Clarkson, the Baronet’s granddaughter and a pile of poo | James Delingpole

September 19th, 2009

“I’m dumping dung at Clarkson’s gates so he might understand that his attitude will land us all in the —-,” said Westminster- and Cambridge-educated Tamsin Omond, baronet’s granddaughter, yesterday, as she danced up and down on the pile of horse manure she’d dumped on the Top Gear presenter’s doorstep while dressed as a suffragette.

Her parents must be so proud. But I ruddy well wouldn’t be if I’d forked out £9,172 a term for my daughter’s education.  That’s how much the current Westminster boarding fees are. If you’re a day pupil they are a mere £6,352 a term. I dare say things were slightly less expensive when little Tammy was there. But it’s still a fair bet it cost Mr and Mrs Omond an arm and a leg to educate their feisty and fearless young agitator.

What is it about privately educated, toffy rich kids and the modern green movement? Obviously there’s none quite so grand as Old Etonian the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt (both a baronet and the son of a Lord), but billionaire’s son (and Old Etonian, natch) Zac Goldsmith is hardly what you’d call a smelly prole; nor is eco-columnist Charles Clover (a Wet – ie an old boy of Tamsy Wamsy’s alma mater Westminster), nor is George Monbiot (who went to Palladian finishing school for the nice but dim Stowe); nor of course is desperately WASP-establishment Climate Fear Promoter Al Gore. Then of course there’s Prince Charles, who, though something of a Hanoverian arriviste still knows enough not to eat the peas off his fish knife or drop too many aitches when he goes to dinner with his upmarket chum Sir Jonathon.

As for the Plane Stupid and Climate Camp lot – it is said that even if you went to a good grammar school, they still rag you for being a despicable  little oik, rather as George Osborne was by the Old Etonians during in his time with the Bullingdon Club. Even their protest banners are made from 100 per cent Egyptian cotton percale sheets from John Lewis (bought at full price, not in the sale).

But back to that private school question. I am currently making enquiries as to how I might best get my own offspring into decent public schools. Not being born to the purple like most members of the modern green movement, I may have to do so via a bursary. But from what I can see of the alumni of our great schools I’m beginning to wonder whether it’s worth it.

Surely, the point of sending your child to private school is give them a better education than they would have had in the state sector. They would emerge, you would hope, with a capacity for original thinking, an ability to look at the world empirically and understand the difference between objective truth and the mere clamour of the times and the ranting of the mob.

But apparently not. There is nothing clever or original or indeed counter-cultural about the modern green movement. They are protesters pushing against an open door. Any fool can go to Jeremy Clarkson’s house dressed in frills and chant drivel. What takes far, far more courage and originality of thought is to look at the world, see how much money is being made from the “climate-change” industry, see how much taxpayers’ money is being wasted in the name of environmental righteousness, see how much of our beautiful countryside is going to be destroyed in the name of ’saving’ it, then to take a stand and enunciate with your impeccable, public school diction: “Enough is jolly well enough! Up with this I will not put!”

Related posts:

  1. Jeremy Clarkson’s critics should be taken out and shot
  2. On the anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons show their true colours
  3. The curious rise of bottled water
  4. Climategate 2.0

Two Responses to “Clarkson, the Baronet’s granddaughter and a pile of poo”

  1. dilandinga says:October 5, 2009 at 10:13 amuhtC82 I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!
  2. ramspace says:October 5, 2009 at 10:23 amThese miserable thugs are celebrating at their website: IdiotMedia.UK They talk of “direct action” against “climate criminals.” They justify their criminal behavior by pointing to the dire state of the Arctic: “The Arctic is expected to be ice free in the summertime sometime between 2011 and 2015.” HA! Utter fools. I hope Clarkson goes on to make a billion dollars with an even BIGGER program that burns even MORE fuel.

The Lesson of Arnhem and Afghanistan: Heroism Is No Substitute for Strategy

Sixty-five years ago today on a pleasant, sunny September day like this one (only it was a Sunday, not a Thursday) began the greatest battle of the Second World War: Operation Market Garden.

At least it’s the greatest if you’re British. Of course there were many more strategically important battles – e.g., Stalingrad; El Alamein; D-Day; Midway – but Market Garden, especially the battle for Arnhem and the “bridge too far,” is the one that has always caught the public imagination.

