House of Dumb

Fat whiner and professional lifter of gentleman's shirts Johann Hari interviews David Cameron and banality ensues.

Don't be shocked, but Hari is enraged! by any attempts to link the gay movement with paedophilia:

But Mr Cameron, why can't you simply condemn people who call us "faggots" and "paedophiles" as homophobic ?

Yes, indeed, where could they have gotten the idea of links between the gay movement and people trying to mainstream paedophilia? Possibly from people like this guy:

[I have written] in favour of understanding and embracing despised minorities like gypsies and paedophiles...

That would be prominent gay rights activist and award-winning paedo-apologist journalist Johann Hari.

Clearly, that must have been the other Johann Hari.

Laban rightly points out the modern liberals have given up even hiding the fascist nature of their ideology. Still, there's something more going on.

Of course, there's the usual leftist humbuggery of claiming people have a right to force other people to hire them. Huh? But that piece of insanity is par for the course these days. Then there's the sheer absurdity - which even a lot of social conservatives miss - of claiming that organisations should be forced to hire people who violently and publicly object to their very existence. Hey, the Vegetarian Society isn't being forced to hire Bernard Matthews and Jeremy Clarkson's got no chance of getting voiceover work from Greenpeace, but those guys who parade through the town centre, dressed as nuns and sticking crucifixes up each other's backsides? Cruelly discriminated against (by being held to the same standard as any other potential employee).

Oh, and by the way, anyone know what proportion of employees at our publicly-funded universities 'wimmin's studies' departments are conservatives? Or, indeed, are there any conservatives at all?

But even that's not the whole thing. Liberal fascism demands that its enemies be ground to dust, the ground on which they stood salted and their works cleansed from history ... but here they are asking that the Catholic Church - aka the Worst Organisation Ever - give their insane cult members undeserved jobs and credibility. A-huh!

Forget all this talk of girrrl power and the pink pound. The defining feature of these freaks is parasitism. Their ideology may be, behind the half inch layer of touchy-feely drivel, driven entirely by hatred of western civilisation, but it's also entirely dependent on that civilisation, and more specifically those evil white males, continuing to support these worthless liberal dregs. Not only in the specific sense, that they need men (and evil corporations too!) to keep the lights on and the water flowing, but in the general sense that they require male taxpayers to keep their noses to the grind stone to keep the whole outhouse in orbit. Compare the breakdown of the sexes in the private and the public sectors to see who's really leeching off who. Ditto with the special people, some of whom in the more... enriched parts of the UK are finding out that mild social criticism may not be as bad as it gets, after all.

To the point, the only reason these spoilt brats are free to spend their lives raging about the horrors of western civilisation is precisely because the people they hate keep working themselves into an early grave trying to stave off the inevitable results of the left's insane ideology.

Hey, the Aztecs may have performed human sacrifices, but at least they didn't expect the victims to cut their own hearts out.

Norman Tebbit gets to the heart of the matter:

For the moment, at least, I will not succumb to the temptation offered me by the commenter called “James (1)”, who would like a conversation about “third world immigration, Islamification and a non-indigenous demographic time bomb” – although I would observe to opponents of Islamification that it is quite difficult to beat a something with a nothing.

Exactly right - for all the supposed negativity of conservatism (mainly defined as 'not signing onto to the ten squillion pound boondongle d'jour), it's noticeable that, even forty years later and with complete cultural dominance, the sixty-eighters have never managed to construct anything like a positive vision of society. Instead, we have fifty-somethings still trying to bag the oldsters by making rubbish flicks about how bad the 1950s were.

Here's Universal Shami preaching in defence of the vital civil right to parade round in fascist regalia. The thing is there's at least two problems with her position.

The first problem is that the pro-regalia tendency don't just want the freedom to wear the uniform of this nation's enemies in time of war, they want the state to repress the freedom of anyone who might think worse of them for being fascist weenies, lest they discriminate against these charmers.

Problem number two is that non-partisan campaigning group Liberty only ever seem to get excited about the liberties of certain people. If the right to wear enemy uniform in wartime is an essential part of British liberty, how about the vital Right to Comedy?

Was the gag funny? Probably not, but neither are most club acts, and no one's suggesting their performances should be interrupted by cops jumping out shouting 'Satire Squad! Drop the mike, you're under arrest'! Armed entertainment criticism would be a strange use of police resources at the best of times, but there's the other thing that there may not even have been an actual offence committed.

I'm not a lawyer, but these people are, so let's hear what they say:

Threats can be calculated and premeditated, or said in the heat of the moment. The defendant does not have to have the intention to kill but there has to be an intent that the person to whom the threat has been issued would fear it would be carried out. Where it is doubtful whether the threat carried the necessary intent a charge under section 4 Public Order Act 1986 may be appropriate. Refer also to Public Order Offences incorporating the Charging Standard elsewhere in the Legal guidance.

