Saturday, January 31, 2009

The Hour Of Wolves

God bless the great and immortal soul of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien. If he were still among us, walking in the woods, puffing on his pipe, he would be savouring every moment of The Year Of Our Lord 2009; for Middle Earth is fighting back, and The Enemy is on the run.
There has been something in the air this year; and it is good. Not just satisfying, but actually good. The long accepted conventional wisdom that cosmopolitan international plutocrats are unassailable is being shaken. The rule of law is asserting itself. The people are fighting back against what they now recognise to be the oppression they have suffered and are suffering at the hands of faceless, far distant technocrats and accountants. They are no longer prepared to be the slaves of The Pie In The Sky Fairy, the false prophet of economics, history's most successful heresy against Christianity, whom it can now be believed was psychiatrically disordered from his conception.
Besiege his temples, and berate his priests; for the long, dark, ghastly reign of Adam Smith is drawing to an end. Smith's shadow has stood between God and Man for 233 years, and now the light is breaking in. Rejoice!
In time, historians will be just as perplexed by the behaviours of outsourcers and importers of foreign labour as they have been by the low-level functionaries of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. How could they do this? What were they thinking? The faceless technocrats' and the business-school trained beancounters' weapons of choice in their war against civilisation might have been the mouse and the mobile instead of a rubber stamp - yet in their capacity to harm other human beings in order to get what they want, they are the brothers of Eichmann in spirit.
There are those commentators who manage to reach the right conclusions by the wrong road. They write of 'the thin, frozen air of Davos', without realising that the World Economic Forum is not a conference, but a retreat which the true believers in economics attend in order to recharge their spiritual batteries, and that Davos is a place of pilgrimage. They write of how 'masters of the universe still sing the free-trade song' without realising that this is not a song, but a hymn; and that the choir are the masters of the universe no longer. Their statement that 'the rage is here at last' is totally incorrect, and a conclusion which could only be drawn by having been steeped in the dismal politics of rage. The totally spontaneous demonstrations now being seen in the United Kingdom are acts not of rage but of love; love for country, for fellow countryman and for fellow man. What we are seeing now is an assertion of normality, collective recognition that what has gone before has been abnormal - and this can only be good.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether Smith's last disciples will turn violent when they realise the game is up, like Ceauşescu; I think they might. They're certainly crazy enough to try. Yet the age old question asked of all putschists would be asked of them in turn - 'Do you have the army?'. And they would not, and that would be the end of them.
Even now The Mouths of Sauron speak their masters' voices, condemning populism as only elitists can. Those who have enjoyed glittering careers by hanging on to evil's coat-tails might yet face an unpleasant and uncomfortable accounting, in the forms of the redundancy and dislocation they have been so eager to visit on others. Those currently employed as leader writers on our national newspapers might one day have to join the waiting list for a council house, for them no doubt the fate worse than death. There have been many great sins committed in the name of Adam Smith; and there will be much great punishment to be endured in atonement.
And to cap it all, the French are on the streets. Yes; this is good.
This is international plutocracy's 'hour of wolves, and shattered shields' and may we consider ourselves blessed to have lived long enough to see the destroyers and usurpers going down like skittles. The world of men will fall. It deserves to. It has been a Hell on Earth. May it be replaced instead by the civilisation of truth and love, perhaps itself 'a far green country under a swift sunrise'; the one old Tolkien, the man who had the brass neck to write the graffito 'Not a penny for Concorde!' on his tax return, would have loved to have lived to see.

Friday, January 30, 2009

The Funeral Of William Stone

William Stone, the last surviving British veteran of both World Wars, was buried yesterday.
There was a lot going on yesterday - but this was the most important news. This was history, and the passing of history; nothing else really counts for very much. In the words of his family, Mr. Stone lived a long and happy life, usually the sign of having lived a good and worthy life. RIP.
There are sick people about who will have viewed the news of Mr. Stone's passing with joy and relief - there is now one less very old man to be paraded in front of the cameras every November for the unsophisticated to get sentimental about, or to develop admiration and respect for; the closing of his long life's book heralding its imminent removal from the shelf in favour of more acceptable versions of history.
There may be an especially hot and uncomfortable position waiting in Hell for those who think that way.

What They Fought For

If pushed, Mr. Stone and his comrades might have said the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, whose members risk their own lives day in, day out, to save those of the stupid.
Stuff like the RNLI, and the people who do its work and keep it going, are what we do best, and the will of the politicians be damned. I'd love to see The Bugler Of The Bishopton Boys' Brigade or the bug-eyed bootleg butty banner, or indeed some of our more possibly pocket-picking Putinophilic peers, go ten rounds with the North Sea in the way the men of the RNLI do 24/7/365. The only consideration that they must have for their CV's as they're doing so might be whether they're going to be radically shortened in the immediate future.
Bella Bathurst's thesis that our lifeboatmen are the descendants of the 'Wreckers' might be true; but who cares? If so, they atoned for their fathers' sins long ago.
To paraphrase Keynes, when the end looks near the men of the RNLI will still be on standby at all hours of the day and night to save life in the sealanes, the embodiment of a type of manliness, courage and honour totally alien to our Tony Blairs, Fred Goodwins and Martin Kellys; and for them, three cheers.

What They Did Not Fight For

Mr. Stone and his comrades did not go into harm's way to enable the crimes of Kristoff Emmanuel Alauya, nor to enable Timeko Pusey and Leroy Millar to claim damages from the British taxpayer.
Perhaps it is fitting that reports of those individuals' doings should come to light on the January day that Mr. Stone was laid to rest. His life was the story of Britain in the last century; Alauya's will be its story in the next.