It was the battle that had everything: red berets (faarsands of ‘em); countless acts of superhuman courage leading to five VCs (one of which was won by Jeremy Clarkson’s father-in-law Major Robert Cain); classic British pluck and sangfroid (Major Digby Tatham-Warter disabling an armoured car with his umbrella; the dispatchers in a doomed Dakota pushing out vital supplies even as their burning plane plummeted towards the ground); a fearsome opposition (battlehardened SS who rated the British airborne troops tougher than any they’d faced); plus, most poignantly and frustratingly, the dozens of “What ifs?” which mean that every time you read about the battle, you can’t help fantasising about an alternative universe where this time – as of course, we think we deserve – it ends in an Allied victory.

But it didn’t. Quite right though we are to worship and adore the heroes of Arnhem, the unfortunate fact is that they lost. Operation Market Garden was one of the biggest Allied military disasters of the war. Of the 11,920 mostly British and Polish troops of 1st Airborne Division who landed at Arnhem, no fewer than 1,485 were killed, 3,910 escaped back over the river two weeks later, while 6,525 were taken prisoner – at least 2,000 of them wounded. We achieved little if anything of any strategic value. We didn’t open the way to the Ruhr industrial heartland, nor circumvent the Siegfried Line, nor end the war by Christmas. Worse still, we made life significantly more horrible for the Dutch – briefly liberating them before dashing their hopes on our withdrawal and subjecting them to many more months of brutal Nazi rule.

Yet even the months immediately afterwards, Arnhem managed to acquire a reputation as something to be celebrated rather than mourned. (We’re very good at this, we British: see also, Dunkirk; Scott of The Antarctic; Eddie The Eagle). Indeed this used to infuriate veterans of the 6th Airborne Division (the one that succeeded in all its major objectives on D-Day, including the coup de main capture by glider-borne troops of Pegasus Bridge; the taking of the Merville Battery). They’d be wearing their red berets in a pub and people would come up to them and say, awestruck: “Were you at Arnhem?” “No,” they’d reply crossly. “We WON our battle.”

Look, I could give you more of this stuff, loads more. I too love Market Garden and I love the men who fought in it, some of whom I’m privileged to call my friends. If you like what I’ve written so far, you will totally love my account of the battle in COWARD AT THE BRIDGE. And no I don’t feel at all embarrassed to plug it. It’s a bloody good read and I’m proud of it.

But there’s another book I want to mention which I think you should also read – a fantastically exciting, vivid account of life on the front line in Afghanistan by Sam Kiley called Desperate Glory. It’s so intense, yet lyrically done, you could almost call it war porn. It captures perhaps better than any other book I’ve read the smells, the sounds, the fear and excitement of modern infantry warfare. Read it and you fully understand why men want to go to war: because though its the most grisly thing they will ever experience it’s also the most exciting and fulfilling.

But what you will also carry away with you – not that you didn’t suspect this is already – is a sense of the sheer hopelessness of our involvement in Afghanistan. The Government’s failure to provide our helicopters and mine-protected vehicles is, of course, a disgrace which has led to many avoidable deaths and injuries. The bigger picture, though, is more depressing still. What the hell are we doing there?

Don’t get me wrong. My heart swells with pride and I get a tremendous boysy thrill when I read stories like the one about Lt James Anderson bayonetting a Taliban machinegunner and shouting “have some of this” as he riddled another with bullets. I feel much about our boys’ (and girls’) performance in Helmand as I do about their predecessors’ performance at Arnhem: What self-sacrifice! What magnificence!

But in Aghanistan as at Arnhem, heroism is no substitute for strategy. Operation Market Garden failed for lots of reasons, mostly failures of planning. No matter how well the men fought there they were always going to lose. The same is true, I fear, of Afghanistan.

What is the point of our presence there?

To kill as many of the enemy as possible? But the supply from across the border in Pakistan is endless.

To win hearts and minds? Then why are we destroying their principal cash crop – opium – and killing so many civilians (the Americans rather more often than us, it must be said)?