OK, so let's see what Sec 4 says:

The following types of conduct are examples which may at least be capable of amounting to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour:

* threats made towards innocent bystanders or individuals carrying out public service duties;

Hey, I'll take a shot in the dark here and say that the definition of 'towards' requires the accused to actually address the alleged victim, not be tapping away on a twitter feed that the victim has to be specifically told to look for.

These airport guys remind me of nothing so much as the old joke about the woman who called the police because her neighbour was sunbathing nude in his garden. The cop comes round, looks out the window and says 'I can't see anything', and the woman says 'you can if you go upstairs and climb on the wardrobe'.

All of which is by way of saying, they must have gone to an awful lot of trouble to be harassed, alarmed and distressed.

To the point, in so far as a young man exercising his right to free speech has been seized by agents of the state on a charge that's legally absurd and morally ludicrous, it is exactly the type of thing a soi dissant civil liberties organisation should regard as nearly as important a freedom as the right to coerce employers into hiring people dressed in enemy uniform.

Is modern liberalism dependent on victimhood? Well, consider that the Guardian has now started running tearful articles on the discrimination Muslims could face, if the government were to introduce profiling.

Coming soon: how right wing necromancy could lead to your kids being eaten by zombies!

Hey, if our hypothetical doctor really is an 'Islamic moderate' whose country is being torn apart by terrorist lunatics, wouldn't he be onboard with just about any measures to clamp down on Islamic terrorists? After all, Miami Cubans aren't known for the deep love and affection for communism.

But we don't profile: that would be uncivilised. Instead, we have compulsory nudie scanners. Hey, I admit I haven't checked up on our ever-expanding Human Rights Act in the last 48 hours or so, but I'm thinking that if a demand you get your virtual tackle out before flying doesn't contravene your human rights, they aren't worth having.

Oh yeah.... profiling isn't 100% reliable. Meanwhile, the panty bomber buys a one-way ticket with cash while on a 'no-fly' list, but this doesn't say anything about the efficacy of non-profiling methods - and neither does the fact he used a liquid explosive that doesn't show up on scanners anyway.

Folks, I think we're reaching a tipping point. Liberals always love the pose of Olympian detachment, coolly deciding between various competing claims, but that dog won't hunt anymore.

Leaving aside drivel about lack of efficacy - despite 100% of Islamic terrorists being found to be Islamic - the case against profiling always was that it was better to slightly inconvenience everyone than to make people who exactly match the profile of the last hundred or so people to commit acts of terrorism onboard airliners feel slightly uncomfortable by asking them more questions than an 88 year old Jamaican grandmother would face. So now we have a system where your teenage daughter will be required to go through the nudie scanner four or five times in front of drooling imbeciles while the guy with 16 South Yememese stamps in his passports gets waved through because we don't want to make him feel uncomfortable.

Who'd have thunk it? A rapper turns out to be a violent retard.

Talk about the clue being in the question. We've got a problem with violence in schools, so a government minister teams up with a scumbag low-life. Hmmmm.... I think I see the problem.

I'll take a shot in the dark here, but if Ed Balls really wants to do something about thuggery in schools, he might try treating these people as the douchebags that they are, instead of treating violent insanity as a wacky, but enriching!, cultural quirk

Hipsters' knee jerk obsession with sticking it to The Man reaches its logical conclusion.

Note too how the splendid senator from Wisconsin gets slipped in there along with the mass murdering leftists. No context required when dealing with the right, obviously.

I can't wait to see how they blame this on a white guy...

Today's Africa's screwed up and it's all your fault story.

I was just reading NNW's post on Avatar when I realsied something about it: take away any wider issues and you're still left with a genuinely bloodthirsty movie, where Americans (and, it is strongly implied, conservative ones) are depicted as fascist thugs, then slaughtered in large numbers.

Hey, unlike certain David Camerons I could mention, I'm a real conservative. Let Hollywood make what it can sell, but in so far as liberals are queueing up to see conservative caricatures butchered, can we at least have to end to all this talk of liberal 'nuance' versus hateful conservatives?

UPDATE:

And now, the same point from an actual literate person:

Yes, movies traffic in absurd super-simplifications. But we’re supposed to accept that of the deployment of several hundred, every soldier save one is a low-IQ cold-blooded murderer. What does “Avatar” build up to? Watching the invading soldiers — most of whom happen to be former American military personnel — die is the big cathartic ending of the flick. Extended sequences show Americans being graphically slaughtered in the natives’ counterattack. The deaths of aliens are depicted as heartbreaking tragedies, while the deaths of American security forces are depicted as a whooping good time.

Laban points out a guy who's blown the lid! off the death of St Jean the Martyr.