Thursday, January 29, 2009


Budgets are like kidney stones. If you don't pass them, you're in trouble.
The budget proposed by the soi-disant, ersatz 'Scottish Government' has been voted down in the 'Scottish Parliament'. The peoples' tribune most directly responsible for thus shutting down the government, our own wee Henry Hyde, is a Romophobic watermelon with some off-the-wall notions on public health and an apparently insatiable appetite for the consumption of public resources.
Over the course of history, governments have fallen for many reasons. The 'Scottish Government' may be the first ever to fall because it wouldn't provide enough funding for loft insulation; a suitably ridiculous end to a ridiculous minority Scottish Executive, itself the bastard spawn of a ridiculous experiment in government, one that should never have been undertaken and only ever likely to end in an outcome guaranteed to make us an international laughing stock - which, after yesterday, is what we deserve to be. Scots wha hae, wi' Wallace bled; Scots wha's hae, wi' Salmond fled - straight back to the Labour Party.
One can almost imagine The Tartanissimo echoing the words of Theoden King, as Saruman's army marches on Helm's Deep -
"The days have gone down in the west,
Behind the hills, into shadow -
How did it come to this?"
He should console himself with the thought that like Theoden, he will have followers who will go with him to whatever end; all four of them.
The reason it came to this was the ridiculous idea that everyone in Scotland thinks the same way and has the same priorities. At no time and under no circumstances will Patrick Harvie ever stop pushing his anti-life, anti-human extremism to the front of the political agenda, even if it means he has to take down a minority Scottish Executive to get what he wants. It says much for the vacuity of his agenda that what he wants is not a chicken in every pot, but a damp proof course in every wall. It says much for the retardation of his political skills that he does not know that taking down a government does not make you popular with the people. I guess Gaia's bigger than all of us, for sure; but Big Earth Momma has no vote, and British people don't like being made to vote more often than they have to.
The idea that the Scots would all pull together for Scotland was absurd from the outset. That it has been disproved over an issue so footling as loft insulation makes me wonder whether Somebody Somewhere is having a laugh.
The Tartanissimo's number was up with the Glenrothes bye-election. One newspaper, I can't remember which, published a wonderful 'compare and contrast' piece at the time, with one picture showing the glamour and razzle of the American presidential election and another showing Alex Salmond holding a loudhailer as he stood beside a burger van on an empty street in Fife. It said it all.
As an opponent even of devolution, one who voted 'No-No' in 1997, it is intensely gratifying to see The Tartanissimo going toe-to-toe with The Sunflower Kid like cats in a bag; a legal anarchist with no concept of the rule of law fighting for his political survival against a moral anarchist whose career disproves the idea that everyone's interested in being part of one big happy Scottish family. Justice is done, and justice always prevails. It was always going to end this way. Good riddance.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

A Short Reflection On The Child Support Agency, By Way Of Ancient Egypt

The Plutocrats' Christmas Night Out

"On the first day of Davos, my true love gave to me
A bank and a PLC ..."

Nah, that's not it.

"Chestnuts roasting on an open fire
Mansions set to be foreclosed..."

Nah, bit too gloomy. Not quite in the party spirit. How about,

"I'm dreaming of a white Davos,
Just like the ones I used to know,
Where there's till bells ringing,
And Bono's singing
To save the trees of Borneo,

I'm dreaming of a white Davos,
With every business card I write
Though your fortune's suffered a blight,
Still may all your Davoses be white"

That's it.

Today is the first day of the World Economic Forum, the global elites' office Christmas party cum works night out.

With synchronicity that would have stunned Jung, the 'Daily Telegraph' has published an editorial defending free trade.

While George Monbiot is quite right to take on the lobbyists in British politics, a very much more target rich environment would have been the corporate lobbyists halfway up the Swiss mountain upon which plutocrats are accessing the peoples' elected representatives without organised labour anywhere in sight, egged on by vainglorious, self-important celebrities who don't know their Alps from their elbows.

Merry Davos, folks. Enjoy yourselves (it's later than you think).

Monday, January 26, 2009

What Was Happening In The World While I Was Feeling Happy And Content

"Gretna have made it into Europe for the first time in their lives, but what we have done in the last five weeks is the equivalent of Gretna taking on Real Madrid in the Bernabeu and beating them on penalties, that’s what we’ve done" -
Alas, Gretna are now no more, a 21st century paradigm of how spending more than you earn will always result in your ruin. Pride cometh before a fall, and public displays of schadenfreude are always unpleasant.
It is interesting to note that Oliver Kamm has much, much to say about Douglas Murray - a perfectly nice young man, I'm sure, but one whose writings and media appearances have given this writer the impression that he is deranged - being banned by the London School of Economics.
Oliver is an advocate of the doctrine of 'Counterknowledge', described as drawing attention 'to every kind of bogus theory, whether it emanates from maverick scientists, Christian evangelists, media nutritionists, Muslim scholars or “alternative” historians.' It seems to have escaped his notice that the chairman of the body which he accuses of suppressing Douglas Murray's freedom of speech is a now discredited plutocrat (for what word better describes Suds?), quite openly and heavily involved in the sort of activities comment upon which is classed by the self-appointed critics of 'Counterknowledge' as falling within their scope. Does pointing this out qualify as 'Counter-Counterknowledge'?
A roll of tinfoil to Wapping, if you please!
Given the massive scope of British banking's failure, it is being suggested that the auditors be sweated under the lights. This would be a good and wholesome thing. I quote from memory, so my apologies if I am incorrect - but Willie Nelson once remarked of his troubles with tax evasion that 'I'm just a guitar player. If the government didn't collect money from me that it should have, someone wasn't mindin' the store'. Precisely the same accusation may be capable of being levelled at the auditors of every troubled bank. Their professional duties were to investigate their clients' affairs. The very fact that we are where we are means that they failed.
Oh, they might have followed Paragraph 14 (2) Subsection xviii of the How Not To Notice That Your Client Has Lost 28 Billion Quid (Scotland) Regulations 2003 to the letter. That's not the point. The real problem is that British business has wielded such heavy influence in the making of public policy for so long that the duties imposed upon auditors have never been strong enough. Auditors should be able to perform their work in companies whose directors know that they are being examined by independent individuals who possess a power of arrest. Instead, the directors know that they're being probed by people whose wages they pay and who will offer them corporate hospitality in the hope of getting their money. This is not right.
The systematic failure of the auditing process has led to another of life's interesting inversions. For several centuries, it has been a polite legal fiction that limited liability companies enjoy most of the same rights as fleshy, breathing individual human beings. Having to undergo an audit is the price you know you will have to pay for starting one. Yet audit failure has meant that scrutiny of limited liability companies may have been diminishing while scrutiny of fleshy, breathing individual human beings has been increasing through the use of CCTV. The world is upside down. This is a natural imbalance in affairs that just can't go on. If it can't go on, it won't.
Yet true colours come out in a crisis. When one of his wilder backbenchers goes off on one and reports Fred Goodwin to the Fraud Squad, The Tartanissimo spastically calls for a parliamentary enquiry instead. Let's hear it for Alex Salmond, crapping himself at the thought of a Scottish plutocrat going to jail on his watch! He's a Tartan Tory through and through!

Sunday, January 25, 2009

A Short Thought On Blessings

I have a loving and lovely wife, a warm and comfortable home, clothes on my back, food in the cupboard, books to read, good pastors and doctors, generally good health, few debts and a stimulating job that makes me feel socially useful.
And if all that wasn't enough, I've just returned from a walk in the crisp twilight of a winter's evening in the greatest city in the world, located in what is still a stable and orderly society.
I am blessed.
Of course, it could all be taken away from me in an instant - but this evening is just about as good as it gets, and the doings of the politicians, the chief executives and the economists can be forgotten for a while. They'll still be there in the morning; and when all's said and done, they don't really matter very much to the finding of contentment. Thanks, Lord.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

A Message To Sana

Sana, if you are the lady who appears in this video, I pray you have Internet access. If you want to - and only if you want to - and you can read English or trust somebody who does enough, I want you to contact me. Send me an e-mail.
If you want me to, I will help you find a place of safety for your children and yourself. I will help you get assistance from charities and institutions that can help you and your children. I will help you find a lawyer. I was a lawyer once, and I know how to do these things. I am asking all of my friends on the Internet, Christian or not, who read this blog to link to this message so that it will get as wide a circulation as possible.
Evil men will abuse me, and hoaxers will try to disrupt me. They will not deter me, and I will pursue them to the ends of the earth if it will help you. Although I profess to love Christ, by nature I am a determined and very vindictive and unforgiving man. I might just be the sort of friend you need.
I hope I speak for all my kind friends when I say that they are also your friends, and that we will not see you suffer. You are our sister, Sana - The Lord is your shepherd as well as ours, there is nothing you shall want and you should fear no evil.
If you don't want my help, then know you have my prayers.
With love,
No comments, please, folks. Action this day.