To conquer and hold territory? When the Soviets were in Afghanistan, they allocated a whole division of 12,000 men to Helmand. We’re trying to make do with 5,000.

To create some semblance of democracy? Yeah right.

Related posts:

  1. Was Daphne du Maurier responsible for the attempt to cross the ‘bridge too far’?
  2. Who is Lieutenant Dick Coward of Coward at the Bridge?
  3. Ron Paul is right. Military adventurism is a luxury we can no longer afford
  4. Stung into stupidity – or heroism

 

Do the Conservatives Think We’re All Paedophiles Too?

The reason I ask is that I’ve just been reading the Conservatives’ latest report – Reversing The Rise of the Surveillance State. It makes all sorts of splendid and thoroughly worthwhile proposals such as scrapping the National Identity Register and restricting council access to personal communications data.

But what I don’t see is any mention of the most unpopular and intrusive surveillance legislation so far introduced by our Stasi state: the Government’s vetting organisation – the Independent Safeguarding Authority – which seems to imagine that all adults who work with children must perforce be paedophiles, unless they have been able to prove otherwise by filling out lots of tedious forms, waiting a very long time to work their way through the bureaucratic process and forking out £64 quid for the privilege.

As Professor Frank Furedi and children’s author Philip Pullman have argued, this barmy legislation –  the Government’s knee jerk response to the killing of two schoolgirls by a caretaker (from another school: so not even someone known to them) in Soham – serves to “poison” the relationship between the generations. Not only does it put off adults from volunteering to work with organisations like the Scouts and render routine activities – like ferrying other people’s kids to sporting events – needlessly complicated, but it sends out the message that any adult who lays a finger on a child for whatever reason (if they’ve fallen over and cut their knee in the park, say) is most likely an evil kiddie-fiddler.

Launching his document Dominic Grieve, the Tory Shadow Justice Minister, acknowledged some of this when he said:

We cannot eliminate the need for human judgment calls on risk, whether to children, or from criminal and terrorist threats. And we can never eliminate all risk, it is part and parcel of ordinary life.

Exactly. All commonsense, soundly libertarian stuff.

He goes on to propose a Conservative response based on five central principles:

Fewer mammoth databases, that are better run.
Fewer personal details held by the state, stored accurately and on a need-to-know basis.
Greater checks and personal control over the sharing of our data by government.
And stronger duties on government to keep our private information safe.

Again, all fine. But then just towards the end, he slips in a weasellish phrase which calls into question everything he has promised before:

“We are not looking to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But we do want to re-calibrate the relationship between the citizen and the state.”

It’s precisely this kind of temporising which we natural Conservatives find so utterly maddening about Dave Cameron’s pretend ones. They seem to want to have everything both ways: on the one hand we’re going to do this, on the other hand we’re not going to do it in so drastic a way that anyone who might potentially disagree with the change will find anything to which they can object.

The Independent Safeguard Authority and its vetting procedures – which require fully one quarter of the adult population to be snooped on before they can work with children – are a barn door sized target.

Will the Tories promise to do something about it – or do they too share New Labour’s view that every adult is a likely paedo?

Related posts:

  1. Gordon Brown: ‘Re-elect me and I will hang all paedophiles, restore grammar schools and create permanent world peace.’
  2. I have just seen the Conservatives’ future. Unfortunately, it’s in New Zealand.
  3. The Tory test that all Conservative candidates should pass
  4. Why the Child Benefit cuts have made me despise Cameron’s ‘Conservatives’ even more than I did already

 

Barack Obama: ACORN’s Manchurian Candidate? | James Delingpole

September 17, 2009

For opponents of President Obama, the ACORN scandal is the gift that goes on giving.

Here’s the latest episode (courtesy of BigGovernment) in which intrepid investigative reporters James O’Keefe (the one dressed as a pimp, with statutory cane and fur coat) and Hannah Giles (the worryingly convincing whore) decide to pay a visit to the offices of President Obama’s favourite left-wing “non-profit organisation” in San Bernadino, California. The ACORN representative gives helpful advice on how to run a whorehouse, how to keep under age whores in check (beat them); she enthuses about the pimp’s plans to use his funds to run for Congress, and names names of the politicians with whom she deals herself.

