboy (and bullygirl) censors.
It is difficult not to despair.
Now this remarkable piece of left, or Dim, or both, honesty, 52 sec., from The Blaze. Video of the commentary, 52 seconds’ worth, is there too; per Blaze, it’s been pulled from UT.
If anyone anywhere on the globe doesn’t see that these slimeballs think they have the perfect right to absolute rule because of their moral superiority (and, of course, way superior smarts) — he or she needs to check into a home for the severely retarded.
Obamacare Architect: We Passed the Law Thanks to the ‘Stupidity of the American Voter’
Nov. 10, 2014 9:47am Zach Noble
One of the architects of Obamacare said the law was written in a deliberately “tortured” way and relied on the “stupidity of the American voter” to ensure its passage.
In a newly unearthed 2013 clip, Jonathan Gruber, the MIT health economist who helped craft parts of the Affordable Care Act, got fairly candid about the tactics used to get the Affordable Care Act passed during a panel at the Annual Health Economists’ Conference last year.
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said in one 52-second clip. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”
Gruber then trumpeted the value of a “lack of transparency” — and called American voters stupid.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.”
Better for the American people to be saddled with a law they don’t understand, Gruber claimed, than for them to understand the law and rally against it.
“Look, I wish … we could make it all transparent,” Gruber said, “but I’d rather have this law than not.”
[Original introduction edited slightly. --J.]
There is an industry which concerns itself with helping to create these when Mother Nature isn’t quite doing her job. But it needs to be regulated, you know. It really does. Even Mr. Wesley J. Smith, of whom more below, says so, though he otherwise disagrees with Ms. Cristina Richie, whose views are our topic today. (The gentleman’s remark rather sounds as though he approves of “regulation,” and disapproves of its lack, on principle.)
Anyway, it turns out that Carbon Legacies, even when naturally occurring, are not an unmitigated good. Indeed, one might question whether they are a Good Thing at all, even as others are delighted with theirs, or with the prospects of acquiring such.
Here is the abstract of an article from the Journal of Medical Ethics by Cristina Richie, Theology Department, Boston College, which argues that since every human “emits carbon” into the environment,
Evaluating the ethics of offering reproductive services against its overall harm to the environment makes unregulated ARTs unjustified….
“ART” stands for “Assisted Reproductive Technology.” It includes such things as fertilization in vitro and artificial insemination, as well as methods of having babies where the child might be born with AIDS, surrogate pregnancy, and more.
(WikiFootia has a good overview.)
From Ms. Richie’s article:
A carbon footprint is the aggregate of resource use and carbon emissions over a person’s life. A carbon legacy occurs when a person chooses to procreate. All people have carbon footprints; only people with biological children have carbon legacies.
(I have had some non-biological “children,” but only in a figurative sense, such as patterns of words set down on paper or sent into cyberspace. But it seems to me that actual non-biological children are probably rather rare.)
Now ask me what I think. C’mon, you know you want to! *g* Well, lest the multitude of Kounting Kitties hereabouts get to yowling from the suspense….
Views in which “the environment” is seen as of higher moral value than human beings as such — whether conceived in delight or after a fight, or both, or neither — are perverse in the strongest and most serious sense of the word. (Compact OED, Print Ed., 1971, = 1933 OED plus addenda, gives various definitions, several of which boil down to “turning away from right to wrong.”) To me, the word has a connotation of DELIGHT in turning from right to wrong, and a deliberate inversion of right and wrong, so that the evil is embraced as good and the good, as evil.
All I can say is, I place a very high value on my own personal Carbon Legacy, who in early middle age continues to provide joy, light, and warmth to my life. Besides, this person grows houseplants and, in summer, tomatoes and peppers, so I figure that offsets the inevitable “emission of carbon.” (Whatever does Ms. Richie think that means? There’s a huge variety of carbon-containing molecules that are “emitted” by a huge variety of sources, most of them “natural.”) Personally I think that once we’ve gotten fluorine out of the way by banning it (per a suggestion by some doofus over here), we should simply ban carbon. That would solve everything. At least from the human point of view, which would no longer exist.
. . .
I will let Mr. Wesley J. Smith, of LifeNews.com, have the last word. He has a piece on this entitled “Population Controllers Call Babies ‘Carbon Legacies,’ a Threat to the Environment.” Per Mr. Smith:
And Jesus said, ‘Suffer the little carbon legacies to come onto me’….
“Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”
There is a reason that “Lady Justice” wears a blindfold, it is so that both prejudice and favour are ignored in the legal system and one of the reasons why the Anglo-Saxon legal system has established itself around the world.