Friday, January 23, 2009

An Image To Give His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI Pause For Thought

"For as long the Colosseum stands, Rome will stand. For as long as Rome stands, the world will stand" -
Hat tip Brenda Walker.

An Old Song, Sung Badly

According to the '80's era media exotic Beatrix Campbell, my life as a member of the British middle class has been an act of 'symbolic violence that (I) enact in (my) daily encounters with others'.
Yeah, Bea, whatever you say. Now stick the kettle on, love; mine's is with two sugars.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

The Reactionary

Less than a fortnight after returning to the Conservative front bench as Shadow Business Secretary, Kenneth Clarke is back in the news for having 'warned' the party to which he belongs 'against taking a "right-wing nationalist" stance on Europe'.
That the portfolio of Shadow Business Secretary is held by 'one of the most Europhile Tory MPs' at the same time as the Cabinet post of Business Secretary is held by one of the most fanatical of all globalists, a former European Commissioner, seems to have passed without comment in the mainstream media. That both are also political fossils of long standing, not 'big beasts' but dinosaurs from the bygone and increasingly discredited age that was the 1990's, also seems to have escaped their attention. Different parties, same positions, no new ideas. You'd almost think there was an agenda at work.
Clarke, a long standing recipient of British taxpayers' largesse, should explain that if he is not a 'right-wing nationalist', then what is he? He cannot be a right-wing internationalist - such a position is not just theoretically inconsistent, but also inconsistent with the demands of political reality. He cannot be a left-wing nationalist, for identical reasons. If he is not a right-wing nationalist, the he must be considered to be a left-wing internationalist by default. Like all left-wing internationalists, he certainly seems purblind to reason, at least as far as the European Union's been concerned.
His career, which you and I have funded on the basis that we presume he works for us, has been spent promoting the 'benefits' accruing to the United Kingdom from its integration into wider political European union. Over time, these have changed from benefits which will accrue, to those which are accruing to those which will accrue. Perhaps the tense in which they will finally appear is yet to be invented, for the evidence of their existence at any point has been nil. One suspects that it always will be nil. That's the way the evidence is swinging. To give him the limited credit which is his due, he is at least consistent. With Ken Clarke, it's Europe then, Europe now, Europe forever.
If states have no friends, only interests, then at some time the interests of an integrated Europe must clash with those of the United Kingdom. This has happened time and time again. Integrated Europe's political culture has been shown to be that of the petty tyrant Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a very much more oppressive, authoritarian one than Clarke's own native one. Yet he seems attracted to that foreign culture like a moth to a candle. It is a compulsion for him, an addiction from which he suffers as surely as an alcoholic is addicted to alcohol. He is not just a Europhile - he is a Eurojunkie.
The European Union will fail. It is a utopia; all utopias crumble. Their very name means they cannot exist in the real world. Those who continue to push it are not visionaries, but reactionaries. They cling like limpets to the idea that power should be concentrated in the hands of a self-selecting elite as surely as did De Maistre.
The European Union does not exist to advance the interests of those who pay Ken Clarke's wages - it exists to support a cosmopolitan international business class whose interests are often diametrically opposed to those who do pay Ken Clarke's wages, and who have paid them loyally through thick and thin. Ken Clarke works for you and me; he has never had any business meeting with businessmen in dark corners away from public scrutiny. For as long as he has taken my money and your money, he has had no right to do so; yet he has one so again and again.
Why has he done this?
Why has the mainstream media never taken him to task for this?
Who does this man, who when all is said is done is your employee and my employee, think he is to have behaved in this way for so long? Who has given the mandate to do so? Not me, for sure; and probably not you, either.
The European Union and the people who run it have consistently shown themselves to the be the enemies of British liberty and British independence. By and large, they have shown themselves to have the mindsets of early 19th Century authoritarian continental creeps. As Orwell wrote, "If you want an image of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever". That's the European Union through and through, and still it's been pushed on us. But Orwell was wrong in one major respect. In Britain's case, the foot doing the stamping hasn't worn a boot, but a Hush Puppy.
It must be considered the smallest of mercies that Ken Clarke came to prominence in the '80's and not the '30's. One would have to wonder what attitude he would have taken to appeasement.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Mandela’s Example For Obama

is now up on VDare.