British readers may be somewhat puzzled by the excitement this is generating in the US blogosphere. Isn’t it just an amusing Candid-Camera-style stunt? Why should anyone care what a few rather sorry-looking people in some run down local charity offices say?

The first point is, ACORN isn’t the Salvation Army. ACORN (Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now) is the largest radical group in the US with “a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor.”

Sol Stern gives chapter and verse on this in an excellent City Journal investigation.

“It is no surprise that ACORN preaches a New Left–inspired gospel, since it grew out of one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization. In the mid-sixties, founder George Wiley forged an army of tens of thousands of single minority mothers, whom he sent out to disrupt welfare offices through sit-ins and demonstrations demanding an end to the “oppressive” eligibility restrictions that kept down the welfare rolls. His aim: to flood the welfare system with so many clients that it would burst, creating a crisis that, he believed, would force a radical restructuring of America’s unjust capitalist economy.”

“The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley’s wildest dreams. From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city’s private economy. Yet far from sparking a restructuring of American capitalism, this explosion of the welfare rolls only helped to create a culture of family disintegration and dependency in inner-city neighborhoods, with rampant illegitimacy, crime, school failure, drug abuse, non-work, and poverty among a fast-growing underclass.”

The second, even more important point to remember is what this suggests about President Obama’s core values. I say “suggests” because nobody save the President, his wife, and his trusted political associates (such as his team of often highly dubious czars) seems actually to know what they are, and this is what has got at least one half of America very worried.

We know that he has worked closely with ACORN in the past and that he remains a great admirer. Stanley Kurtz showed in an investigation for National Review last year that Obama helped train ACORN staff, that some of his colleagues were involved in “direct action” like the storming of Chicago city council and that his “long service”led many members to serve as his “shock troops” in his early political campaigning. But no one has yet got to the heart of what his precise involvement was – or indeed is.

Could it be that Obama is ACORN’s Manchurian Candidate – imposing on the US the hard left welfare agenda of his sponsors, soulmates, and fellow travellers in the innocuous guise of healthcare reform, “bailouts” for the economy, and environmentalism?

Obama’s libtard supporters would no doubt dismiss such theories as “Conservative wing nuttery”.They’d probably say the same about some of the very telling questions posed by MSher1 below my last piece on this subject:

1. His father was a radical in Kenya. The best friend of his maternal grandfather, who raised him, was an avowed communist. We have no information on his mother or stepfather. Not his fault who his ancestors are, but children of communists tend to be communists. Candidate Obama certainly used the word “redistribution.” Continual references to tax cuts for 95% or some such percentage of the population, when only about 30% or some such percentage pay taxes certainly means redistribution. What are his beliefs? No one has asked.
2. Speaking of family, what has happened to his Kenyan aunt who turned out to be living illegally in the U.S. in publicly funded housing? How is it that family-man Obama didn’t know about his aunt, and millionaire Obama wasn’t financially helping her?
3. Speaking of millionaire Obama, the millions supposedly come from book sales. (We won’t bother with his obscure financial dealings with Tony Resko, who has close links with people who were lobbyists for Iraq. Neither the financial dealings or Resko’s links to Iraq have been investigated.) But let’s go back to the books. Two of them published before he was a national figure. Now how did that happen? Not so easy, as an unknown, to get books published. And, before he was a national figure, who actually bought the books? Any chance that those who had been “mentoring” (i.e., grooming) him got those publishing contracts and arranged purchases of copies as a way of getting money to him?
4. There has never been a discussion of why he spent a year in Pakistan as a young man, how he got there, what passport he used and what he did while there. Without details of that trip, he would never get a basic security clearance.
5. Speaking of young man Obama and those who have been “mentoring” (i.e., grooming) him. He started college at Occidental, a not prestigious school. By his own admission, he was a poor student there. Yet somehow he transferred to a Columbia, a very prestigious university. Lateral transfers of bad students from a small-time school to a big-time elite university doesn’t happen, unless someone influential makes it happen. Who made that happen? Who had identified Obama as worth helping so early in his life, and why? No one has ever asked.
6. Obama’s early career as a “community organizer” has never been explored. Who did he organize to do what? The press has never asked. The one thing known is that he was a lawyer to the group ACORN – oddly enough, a group very involved in registering voters and now involved in numerous scandals regarding voter and other kinds of fraud. Oh, ACORN is funded with federal funds. There was going to be a Congressional investigation of ACORN, then it was scrubbed. No explanation.