Unfortunately, the same rules do not apply to the politically correct who see a “narrative” at every turn, indeed is a “Social Worker” not the very epitome of the Fabian state writ large?
The net effect of such deliberate and wilful ignorance was that a significant number of children were subjected to violence, sexual abuse and coercion because the public appointed and empowered enforcers of the law were colour-blind to their actions because they were Muslims.
Without committing acts of outrage myself, it is impossible to continue, but suffice to say that until political correctness and random acts of racism are removed from both law and public service – for what else is “Child Services” – or whatever the current politically correct euphemism?
There may well be a place for social workers, but it is within the voluntary sector of the 19th century rather than the state enabled child abductors of the 21st.
The American invasion presented Mr. Baghdadi and his allies with a ready-made enemy and recruiting draw. And the American ouster of Saddam Hussein, whose brutal dictatorship had kept a lid on extremist Islamist movements, gave Mr. Baghdadi the freedom for his radical views to flourish.
I must admit that I nearly gave out the cockney rebel cry of “Go on my son” when I saw the West continuing to fail in it’s opposition to ISIS on the one hand and its support of the puppet-masters of Palestine on the other. Surely, hypocrisy hath no bounds…
Don’t get me wrong, I support neither one, nor the other – but the fact that the likes of Barrack Obama and David Cameron think that they can split hairs over Islam just demonstrates that they are so mired in their own hypocrisy that they can’t see it even when it is pointed out to them. The emperors new clothes and then some…
For those who have no veil over their eyes, we recognize that there is no such thing as fundamentalist Islam or liberal Islam, there is only subservience to the teachings of the prophet and that is lock, stock and barrel – from the 5-a-day kowtowing to butchering babies and Jihad. Anyone who tries telling you different is either an apologist or deluded and most liberals are both.
So I am fully supportive of the horrors of ISIS, because if Cameron, Obama and the rest of the Western elite continue to evade reality in the pursuit of votes and liberal support, they will quite quickly find that reality gives them a big, fat kick up the arse and if that happens to be from the new Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, then all the better.
There is a simple rule in life, either learn the easy way or be taught the hard way, I suspect the new Caliph has a pretty good idea which way that is going to be.
From north of the border
A teenage girl and 39-year old man who desecrated an Edinburgh mosque by attacking it with strips of bacon have both been jailed.
That’s right. The evil pair weaponised several rashers of Danepak and attacked a large building, hurting the feelings of the security guard and his friends. Scary stuff.
Usman Mahmood said: “I was surprised if a person did it for a joke. It is against our culture and religion.
“We do not eat pork or even touch it. I felt very bad seeing this meat in my sacred place.
“It hurt my feelings when I saw this meat hanging inside the mosque in the worshipping area. It was very disturbing.”
Yes, discovering dead meat inside a place of worship is very worrying so let’s put the bacon stunt that injured nothing but
outsized sense of victimhood sensibilities into perspective shall we.
Clearly bacon is more of a threat and sheriff Noble was quite right to jail the miscreants for hurting feelings. Society is a more safer place now that two underclass, brainless cretins who didn’t physically harm or threaten harm to anyone are locked away. We can all sleep safer in our beds. I’d hate to wake up one morning to discover someone had wedged a bacon butty in my letterbox.
Then we have this as quoted from the Morning Star; the bastions bastion of unbiased reporting.
Fascist mosque attacks worry British Muslims
And the form of these attacks?
Mosques in London, Bradford and Glasgow have been invaded by Members of far-right Britain First party where they were handing out Christian leaflets and bibles.
Christian leafleting and the handing out of bibles = fascist. See what they did there? And to ensure the message is hammered home the article is headed by an image of a bunch of skinheads indulging in a bout of frenzied, synchronised crusader flag waving.
“People are fed up,” Luton Central Mosque president Mohammed Shafait told the Morning Star on Wednesday, June 18.
“He is going around all over the country abusing people.”
I know exactly how he feels.
These people are delusional.
On this one Nick, let rip.There is nothing you can say which will do justice to this self indulgent and sanctimonious drivel.
Do these self righteous fools really believe that a sad look and a compassionate head tilt will influence people who truly believe that rape, slavery and mass murder are the revealed will of Allah?
For Christ’s sake, get real.