The Fate Of Frederick Goodwin

On October 18 2008, I wrote,
"Given that he was knighted for services to banking, and subsequently helped preside over banking's near collapse, is it somehow inappropriate to suggest that Sir Fred Goodwin be stripped of his knighthood?"
It is with some satisfaction one sees that after three months, Michael Meacher has finally caught up with me.
Of course things have gone from bad to worse since then. The news that the Royal Bank of Scotland has posted the largest loss in British corporate history would have made Goodwin a laughing stock, had his arrogance and hubris not placed the British economy in peril and plunged generations of British citizens into natal debt.
Goodwin's name now deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as that of Bruce Ismay. Is there any difference between Goodwin 'earning' inflated bonuses and a pension pot beyond the dreams of avarice while he was driving a bank onto the rocks, and Ismay taking a place in the 'Titanic's' lifeboats while W. T. Stead and Benjamin Guggenheim went down with the ship? I can't really see one; indeed, if anything Goodwin's behaviour may have been worse. At the very least, Ismay might be understood, if not excused, on the basis that he was in a life and death situation, and wanted to survive; Goodwin just seemed to want to get rich.
Trawling through the foam-flecked rants of both the Scottish and English nationalist trolls who spoor their way through Alan Cochrane's combox is a chore at the best of times; yet attached to his most recent column is a comment which draws a very insightful historical analogy, a true glimpse into Scotland then and now.
Commentor 'Phil C', wrote,
"This has a powerful resonance of the Darien scheme which brought the Scots into the Union three hundred years ago; only this time it might turn out to be the financial disaster which keeps them in it."
Whoever he is, he's dead right. They trooped in to invest in Darien, determined to prove that the Scots could enslave primitives and exploit them for gain just as efficiently as the English; they trooped out again, poorer and none the wiser.
However, unlike the saga of the Royal Bank of Scotland, the Darien Scheme produced one of the most glamourous, most chivalrous, most attractive and now least remembered figures in all Scottish history; Captain Alexander Campbell of Fonab.
Actually getting Fonab to go to Darien was something of a coup. When he arrived, he took one look about him, and saw that the colony was being run like a church fete in Blairgowrie - upon reflection, that does a gross disservice to the professionalism of those who run church fetes in Blairgowrie. If memory serves, according to John Prebble the attitudes of the good Revs. Francis Borland and Alexander Stobo were particular cases in point.
So Fonab the loyal soldier set himself to military matters; and on February 15 1700, he became the only Scottish commander ever to lead Scottish troops to a Scottish victory outside the British Isles, when a Highland Charge despatched the forces of Carlos II on the hill of Toubacanti.
Yet within weeks, the colony was effectively lost. Campbell of Fonab returned to Edinburgh a hero, and the Scottish Parliament struck a medal in his honour - as he received it, he called out those who had allowed Darien to fail through bad planning and incompetence as traitors.
The Royal Bank of Scotland was not so lucky as to have a Campbell of Fonab on its board, to call out the bad planning and incompetence of Frederick Goodwin. Instead it had Peter Sutherland, sometime Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland, European Commissioner, Director-General of the World Trade Organisation, UN Secretary-General's Special Representative on Migration, Consultor of the Extraordinary Section of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, Chairman of BP, Managing Director of Goldman Sachs International and Chairman of the London School of Economics. Sutherland, a lawyer by training, has been connected to the management of two banks on two continents which have both required taxpayer bailouts, yet I have never seem the mainstream press make the connection. I wonder why that is.
The very fact that Sutherland's name is never mentioned in relation to the necessary rescues of either Goldman Sachs or the Royal Bank of Scotland might prove the truth of GK Chesterton's observation on the press, written in 1908 (he was a journalist, and knew its truth) -
"So...we have almost up to the last instant trusted the newspapers as organs of public opinion. Just recently some of us have seen (not slowly, but with a start) that they are obviously nothing of the kind. They are, by the very nature of the case, the hobbies of a few rich men. We have not any need to rebel against antiquity; we have to rebel against novelty. It is the new rulers, the capitalist or the editor, who really hold up the modern world. There is no fear that a modern king will attempt to over-ride the constitution; it is more likely that he will ignore the constitution and work behind its back; he will take no advantage of his kingly power; it is more likely that he will take advantage of his kingly powerlessness, of the fact that he is free from criticism and publicity. For the king is the most private person of our time. It will not be necessary for anyone to fight again against the proposal of a censorship of the press. We do not need a censorship of the press. We have a censorship by the press".
As far as Goodwin's concerned, that tide appears to have turned. This morning, both Philip Johnston and Simon Jenkins are on his case. The knowledge that you can't threaten anyone with a libel suit for comment on your professional life because you have no professional reputation left can't be comfortable. There is even talk of just desserts.
Having managed to preside over the loss of the not inconsiderable sum of £28 billion, £2.5 billion of that apparently pissed away in bad loans to a Russian oligarch, Frederick Goodwin, Peter Sutherland and the rest of the Royal Bank of Scotland's board should be facing the prospect of being frogmarched to The Saltmarket to face disqualification from the management of any British company, if possible preferably for life. Yet unless I have grossly misread it, always a distinct possibility, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 makes no immediate provision for penalising the type of corporate misconduct, whether perpetrated by commission, omission, arrogance, machismo, or ignorance, such as that in which the directors of the Royal Bank of Scotland have now been shown to have been systematically engaged. It's all bloody 'hereinbefores', 'whereintowards' and action only being capable of being taken upon investigation of all relevant parties (including, but not exclusively, the taking of their inside leg measurements) under Section 8, Paragraph 4(9)(c) of the You've Lost 28 Billion Quid, You Must Be A Muppet Act 1783. It's the sort of law that gives lawyers and lawyering a bad name, with good reason.
Years before he pillaged the Mirror Group's pension fund, Robert Maxwell was described as by the Board of Trade as being 'unfit to run a public company'. Yet he was allowed to go on. His companies at least had an excuse for their losses - they were being run by a thief. What's Goodwin's excuse? Was he ever fit to run a public company? Who supervised him? Haven't the inflated bonusses and distended pension pots of the last decade been a wealth transfer, a form of theft? Does transferring value away from shareholders to yourself suddenly become both legitimate and moral because it's been sanctioned by the remuneration committee? Which you might have packed with your mates?
Fred Goodwin is the most well done piece of corporate toast this side of the Great Depression. He should be disqualified from running any company, yet the law seems to make it difficult for this to happen. He should be joined in this state by all his fellow directors, even the powerful and well connected Irish ones. They have managed the staggering accomplishment of turning the Royla Bank of Scotland into the Royal Tank of Scotland. Its customers are now in the invidious position of having the government know not just how much they earn, but to whom they pay their direct debits. Think that customers information won't be ingathered and databased? If you do, you have more faith in the British government than me.
And all the while, the great globalisation project goes on, with Peter Mandelson refusing to contemplate refusing to consider wage subsidies which might save British jobs. Does he hate Britain and the British? I sometimes wonder.
Fred Goodwin made a lot of money by having no compunction about taking peoples' livelihoods away from them in the name of efficiency. He is almost the archetype of the grasping Scot - an image of ourselves that we complain about, but one no less real for that. For a decade, we cited his like as role models - let us hope his exposure as having feet of clay will finally blow that fetid national stereotype into eternity.
However, there's always a bright side. At the very least, we will be spared The Tartanissmo's Darienesque fantasies of how wealthy an independent Scotland would be - for a while. We should be grateful for small mercies.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Pope Benedict XVI On Immigration, And Some Dangerous Thoughts

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has spoken on the subject of immigration.
According to the Catholic News Agency,
"Praying the Angelus January 18th, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, and encouraged Christians to look at immigration as "an opportunity for an encounter between civilizations” that can take place peacefully through prayer and action.

The Pontiff pointed out how this year, specially dedicated to St. Paul, he is choosing to point migrants’ attention to St. Paul as a model. “Saul, this is his Jewish name, was born into a family of Jewish immigrants to Tarsus, an important city in Cilicia,” the Pope explained.

“Paul grew up tricultural, Jewish, Greek and Roman, with a cosmopolitan mentality. When he converted from persecutor of Christians to apostle of the Gospel, Paul became an ‘ambassador' of the risen Christ in order to make him known to all, in the conviction that in him all peoples are called to form the great family of the children of God....
Pope Benedict recalled the wide variety of reasons that people become immigrants: in some cases, serene and well integrated, and in others, difficult and often dramatic. "I would like to confirm," he said, "that the Christian community looks at every person and every family with attention, and asks St. Paul for the strength for a renewed effort in order to foster, in every part of the world, peaceful coexistence between men and women of different ethnicities, cultures, and religions."