There are plenty more questions where those came from – scroll down below the blog and have a look.

Call me a Right-wing nut, but I reckon the Manchurian Candidate has got some answering to do.

Related posts:

  1. How conservative pranksters made idiots of Obama’s favourite left-wing charity ACORN
  2. My problem with Barack Obama isn’t that he’s black…
  3. How ‘tech-savvy’ Barack Obama lost the health care debate thanks to sinister Right-wing blogs like this one
  4. Why did Congressman Joe Wilson need to apologize for calling Obama a liar?

 

On Plimer, Climate Change and the Ineffable Barkingness of George Moonbat

As Rod Liddle has noticed over at the Spectator today, the Guardian’s resident Climate Fear Promoter George Monbiot has written yet another long and foaming rant about his favourite topic: why he’s right and why everyone who disagrees with him is a heretic and a fool who deserves to be cast into outer darkness.

Now I have no objection to this tack in principle: I have been guilty of it myself from time to time. (Oh all right, always). But here’s one of the key differences between Moonbat and me. Most of the things I advocate are going to make you richer, happier and free-er. Whereas, if anyone ever chooses to take any of the self-hating Old Stoic’s ravings seriously, we’ll soon all be living in caves, travelling round in coracles, and dining on nettles and ground acorns, while gangs of fascistic Misery and Ecological Righteousness Supervisors led by the Prince Of Wales, the Hon Jonathan Porritt and Zac Goldsmith patrol the realm in their BioFuel-powered Aston Martins whipping us (but not in a fun way) with organically grown birch twigs.

Anyway, that’s by the by. What I really want to do here is correct a misapprehension I’ve noticed among one or two blog comments of late: viz, that Aussie Professor Ian Plimer – author of Heaven And Earth – somehow chickened out of, or even lost his debate re Anthropogenic Global Warming with the Moonbat and that the subject was now closed.

What? Eh? Quoi? In your dreams Moonbat!

And I say “In your dreams Moonbat” because the only way anyone could possibly have reached this conclusion is by reading one of his magisterially self-deluding columns. (God they must have some stamina!)

Here are the facts. Prof Plimer offered to fly at his own expense from Australia to London to debate publicly with George Monbiot, fair and square, with no conditions attached.

Monbiot, as I reported before, was the one who chickened out. But he did it such a way as to try to present himself as the victor.

You can read for yourself in full the exchange of letters in which Monbiot wriggled out of the debate at the Moonbat’s website. A more perfect case of cognitive dissonance you rarely did see. The contrast between what Monbiot repeatedly tells you – that he won the debate because Plimer chickened out – and the evidence of their correspondence speaks for itself.

As promised Professor Plimer is now coming to London to lecture on Climate Change on November 12 at Savoy Place. If Monbiot is too scared to turn up and present his side of the argument, that’s his fault not Plimer’s.

Related posts:

  1. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?
  2. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  3. ‘Germany’s George Monbiot’ turns climate sceptic
  4. Climate Change: an emetic fallacy

 

My Mate Dan Hannan Has Written a Book…

I think in collaboration with a Conservative MP. I’ve heard vague rumours that it may even be the most important and influential book in Tory policy-making circles since Margaret Thatcher picked up the Road To Serfdom. But being as dear Dan so resolutely refuses to blog about it, I just can’t remember the name.

Can any kind readers help?

Note: The “book” is, of course, How We Invented Freedom and Why It Matters, and it is available on Amazon:

Related posts:

  1. Don’t Vote For Hannan’s crappy blog
  2. Margaret Thatcher dies; Dave basks in the limelight
  3. Dan Hannan is not a racist
  4. Charlie Brooker on Hannan: not even close to being funny

 

How Conservative Pranksters Made Idiots of Obama’s Favourite Left-Wing Charity ACORN

A skinny white prostitute and her pimp turn up at the office of Barack Obama’s favourite US “poverty action” charity ACORN (Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now). They want advice on a few problems, like how best to bring over a “couple” of – well, 13, actually – underage girls from El Salvador to work in this brothel they’ve got planned, without attracting too much heat from the authorities. How can they get a mortgage, how should they deal with their tax affairs, how do they legitimize their immoral earnings and so on?