Yes, indeed. It's easy to mock, but mainstream Trutherism isn't much better these days. Here my old pal Tommy explains how just because the Truthers couldn't even get a verdict against Captain Chaos herself, Cressida Dick, she's still, like, totally guilty:

Yes, the jury in the "health and safety" show trial - used by the state to put the matter on hold until it was "old news" [it was a conspiracy to hide the conspiracy? - DJ] - specifically exonerated Ms Dick [well, quite - DJ]. Perhaps the lethal errors were all made after she - as Gold Commander - transferred control to CO19. Certainly there is no proof she was involved in discrediting an innocent victim in the disgraceful campaign of lies and spin which followed Jean-Charles's murder [yep, it's another conspiracy theory - DJ]. Perhaps history will even remember her for her role as head of the Metropolitan Police's "Diversity Directorate" more than for that day of national disgrace [opinion stated as fact without supporting argument - DJ]. Perhaps.

The question still remains. In honouring a woman whose name is tied to that monstrous injustice, what message, dear reader, does our Prime Minister intend to convey? [Message? How about 'YOU LOSE, LOSERS'? - DJ]

Still, don't get the feeling I'm bracketing Indymedia guy with the mainstream of Trutherism. After all, at least our pal from Bristol's conspiracy theory is internally consistent. Once you accept his fundamentally loopy premise, the rest of it hangs together. That sets him apart from the rest of the Truther movement.

Indeed, not to give aid and comfort to the insane, but if Truthers are genuinely enraged over their failure to land a glove on their hate figures, they might want to try producing a coherent story. It speaks to the essential bigotry driving this movement that no explanation is required for just why, say, police officers would cooperate with a vast conspiracy to terminate a small-time crook. They're pigs, it's what they do, init?

UPDATE:

Walk them cats back! An anonymous commentor claims to be shocked - shocked! -that anyone could call Truthers conspiracy nuts, claiming they just question police procedures, to which I reply thus:

i/ the only way the death of St Jean could have got more publicity would have been if he was riding along with Princess Di. In so far as the Truthers have been trying to blow the lid! on this case for nearly five years, I think we can safely conclude all the answers are in. They may not like them, or believe them, but there's something deeply gutless about claiming they're just 'asking questions'. They're not, they're making accusations and they should come out and say that - although, to be fair, Tommy certainly does that, which leads on to point two...

ii/ If the Truther were really just concerned about procedures, they'd write about that, instead of ranting about 'Death Squads' and the like. Au contrair, from the start the Truther movement regarded this case as a Rosetta Stone that exposed dark forces that were secretly pulling the strings behind the scenes in the sham democracy of the United KKKingdom.

It's way too late to pretend they're just concerned about how cops do their thing.

This story probably says something profound about modern Britain, but my mind's gone too blank to work out what.

Hey, sharks need to eat too!

Still, if these freaks genuinely believe they can sell people on a speedboat being rammed by a huge whaler, it looks like we've finally found some econuts who don't mind polluting their bodies with 'chemicals'.

Mind you, I'm right behind the whole libs killing themselves thing.

Heh. It's just like that episode where Buffy sued the Master after he said she had a fat backside.

Like Mark says, just what more does this hag want? She's had an insanely pampered life, but now she's the Rosa Parks of science? Clearly, those beasts at the Royal Society were so keen to fire a lady director, they had to go to the trouble of hiring one in the first place just so they could sack her, but only after keeping her on for four years to hide the true nature of their evil plan.

You know, with deep thinkers like that on the bridge, it's a wonder British science is sinking so fast.

As it happens, there may be one other reason why she got the ol' heave ho:

Lady Greenfield's removal comes after the Royal Institution incurred huge losses during a major refurbishment project she masterminded. The £22 million project left the body so short of funds that its auditors raised questions about its ability to continue operating.

The body's trustees decided that the position of a full-time director was no longer affordable in the light of funding problems that has left it more than £3 million in the red.

Steering your organisation into a £3 million sized hole is bad. Not seeing why that could be a problem really should be a sacking offence.

It's not as if there isn't evidence of pilot error:

Supporters of Lady Greenfield say she had modernised the charity, which aims to connect the public with the world of science, but had been regarded by some as too stuffy and outmoded.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed how often modernisation precedes total disaster? I guess keeping track of the red ink isn't part of the New Girl Order.

All in all, you have to have some sympathy with the Royal Society.... but only if you're stupid. Greenfield's whole schtick is and always was professional victimhood (try this for a 2002 example). These guys must have known right from the off that they were hiring a divisive femiloon but they were prepared to go along with that as long as she aimed her unhinged rants at everyone else.

To the point: no less a scientist than Newton claimed to be 'standing on the shoulders of giants' - meaning he recognised the contribution of those who had come before him. Femiloon ideologues go the other way: everything that came before is a product of the Patriarchy and therefore bad, Bad, BAD! They insist we all hail them as the First Woman To.... , then they goose-step in and announce the need to modernise everything in the whole world, until it all goes horribly wrong and then they claim the worker bees let them down.

The Royal Society has sown the wind and they can reap the whirlwind: Death to the Manginas!