Rather than an occasion for strife, the Pope exhorted Christians to strive to use the phenomenon of immigration as “an opportunity for an encounter between civilizations.” What is needed are prayer and action “so that this may always take place in a peaceful and constructive way, in respect and dialogue, preventing any temptation to conflict and exploitation," he said.'
I love Joseph Ratzinger, the saintly scholar who as a teenager possessed the moral courage to defy the Third Reich. To perform such an act in that time, and in that place, marks him a special man.
While it fell to his perhaps more showmanly predecessor to popularise the Way to God, it was Joseph Ratzinger's duty, or burden, to keep that pathway clear of obstacles. This made him a figure hated by some only interested in themselves, and who have never been called upon to display the courage he displayed. My belief is that history will canonise him.
Criticising documents likely to have been translated from another language is never a wholly useful exercise. The Vicar of Christ, and this Vicar of Christ in particular, is a figure of such gravity that his pronouncements should not be criticised unless one is absolutely sure of one's position. Yet once cannot help but think that this time, The Million Dollar Pope might have struck out.
The cosmopolitan nature of St. Paul's background is debatable. His Greek background may have risen from his familiarity with koine, the Eastern Mediterranean's lingua franca; however, his writings do not seem to display any particularly Hellenic sensibilities.
His status as an hereditary Roman citizen is beyond dispute - I read once, and cannot for the life of me remember where, that it was believed that his father had been granted Roman citizenship as a reward for services rendered to the army of Pompey the Great, on his way to violating the Holy of Holies.
Yet what is absolutely clear about Paul is that at no stage in his life did he seem to exhibit a cosmopolitan mentality. Saul the secret policeman was a committed Jew, a Pharisee deeply learned in Mosaic Law. Paul the Apostle, the dissident, was a man of the Gospel. He showed unbending commitment to both; only the call of God moved him from one position to the other.
Paul is a good example of how those granted Roman citizenship might have had other thoughts than Rome - a lesson which modern immigrationists, handing out British citizenship like sweeties, seem to have forgotten; if they ever learned it. Paul travelled the Roman world as a Roman citizen - but for higher purposes than Rome.
His Holiness is quite correct to say that the paradigm of earthly human behaviour should be 'peaceful coexistence between men and women of different ethnicities, cultures, and religions'. Yet what of those who will not live in peace? Who answer the call to 'prayer' in the See of St. Ambrose, in front of a church? These are no Pauls preaching reconciliation and redemption. Their false faith is one of submission and earthly conquest. That is its history. Can we no longer say so?
Why do the English Bishops not criticise the 'conflict and exploitation' currently taking place on a building site in Nottinghamshire? Who speaks for those native British being denied access to work on the basis that contractors "will consider British workers on an equal basis with any other labour?" Who is being exploited here, the native or the immigrant? Neither? Both? Would a Roman artisan ever have contemplated the possibility of being displaced in Rome by Greeks? No. So why should the British builder have to suffer being displaced in Britain by foreigners? Because a false gospel preached by a frail man whose followers have made him into a god says it might enrich us?
Where have the English Bishops been in the face of the current government's systematic oppression of the British people? An oppression that now extends to considering those who wish to educate their children at home as being 'abusers'? Is this not also exploitation? Is this not also a recipe for conflict?
Revolutions are bloody, unloving, mostly very un-Christian affairs; yet if matters deteriorate, the United Kingdom might just see one. To those who believe I wish to see it, you are mistaken. To those who will twist my words and say that I am urging it, do your worst. Revolution is a frightening prospect for the conservative - this is not the way we do things. When the conservative speaks of the possibility of revolution, he is heard only by God, the bloggers and the dogs in the street. A British Revolution would end badly, as such affairs always do. Its aversion is a matter with which the Holy Father can concern himself. Visit us, Holiness, and tell the truth to the vain and vainglorious men and women who lead us, as only you can.
Your people are in distress - hear our cry.
Hat tip - Brenda Walker.

Only In The Guardian

On one day, The Guardian carries the thoughts of Chloe Schama.
By this account, she is the daughter of Simon Schama, a talented man who has exhausted his admirers' patience by spouting the most extreme Obamaniac guff.
The very next day, The Guardian carries an article by Peter Tatchell, one of our new breed of moral guardians before whose advent the British seemed to possess no sense of decency or fair play, denouncing the British monarchy as 'racist'.
The irony of a leftist institution promoting the hereditary aristocracy of media access one day and denouncing a hereditary aristocracy as trivial as the monarchy the next is quite funny.
Tsk, tsk - shouldn't think such things; very uncharitable. I'm sure Chloe's very talented.

False Compassion

A man who thinks he wants to be a woman is still a man. Using the feminine article to describe him is false compassion - the empathy of fantasy.

Monday, January 19, 2009

The Abolition Of Term Limits In The United States

is now up on The Devil's Kitchen.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

A Random Thought On Climate Change

I don't care. I just really, really don't care.
What I care about is the lights staying on. If the lights ever start going out, those responsible for allowing such a state of affairs to develop had better have an escape plan; for in advanced societies, electricity is the new bread - and the absence of bread brings thoughts of revolution.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Some Thoughts On Absolute Belief In Evolution

If 'God does not play dice with the universe', as Einstein may have said, why, then, should it be believed that God played dice with the development of the most advanced, and only enlightened, species thus far known to exist in that universe by taking nothing to do with it? Does not compute.

Bertrand Russell On Corporation Lawyers

Russell might have been a moral anarchist; but at times he was an insightful one.
Consider this passage from Page 91 of 'The History of Western Philosophy' -
"In many cities, however, and especially in Athens, the poorer citizens had towards the rich a double hostility, that of envy, and that of traditionalism. The rich were supposed - often with justice - to be impious and immoral; they were subverting ancient beliefs, and probably trying to destroy democracy. It thus happened that political democracy was associated with cultural conservatism, while those who were cultural innovators tended to be political reactionaries. Somewhat the same situation exists in modern America, where Tammany, as a mainly Catholic organisation, is engaged in defending traditional theological and ethical dogmas against the assaults of enlightenment. But the enlightened ae politically weaker in America than they were in Athens, because they have failed to make common cause with the plutocracy. There is, however, one important and highly intellectual class which is concerned with the defence of the plutocracy, namely the class of corporation lawyers. In some respects, their functions are similar to those that were performed in Athens by the Sophists"