ACORN’s expert advisers are more than happy to oblige, as this hilarious video – first posted at the BigGovernment site – reveals.

Hilarious because, of course, the footage is a stitch-up. It was filmed with a hidden camera and acted out by two very brave young US investigative journalists – Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe, keen to expose the dubious moral standards of the radical left organisation. (Using methods not unakin to those advocated by Obama’s preferred leftist agitator Saul Alinsky)

Since then they have struck twice more. First at one of ACORN’s Washington DC offices. Most recently in New York – where, among the advice they were given was to hide their illicit gains in a tin and bury it in their back yard.

A neat little scoop which has already caused several heads to roll at ACORN, and, as Toby Harnden reports today has led the US Census Office to break its controversial links (for chapter and verse see Stephanie Guttman’s blog on this) with the notorious organisation. But is it really any more significant than that?

Well, of course, those on the liberal-left would have you believe not. It’s just another of those typical right-wing smear campaigns that conservative “nut jobs” like Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart have so cynically concocted to discredit Democrats in general and the saintly Obama in particular.

Naturally I beg to differ. As something of a professional conservative nut job myself, I find that one of the hardest struggles of my daily existence is persuading the world that I’m not in this game just to be wilfully contrarian and I’m not in it because I’m a heartless, evil bastard who is never happier than when crushing the aspirations of the poor, the disabled or anyone from an ethnic minority.

The reasons I’m a conservative are a) because I do care actually and b) because I’ve seen the alternative and it sucks.

For a shining example of b) look no further than these ACORN video exposes, which show exactly what’s wrong with practical socialism. 1. Big government takes your hard-earned money. 2. It spends on it an organisations like ACORN so rotten to the core and with values so inimical to your own, that frankly it would easier if you’d taken 40 per cent of your income in a big suitcase down to the nearest housing project, allowed yourself to be mugged – and cut out the middle man.

Related posts:

  1. Barack Obama: ACORN’s Manchurian Candidate?
  2. How ‘tech-savvy’ Barack Obama lost the health care debate thanks to sinister Right-wing blogs like this one
  3. Why we need more conservative madrassas
  4. Gove v Humphrys: reason enough to vote Conservative

 

Nazis: The Gift That Goes on Giving

Tomorrow – today if you’re reading this on Wednesday 14 October – I’ll be giving a lunchtime talk with fellow author and World War II junkie Guy Walters at Cheltenham literature festival.

Guy might slip in a brief mention of his fascinating and brilliant new book on fugitive Nazi war criminals Hunting Evil (in which he reveals, inter alia, that 95 per cent of the extravagant claims made by supposed Nazi-hunting kingpin Simon Wiesenthal were a figment of the old fraud’s imagination). I’ll probably let slip at some point that I’m the author of the fabulously exciting Dick Coward World War II adventures Coward On The Beach and Coward At The Bridge. Mainly though what we’ll be discussing is the enduring appeal of the Nazis.

In the publishing world Nazi Germany is nicknamed “the gift that keeps on giving” because it outsells books on pretty much any other subject, save possibly cats and golf. (That’s why when the great humorist Alan Coren wanted to write the biggest bestseller ever, he jokily called it Golfing For Cats and put a fluttering swastika on the front).

Like many people, Guy and I are almost unhealthily fascinated with the Nazis, for many of the obvious reasons: they had some of the most lurid bad guys (Hitler; Himmler; Goering…), they had the most iconic weaponry (the flak 88, the Tiger tank, the panzerfaust, the Stuka…), they had the best uniforms (some of them designed by Hugo Boss), and, of course, they were responsible for the Holocaust and the war that led to the deaths of around 60 million – making them some of the most revoltingly evil people ever to stalk the earth. (And like it or not, evil is a fascinating subject).