But if your selective outrage is really up in arms about this one, movie stars with the hash tag, I’ve got a simple solution for you. Take some of your millions of dollars and hire some mercenaries to go into Africa to shoot all the members of Boko Haram. I wonder how that would trend on Twitter. #gurkhaskillscumbags
But the left hates the private sector, so hiring Blackwater (or whatever they are named this week) to gleefully give slavers some stylish new 5.56 body piercings is out of the question. So we’re back to being useless or taking military action. And if we drop Navy SEALs on these assholes, you guys really need to think through how come it is okay for our guys to kill these woman abusing assholes, but not other woman abusing assholes. Those assholes, left wingers invite to speak at Ivy League colleges.
Bill Clinton may be a crook (well forget the “may be” – he is a crook), but that does not mean he is not right – indeed it gives him an insight into corrupt minds. And not being in the service of a political ideology (being an “honest thief” rather than a “bitch” [a servant of the Soviets] – in the language of GULAG) he has no reason not to say what it is going on.
We now see what the Edward Snowden thing was really about (as well as giving the FSB some tips in the cyber war – stuff they most likely guessed at anyway). It was about discrediting United States control of the internet – thus giving Mr Obama an excuse to do what he always wanted to do. Hand over control of the internet to the United Nations international telecommunications union (read Russia, China and the Islamic powers). The NSA just wants to know what you are saying – the new masters of the internet (with no pesky First Amendment) will want to stop you saying it.
Was Mr Snowden just a useful idiot – or an FSB agent all along? I do not know – but the censorship of the internet (not practical under American control of the internet) is now a real possibility. Barack Obama may get his dream (control of speech – by P.C. doctrine) by the back door of the “international community”.
The young people (the ones who nod their heads at the “libertarians” on Mr Putin’s “Russia Today” television station) will not (yet) believe me. But the NSA (and yes the CIA also – people such as Mike Baker who risked his life so many times for young people who think he is a “Fascist”) were not the enemy (they never were). They (the NSA and the CIA) were not out to censor you. It is your “saviours” (the people you hero worship) who want to censor you.
“We are techno people, no censorship will work on us” – oh you silly people, that is not what censorship is about. Censorship is about the average person not seeing something.
Yes it’s Trougher Tim the Trencherman who always eats his Greens and was making sure that you did too, especially if it added oodles to his bank balance.
Well done South Suffolk Constituency party! It does no harm to remind the over Great and Good to whom their responsibility is supposed lie, even in these times of Westminster being merely a sham front of puppets for the real string pullers in Brussels, now does it? That’s two useless wastes of space, salary and expenses de-selected in a week on the Conservative side. Any possibility of the same thing happening on the Labour and Lib/Dem side? None whatsoever.
And will it affect his bank balance, directorships etc etc ? I seriously doubt it. He will probably be caught in a Channel 4 sting next year, peddling access to Ministers at the DoE for ten grand a pop or so, and still get away scot and pension free.
Chris Huhne, a convicted criminal, has hardly slunk away in shame, silence and contrition now has he? Nope, he has a column in the Guardian, and all his directorships intact too. Ah the Guardian! The thinking man at the BBC’s ethical Bible. So much more to be trusted with the truth than the Telegraph or the Mail, don’t you think?
If you know The Smiths that’s quite witty.
Morrissey has attacked President Obama and the tradition of turkey-eating on Thanksgiving, in a blog post on his website entitled ‘Thankskilling’.
My sides nearly split with mirth.
Morrissey described the annual lighthearted turkey ‘pardon’ ceremony that Obama takes part in, where turkeys are saved from being slaughtered, as “embarrassingly stupid”.
Well. apart from describing Mozzer as an ageing Ted with a chronic masturbater’s complexion. Yup, the greatest export Manchester ever made… But traditions are “stupid” (aren’t they?) and traditions (pretty much by def don’t include the presidency of Barack Obama – a tradition going back to 2008 is not exactly traditional is it?) It is is silly but then so is wearing a paper crown on Christmas Day. Very silly but Mozzer, we is just trying to have fun – which appear to be something Mozzer who once wrote that real upbeat ditty, “Girlfriend in a Coma” fails to get at any level.
Otherwise I would drone endlessly about the wit and wisdom of Chairman Mao over a buggered tannoy whilst some fucker arse-vogeled a 1980s Casio keyboard to accompany. Without Johnnie Marr you are nothing. Just a (poor) voice wandering alone in the wilderness…
“Please ignore the abysmal example set by President Obama who, in the name of Thanksgiving, supports torture as 45 million birds are horrifically abused; dragged through electrified stun baths, and then have their throats slit. And President Obama laughs. Haha, so funny!”
Do I detect the voice of a left-winger betrayed?
Furthermore, “As Ingrid Newkirk from PETA points out, turkey ‘meat’ is one of ‘our nation’s top killers’, causing heart-attacks and strokes in humans due to saturated animal fats and cholesterol. And President Obama laughs.”