Friday, January 16, 2009

Some Thoughts On The Use Of Aerial Bombardment In The 21st Century

The old quangocrat is on blistering form in the Guardian, describing the ongoing unpleasantness in the Levant as "the time when the world declares air-launched bombs and long-distance shells to be illegal under the 1983 Geneva convention. They should be on a par with chemical munitions, white phosphorous, cluster bombs and delayed-action land mines. They pose a threat to non-combatants that should be intolerable even in the miserable context of war."
Indeed. There is a direct historical analogy to the use of air power in the 21st Century. It is now used by perhaps just three advanced nations (the United Kingdom, the United States and Israel) against less advanced peoples who cannot match that power (the Iraqis, the Palestinians and the Serbs). Ergo, the fighter-bomber has become the 21st Century equivalent of the Maxim gun - the weapon of overwhelming force which you know your opponents do not have and with which you can kill as many of your opponents as possible at the least risk to yourself.
The Maxim gun was an imperial weapon for the waging of imperial war. The uses to which the fighter-bomber has been put shows that it is now precisely the same. During the Second World War, Fighter Command win victories of historic renown against near equals; they conquered in man to man combat conducted at 3,000 feet in very fragile machines, and did so time and time and time again. Bomber Command was one of that war's dirtiest, most dangerous postings - although you might not agree with what they did to Dresden, while London, Coventry and Clydebank were burning I would imagine you would keep your qualms to yourself. The sad nature of warfare is that it must be fought by mortal, fallible men, the morality of whose actions are pondered over forever afterward by those who enjoy the liberty they secured.
Even the Falklands War had dogfights.
But there no equal opponents in aerial warfare now, if only because there is no actual warfare being conducted, just killing for killing's sake. Banning it would be a small step towards our betterment.

Just For Once, Everybody Lives!

Deo Gratias!

(With a hat tip to Russell T. Davies and his collaborators for the title)

Some Thoughts On The Nature Of Belonging

BBC Scotland reports that someone named Paul Ignatieff is becoming a British citizen in order to satisfy his wish 'to feel he belonged somewhere'.
Just yesterday, I remarked that the BBC journalist Dominic Casciani, the author of a questionable analysis of changes to British immigration procedures, described 'identity politics, belonging and extremism' as being among his specialities.
In our hypermobile world, it is not unusual that many should feel that they do not belong in any one particular place, yet feel the need at some point to find somewhere to put down roots. This is perfectly understandable; tens of thousands of years of programming geared towards the encouragement of social living cannot be extinguished by two decades of ideology.
Perhaps this is an extreme analysis; but one feels that the encouragement of hypermobility, whether passive or active, has been motivated by a desire to damage or destroy 'belonging', a sentiment previously known as community; to change us from settled men back into nomads, if rather sophisticated and upscale ones. If the wandering lifestyle suits you, then good on you, wander away; but it doesn't suit everyone. It's the expectation that you must move, that nothing in your life can be settled and permanent, that you must always be subject to upheaval and change, that's been introduced into the system; and we're not the better for it.
The primary engine of all public policy is prejudice. Whether it's prejudice against organised labour or organised capital (I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case that organised capital poses less of a threat to civilisation than organised labour), prejudice in favour of what you would like to happen and against what you see happening is the motor of the system. The policy, not a process, called 'globalisation' was born of the intellectual conceit that all human beings think the same way, that Mankind is dead and has been replaced by billions upon billions of clockwork toys whose sole motivation is money. This is nonsense, as grossly disrespectful of the cultures of those Third Worlders it encourages to move to the First World as it is of those First World cultures into which the Third Worlders are not encouraged to assimilate. The easiest way to belong somewhere is to decide that you want to belong. Merely working and earning in one place do not mean you belong there; making the effort to belong is what counts.
The idea that anyone can move anywhere and do anything and be anything they want to be whenever they want is utopian rubbish. To think that way is not to be free, but to be enslaved by your fantasies. It's an understandable reaction to being poor and without liberty; yet its fulfilment merely results in the exchange of one set of economic bonds for another. That you can move somewhere doesn't always mean you should. Community and belonging arise from the existence of a number of like-minded individuals living in the same place at the same time and speaking the same language. The globalists might consider that dystopic, but it's still the hard reality of history, as Paul Ignatieff has proved.

Some Thoughts On The Nature Of The Real World

Arsene Wenger's remark that Manchester City's bid for Kaka is 'not in the real world' raises a wry smile.
Having led one of the world's biggest soccer clubs throughout a period when the game's finances have defied every law of economics, what Wenger might know about running a business on a shoestring could be the subject of debate. Yet there is an interesting paradigm to be drawn from his remarks.
Is he claiming that the bid is just so big it's irrational? Or does he feel that the Arsenal's position as one of the English game's top dogs might be threatened by a smaller club acquiring owners even richer and more profligate than its own? Is he subconsciously urging a form of protectionism?
Given the wounding, catastrophic average price of a Premiership club's season ticket, the tsunami of television money that floods the game and the British romance with soccer that insulates all but the most badly run clubs from going bust, if the Arsenal is living on a subsistence income then never show me independence. A very large pinch of cel, Arsene, s'il vous plait. Pleading the interests of supporters in hard financial times is naked populism. If the Arsenal's supporters have to live with competition, then so does the Arsenal. That's the real world.

The Latin From Staten Island

Ricardo Montalban, the guy who could pronounce the phrase 'Revenge is a dish best served cold!' better than any other, has passed away.
And the big bouncing ball has finally caught up with Patrick McGoohan, one of the stars of the only movie ever partly set in Helensburgh.
Eternal rest grant unto your sons, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon them, may they rest in peace; and may their souls, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

A Creative Minority Of One

Having once been enthusiastically involved in amateur dramatics, indeed having met my wife through a drama group, it's with great pleasure (and not a little envy) that one discovers that Mark Shea is not just an extremely prolific and insightful blogger and journalist, but also an actor; and a very good one at that. Technically, he's a very good accent man, a skill which you either have or don't no matter what the dialogue coaches say, and his frame gives him a powerful screen presence; physically, he's a cross between Brendan Gleeson and, going from the sublime to the ridiculous, Ford Kiernan.
The way in which God distributes talent is a wonderful mystery. For once, it's a pleasure to see one to whom He has given an abundance of the stuff using it in His service.

A Picture Says A Thousand Words

The picture came from this analysis of proposed changes to procedures for the award of British citizenship (its impartiality is questionable - its author, once described as having 'a wider specialist background... in Muslims in Europe, minority communities in the UK, identity politics, belonging and extremism', and whose work has been analysed here, uses phrases such as 'migrants will need to take extra steps to "earn" citizenship and become fully paid-up members of society'; 'Migrants will effectively be required to jump through more hoops') which appears on the BBC.

The Essential Companion To Andrew Roberts

Andrew Roberts (Cranleigh, Gonville & Caius, KFC) is one of the United Kingdom's most popular pop historians.
He has published an article in today's 'Daily Telegraph' titled 'History will show that George W Bush was right'. This is not a consensus view.
A useful, and recommended, guide to the reading of Mr. Roberts's work was published by R. J. Stove in the September 22 2008 edition of 'The American Conservative'.