What this doesn’t, of course, mean is that Guy and I happen to sympathise with the Nazis’ policies. Au contraire. Guy and I are both libertarian right wingers – almost outrageously pro-Israel and philo-Semitic; fanatically opposed to anything that looks like Big Government; passionate about liberty (and meat-eating, and fox-hunting) – which means we stand for pretty much everything that Hitler and the Nazis hated.

One of the things that liberal-lefties love to do whenever they want to close down a political argument with people on the right is to accuse their opponents of being “fascists” or “Nazis”. Utter balderdash. The red in the Nazi flag is the red of communism – that’s how closely linked the two ideological movements are. The only reason we think of Nazism as being ‘right-wing’ today is because Stalin very successfully tarred it as such. Orwell understood this game as long ago as the 1940s when he wrote “the word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ’something not desirable’” [thanks David Gillies]. And if this truth wasn’t obvious before, it has certainly been made so by the publication of Jonah Goldberg’s thorough demolition of the “Nazis were right wingers” myth Liberal Fascism.

Who are the modern Nazis? Certainly not right wing libertarians such as Walters and myself. Look instead, I should say, to the modern Green movement: the fanaticism; its pagan deification of Nature; the denial of any scientific evidence that doesn’t suit its cause; its persecution of heretics; the suppression of free speech; its all-encompassing dedication to one obsessive Weltanschauung.

Or look at Islamism.

Whoever today’s Nazis are they are most definitely not Conservatives of any hue. This is plain fact and it simply cannot be rubbed in the faces of libtards, green lunatics, Islamists, and other fascistic psychos often enough. As I’m sure Guy and I will take great pleasure in reiterating if and when we have the pleasure of your company at 12pm Wednesday at the Cheltenham Literary Festival.

Related posts:

  1. Why do I call them Eco Nazis? Because they ARE Eco Nazis
  2. Churchill’s conservatives are, ‘like, total Nazis’, says Dr Goebbels
  3. Greens, like Nazis, see the entire world through the prism of one big idea: theirs
  4. Et Tu, Eddie Izzard?

Frank Field for Prime Minister

Frank Field’s piece in today’s Telegraph about the difficulties facing the next British government is well worth reading. He outlines, more lucidly and – ahem – frankly than any other politician I have read just how royally screwed our economy is; and how drastically any incoming administration is going to have to cut public spending if it is to repair our finances.

He cites the shocking figure from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the recession “has wiped out nearly five per cent of our total wealth.” This, he depressingly explains, “means the country is permanently poorer, and will take well over a parliament just to restore its lost wealth.”

Then he tells us why this recession is unique:

“In all previous recoveries, tax revenues have been quickly restored. Not so this time. The Government admits that, even with the economy growing once again, there will still be a gap of £80 billion in 2013 between revenue and spending.”

He goes on to explain why the Brown/Darling quantitative easing programme is merely putting off the hour of reckoning when Britain faces bankruptcy:

“Britain is borrowing proportionately more than any other major economy, and lenders have a galaxy of countries from which to choose. When the Government is unable to print any more new money to buy its own debt, the market will insist on higher long-term interest rates. This will not only make it more difficult to sustain an economic recovery, but it will increase the cost of servicing this debt.”

Finally, he comes up with two very useful ways an incoming administration can rein in public spending.

First, through pensions reform:

“A truly reforming government could set itself the task of abolishing pension poverty by building up a compulsory funded scheme around the current pay-as-you-go state pension. It would mean that today’s workers would have to put more of their pay into savings, but they would own their own assets, and gain a guarantee that no one would retire into poverty.

“Such a reform would see the current £15 billion spent on means-testing for pensioners fall to almost nothing over the decades. Simultaneously, the Government should announce that its only goal in pensions was to secure that decent minimum for everyone, phasing out over a similar period the almost £40 billion taxpayers currently spend each year on subsidising pension savings.”

And second, by slicing several juicy steaks from David Cameron’s most sacred cow, the NHS:

“A similarly radical approach must be imposed on the NHS. While productivity has improved by 23 per cent in the private sector over the past decade, in the public sector it has actually fallen. If the same productivity improvements had been delivered by the NHS, for example, the exact same level of service could have been bought for £26 billion less.

“The radical alternative to an across-the-board cut in NHS services is to insist on the productivity increases that have already been delivered across the private sector. Labour has in the past been almost exclusively concerned about how much money is going into a service. The new politics will focus exclusively on outputs.”