A very strange use of quotes around ‘meat’. Either it is or it isn’t meat. The moral discussion about eating it (or not) is not furthered by scare quotes any more than PETA’s dismal attempt to rebrand ‘fish’ as ‘sea-kittens’*. And in any case eating turkey and having a heart attack is one’s own choice. I can’t stick turkey anyway. Dry and insipid, much like chicken and roast pork.
Morrissey has long been a campaigner for animal rights, vociferously promoting a vegetarian diet – and sometimes tipping into controversy. He said that the 2011 Utoya massacre by Anders Breivik was “nothing compared to what happens in McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried shit every day.”
The news that he is now scheduled to play a Nobel Peace Prize concert in Oslo has upset some in Norway, given his earlier comments.
Well, the Nobel Peace Prize is not worth a penny-weight of Arafat’s giblets really but that is offensive. I am now deeply tempted to obtain a moose burger just for the hell of it!
In 2009 he left the stage at the Coachella festival saying: “The smell of burning animals is making me sick. I can smell burning flesh . . . and I hope to God it’s human.”
Would Mozzer have been happier at Auschwitz than in the vicinity of a hot-dog stand? I’ve been to both in my time. I have also been a vegetarian (sort of – I could never make a chilli that really worked) and am married to a vegan but that casual moral equivalence is appalling. Utterly wrong. It is that sort of attempt at making a KFC the same as a NAZI death camp the reason I fear for the future. That it can even be said is very scary. Killing 6 million Jews is not on the same moral map as getting a hot dog. It is indeed chilling rather than chill dog. Animals of course require our care but they are not us. Up to a point they are moral agents (my cat knows he’s done a bad thing when he pukes on the duvet) but they are not the same. Very similar in many ways but not the same. We once lost Timmy. We were moving and he fled the house due to the disruption at something like the speed of heat.**
He came back after a tense while. We spent an extra day sitting on orange boxes (so to speak) with not even the telly waiting for him. My wife was in tears – there were a number of kebab shops in Levenshulme. Then a paw scratched at the door. That night he insisted on sleeping between us in our bed. So, stick that up your arse-trumpet Mozzer. I do care for animals. And Timmy has a lovely big garden to prowl and get into fights with other cats who invade his territory. He also eats meat for a certain value of meat. He only likes the cheapest stuff in terms of pouches. He’ll go insane if I have fish. I once got some smoked mackerel from Aldi (and very good it was too) and had to exfiltrate the kitty from the bin for he’d gone in head first after the skin. I was alerted by a terrible mewling and the sight of a tail. Daft bugger.
“Bring me the head of Elton John… which is one instance in which meat would not be murder, if it were served on a plate.”
Now, I’m no fan of the Rocketman but might it be apposite to say he’s sold more records than Mozzer? That he isn’t a total twat? And perhaps more to the point, whilst I might want to eat a nice sirloin, Mozzer wants, for whatever obscure reasons (mentioned above) to eat Elton John’s head which is a bit too Heston for me? You’d have to get through the rug first apart from anything else. But you do have to wonder if John’s success over decades in the pop business doesn’t irk the Salford One? Or the fact his HIV/AIDS charity has done more good than Mozzer’s sanctimonious posing? I mean I was never a Smiths fan (and the solo stuff is drivel) but to the extent the Smiths were good was down to Johnnie Marr and not the gladioli-wielding bard of Salford.
At a moral point why is it not allowed to eat critters but OK with people you don’t like? All totalitarianism (and Morrissey is a totalitarian – well, a wannabe one anyway) is about this.
Morrissey is a sort of eternal recurrence of DH Lawrence. The sort of quasi-socialist who hates the “little people” who don’t get him. Lawrence once wrote (and this was published, I think) about how he wanted to set-up a circus big-top and have the lumpen proletariat shoved through to be exterminated to the sound of a band playing popular songs. Yes, he did. I lack refs for it but yes, he did. Is this much different from Mozzer? No it isn’t.
They are both utterly overrated. Check!
They both have chips on their shoulder you could sink battleships with. Check!
They both despise the people they allegedly seek to help. Check!
So that’s that. The quotes are from here.
*An odd one as my little cat loves to eat his sea-kittens. More interestingly, if I have a sea-kitten then we have a Rommel v Patton situation. He’ll lurk then strike but then I am smarter being H sapiens sapiens and he’s Felis silvestris catus. He made an elaborate encircling manoeuvre round the back of the sofa last night whilst I was eating pizza.
**USAF fighter-jockey slang for anything between the speed of sound and that of light.