GK Chesterton On Jonathon Porritt

On one of the few occasions that I have been able to access his blog in recent days, I noticed this item that Tim Worstall has posted criticising the apparently anti-people views of Sir Jonathon Porritt, Bt., CBE, (Eton and Magdalen, Oxford), the United Kingdom's Treehugger-General.
One can only sigh when one sees someone who should know better declare that The Fruitfly in the Sky Fairy came up with 'the meaning of life', the focus of which is apparently the groin.
Yet the anti-people Porritt is a type of English aristocrat whose cards were marked by GKC over a century ago; and like the advert used to say, his analysis is as good today now as it's always been -
"Only the other day I saw in an excellent weekly paper of Puritan tone this remark, that Christianity when stripped of its armour of dogma (as who should speak of a man stripped of his armour of bones), turned out to be nothing but the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light. Now, if I were to say that Christianity came into the world specially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light, that would be an exaggeration. But it would be very much nearer to the truth. The last Stoics, like Marcus Aurelius, were exactly the people who did believe in the Inner Light. Their dignity, their weariness, their sad external care for others, their incurable internal care for themselves, were all due to the Inner Light, and existed only by that dismal illumination. Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists, as such introspective moralists always do, upon small things done or undone; it is because he has not hate or love enough to make a moral revolution. He gets up early in the morning, just as our own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning; because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land".

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

The Genocide Of The American Black Man In The Womb

Planned Parenthood isn't just a death cult; it's a eugenic death cult. Hat tip Dawn Eden.

One wonders what those 'conservatives' who talk of 'black savages' have to say about that.

A Wormhole Has Opened, And We've Gome Back In Time 200 Years: The Cult Of Charles Darwin

Writing in 'The Daily Telegraph', English Bob, The Wrath of God, pens an ode to The Fruitfly in the Sky Fairy, and describes his work as 'the triumph of rationalism'.
The Victorian legacy of which The Fruitfly is an integral part and which Bob praises so fulsomely did indeed give us the railway, X-rays, pasteurisation (one of a series of legacies now being reversed by those who prefer the early 19th Century to the later), and so on and so on. It also gave us free trade, Malthusianism, Thomas Arnold, The Crimean War, Gobineau, Vacher de Lapouge, Herbert Spencer and the doctrine of 'the survival of the fittest', the construct of Social Darwinism which the Nazis loved so much, and the Poor Law (Amendment) Act. The Victorian era was that in which the so-called 'Enlightenment' really took hold. It was not a golden age of man. The truth is, there never has been a golden age of man; as our weak and fallible selves have proved time and time again, Mankind doesn't do golden ages. We're incapable of it on our own. That's one of the reasons why we had to be redeemed.
To my mind, there seems little less rational than believing that Mankind evolved entirely by chance. In entirely rational terms, the odds against this happening without some exterior intervention seem akin to the likelihood of winning history's biggest Lottery rollover day after day after day for four billion years. Even the rationalists don't seem to buy it - there are no doubt some who still keep an eye out for black monoliths.
Yet the supreme irony of rationalism is that those who buy into The Fruitfly's theories most avidly are also at the head of queue when it comes to denying the relevance of words spoken by an albeit well-connected rustic carpenter - 'Love one another just as I have loved you'. In their search for humanity's origins, they have forgotten what makes us human; that command, both so human and yet so divine, might provide them with some guidance in the right direction.

The Pie In The Sky Fairy Would Tell You These People Did What They Did Out Of Their Perceived Self Interest

Meet John and Eloise Bergen, role models for us all.
Hat tip Mark Shea.

A Landmark Day In The History Of BBC Scotland

It has finally admitted that immigrants commit crimes. Previously, editorial emphasis had been placed on pointing out how many members of that particular immigrant group involved in the commission of that particular crime were just as much the victims of their crimes as the real victims.

The Thoughts Of Charles Philip Arthur George Jim Davidson Mountbatten-Windsor

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

The Unserious Bilge Of David Aaronovitch

Once upon a time, there was a little boy who believed in the overthrow of the British government and the imposition of Marxism-Leninism on its unwilling people.
Maybe the little boy maybe didn't know any better; you see, he had the misfortune of being a cradle Communist.
The toxic nonsense that infested the little boy's head didn't stop him from being ambitious; no, not at all. He became President of the National Union of Students and sought a media career. He might have done this to gain exposure for, and help spread, his political beliefs. He even became a producer with the BBC.
Then one day the little boy said 'I am not a Communist anymore', and everyone believed him. He wasn't shunned, and was always able to find better jobs than working as a streetsweeper in Doncaster; the sort of punishment he might have doled out to his opponents if he'd ever gained power. He wasn't forced to give up the media access he sought to gain while a Communist; quite the reverse. Somebody even gave him a column in 'The Times', where he became the voice of liberal reason, and lived happily ever after.
Excuse me while I puke.
David Aaronovitch has published an editorial in today's 'Times' entitled 'A revolting parade of who can look toughest'. It is itself revolting.
He starts,
"Before the PM had shaken the first lean and sinewy business hand at his jobs summit yesterday, the selectively lugubrious duo behind the Balanced Migration group - the MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames - had declared the exercise as destined to fail.

Their argument was that, in certain categories, non-EU economic migrants are still allowed to seek or take up jobs “for which British unemployed people have not had the chance to apply”, and that unless “British unemployed individuals have a first crack at all jobs that become available” how could the Government's unemployment policies be taken seriously? Arrangements permitting foreigners to take up jobs not advertised in Britain, argued the pair, “should be suspended while the recession lasts”. However long that is, and however it is defined."
What is extremely concerning is not that such arrangements should cease, but that they were permitted in the first place. Such a thought is alien to Aaronovitch.
He continues,
"A flavour of Balanced Migration's attitude towards job-sucking outsiders can be gleaned from their proposals for graduates. They note that foreigners who have taken their degrees in the UK are allowed to stay and work for two years, at the end of which they may apply for a work permit and, if the employer so chooses, keep their jobs. Mr Field and Mr Soames discern a terrible injustice in this because of the “direct competition with British graduates who will have incurred heavy debts in acquiring their degrees” (they have no interest in whether foreign students, who typically pay higher fees, are similarly indebted). Their proposal is that employers should be forced to advertise the jobs of these foreigners, whether they want to or not. "
Ah yes, emotive rhetoric: 'job-sucking outsiders'. To suggest that either Frank Field, a far better British patriot than Aaronovitch has ever seemed to be, or Nicholas Soames (for all his faults) would ever think of non-UK nationals as being 'job-sucking outsiders' borders on the libellous. This is a spastic default to the type of political debate in which Aaronovitch might once have willingly participated; the debate of denunciation, character assassination and lies.
He is a man of the world: One World, where it doesn't matter that you can't get into a university in your own country because its universities have become businesses and make more money by admitting a foreigner than by admitting you. That's your tough cheese, sunshine; they're probably just better than you anyway. Learn your place, or the commissars will rat you out. Now shut up and bugger off to the call centre.
Aaronovitch continues,
"It is clear to me, if not to the parliamentary pair, that if such a policy were to be enacted any foreign students of reasonable talent would be entitled to feel that Britain does not want them, and act accordingly. We would also soon discover that not a few of these jobs will go abroad. And then there's the issue of retaliation".
If Aaronovitch were a serious public policy intellectual, which the balance of probabilities seems to suggest he isn't, he would be familiar with 'global labour arbitrage' theory. If GLA is true, it isn't going to matter a tuppenny damn who studies what or where, because no matter who you are and what qualifications you have, there will always be someone cheaper than you standing at your shoulder.
He goes on,
"Too bad, because the fact seems to be that we liberals are not winning this fight against the economic and cultural nationalists. I realised this when listening to a Radio 4 programme on the politics of immigration last Saturday. There was a report from Peterborough where some locals were complaining about foreign young men in vans and pressure on parking spaces, and employers were praising the same young men's willingness to pick fruit from orchards that indigenous youth preferred not to visit. "
The fact that he is losing this battle might mean that he was wrong in the first place doesn't seem to occur to him. The example he chooses is a paradigm of his unseriousness; your employers love mass immigration, while you can't get a parking space. The very fact that you can't get a parking space might mean that there are too many people doesn't seem to occur to him. He is proof of the maxim that you can spot a former Communist a mile away; where the facts don't sit with the ideology, you go with the ideology.
I did not hear the programme he refers to - but I would be very interested to know whether the employers who were interviewed were asked three straightforward questions. Firstly, how the wages they are paying staff compare with the wages paid in 2003. Secondly, whether the terms upon which their migrant staff are employed differ in any way from those they offered in 2003. Thirdly, how profitable their businesses are now in comparison to 2003. The answers to those questions might provide some insight into why employers are enthusiastic about migrants.
He continues,
"It's assumed that Labour is soft on immigration. In actual fact the largest influxes of migrants into this country came during Conservative periods of government - if you look at the 1950s and early 1960s and indeed the situation with Eastern Africa.”

“The situation with Eastern Africa”? He means the time when the Kenyan and Ugandan Asians were expelled, and arrived in a Britain for which they had passports, where they were called “Paki”, and where they became some of the most successful and dynamic citizens this nation has possessed. And this is used by a Labour minister, a Labour minister, to attack past Conservative governments for softness on immigration! I wanted to throw up. "
Those East Asians he praises include Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, an insolent, graceless, arrogant woman who was given the protection of the United Kingdom, has received opportunities far beyond the reach of many of its natives yet who has made a presumably lucrative career out of criticising its perceived injustices. If we're in the business of plain speaking, we might as well speak plainly. Her chances under Idi Amin wouldn't have been too good.
Aaronovitch continues,
"Of course, they all tell us, none of this is about race and it is politically correct to suggest that it is, as well as an attempt to avoid necessary debate. It's about overcrowding and the prospect of 70 million Britons (a prospect that is most unlikely). It's about jobs (despite migration helping to create jobs). It's about pressure on services (despite migrants disproportionately providing them or paying for them). "
Who has introduced the race issue into this discussion? The voice of liberal reason. Aaronovitch once again proves the truth of Brimelow's Law -
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal"
This is further proof of Aaronovitch's lack of intellectual seriousness. And where is his proof that migrants either provide or pay for services in a manner out of proportion to their numbers?
He continues,
"According to one academic study [from a Migration Watch supporter, Dr David Coleman, as it happens], the ethnic community in Britain will grow from 9 per cent to 29 per cent by mid-century.”

I spoke to Sir Andrew (Green) yesterday who, courteous as ever, confirmed to me that “ethnic community” denotes “non-white”. Not, please notice, non-British and also notice that this figure includes anyone classified as mixed-race. Therefore “our society will be changed out of all recognition” means, not to put too fine a point upon it, a Britain which is nearly a third touched with the tar brush".
David Coleman is, or was, Professor of Demography at the University of Oxford, and the victim of the sort of ideological hounding which Aaronovitch might once have endorsed, or even led. It does not occur to Aaronovitch that when the nation's foremost demographer says something about demographics, he should be listened to. No. Instead, his academic rank is reduced and he becomes a candidate for marginalisation and purge. Better get out the brush, Professor, and start familiarising yourself with the Doncaster A to Z.
Ah, the tar brush! The Imperial era utility put-down despised even then, and now only used by the more sophisticated ex-Communist public policy intellectuals! The very use of this expression is even more evidence of how unserious this person is. Who would even dream of using such an expression now?
He concludes,
"No more cant. This is still part of what scares our pusillanimous partymen, who are all now involved in a revolting public auction to show who can be the “toughest” on the economic migrant - that miscreant who comes over and does our jobs and pays our taxes and adds to our pool of talent. And who may well, if Sir Andrew Green is right, be ethnic. "
'No more cant'; quite agree, more in a moment. Migrants do all the things he says; but they also displaced Billy Gallagher. Maybe he just wasn't as good as his replacements.
Aaronovitch is a passionate defender of the state of Israel. The question I would have for him would be, if mass immigration is good for Britain, wouldn't it also be good for Israel? And if not, why not? And if it's not, why then is it good for Britain?

The Confession Of Gary McKinnon

This man suffers from a recognised personality disorder, yet is under threat of extradition to the USA for doing the Pentagon a favour. He showed up the weakness of its encryption systems.
Unlike the crimes of the politically connected wideboy (and loyal Celtic fan) Gary Mulgrew, nobody really lost any money as a result of what Gary McKinnon did. If money had to be spent repairing any 'damage' he might have caused, then seeking his extradition and punishment in consequence is nothing but sour grapes; Mr. McKinnon proved that the money should probably have been spent in the first place. If he obtained any information at all, he does not seem to have passed it on to terrorists. He does not seem to have sought to profit from his actions by selling his story to the newspapers. Yet he has been hounded through the English legal system for years because of the grossly one-sided nature of Anglo-American extradition arrangements.
Where is the justice in this? Instead of threatening him with 40 years in Leavenworth, the Pentagon should be giving him a medal and $500,000 a year in consultancy fees. Matters have reached the stage where in order to avoid spending the rest of his life cooped up with Mara Salvatrucha's wild-eyed hombres in a megaprison, he's even confessed to a passingly similar British charge which doesn't seem to have been on the table before. If this is justice, it's straight out of Lavrenti Beria's playbook.
If you take away a vulnerable man's liberty by breaking into his home and tying him up, then angry crowds shouting that you are a 'beast', and that you should 'rot in hell', will gather round the prison van taking you away. If you take away a vulnerable man's liberty by accusing of him of a crime then flying him halfway round the world and making him spend the rest of his life in the company of desperate and violent men who speak a different language, it's apparently justified in the interests of national security. If someone can explain the normative differences between these two examples, I would be grateful if they could let me know. I cannot see it.