You’ll be reading all this and nodding your head and going: “Oughtn’t all this to be bloody obvious?” And you’re dead right. Nothing Frank Field says in the piece is exactly new or original. But what’s such a breath of fresh air – and why so many of us on both sides of the political divide so love the man – is its clarity, directness and freedom from cant.

Frank Field, let us not forget, is a Labour MP. Yet he has managed to articulate truths which seem to be quite beyond the expressive powers of anyone in Cameron’s Conservative party.

“Bribing voters with their own money is no longer an option,” he says.

Yes, exactly! But how many times have you ever heard any of Cameron’s lot try to articulate the moral and intellectual case against tax and spend?

Seldom, I’m sure. Probably never, because anyone who tried to do so would be quickly gagged under Cameron’s “Don’t say anything that makes us sound like remotely like Tories,” policy.

Yes, sure, both Cameron and Osborne have been dropping one or two hints of late about the necessarily tough fiscal measures they’re going to have to adopt on getting into power; on the amount of hurt they’re going to have to inflict on the electorate.

But what they’ve signally failed to do is indicate they’ve remotely understood the scale of the problem. (If they did, they wouldn’t be talking about ring-fencing spending on the NHS).

Nor does it appear to have occurred to them that, though a cut in public spending could initially be a painful thing, it could also have the most enormous side benefits – not just in restoring public finances but also in freeing citizens from the shackles of the overweening state.

Looking at the list in the papers the other day of some of Cameron’s bright new Conservatives to watch out for, my heart sank, as it so often does these days when contemplating our future leaders.

“You lot,” I thought to myself (and I’ve known some of them personally since Oxford) “Do not have an effing clue. You’re still of the mindset which thinks the most dramatic problems facing the Tory party are things like its stance on homosexuality and green issues.” But the public has moved on; so has the economy. I despair, I really do.

Related posts:

  1. Boris Johnson for Prime Minister
  2. ‘Cut government spending and cute kittens like this will die!’ says hard-hitting, unbiased BBC ‘report’
  3. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  4. Ron Paul is right. Military adventurism is a luxury we can no longer afford

 

Why Did Congressman Joe Wilson Need to Apologize for Calling Obama a Liar?

At the weekend I spoke on California talk radio KSFO 560 FM about Lockerbie, Mandelson and other terrible things with one of my favourite hosts Barbara Simpson – aka The Babe In The Bunker. All was going swimmingly until I made the mistake of saying I thought President Obama was a fundamentally decent man, who just happened to have an unusually extensive, sub-Adamms-Family creepfest of disgusting libtard scuzzballs working for his administration.

No one disputed the second part (how could you? items for my defence: Nancy Pelosi, Cass Sunstein, Carol Browner, Van Jones….) but the first suggestion prompted an instant outraged call from one listener. And rightly so, as I was quickly forced to concede. Just because Obama looks great in a suit, has a rich, deep (if increasingly soporific and platitudinous) speaking voice, a wife with well-sculpted arms, an interesting breed of dog and two cute daughters does not in anyway prove that he is a fundamentally nice guy. In fact, the longer he’s in power, the more I suspect otherwise.

As Andrew McCarthy so amusingly put it the other day at NRO’s Corner, “Obama is not Mr Magoo”. In this case, McCarthy was talking about the risibly lax vetting procedures the president applies to the appalling libtard cronies he wants to appoint as Czars, such as the recently resigned 9/11 Truther, watermelon and black activist Van Jones.

“The point, of course, is that Obama vetted Jones just fine. President Obama is not Mr. Magoo — haplessly gravitating to Truther Van and Ayers and Dohrn and Klonsky and Davis and Wright and the Chicago New Party and ACORN, etc. Jones is a kindred spirit. Obama knows exactly who he is. Jones was given a non-confirmation job precisely because that circumvented the vetting process. This isn’t one of those things that just happen. This is Barack “Transparency” Obama gaming the system.”

But he might just as well have been addressing any other aspect of the President’s John Gotti approach to politics, which is to say, POTUS gets to be the smiley guy in the nice threads who wouldn’t hurt a flea while his minions take care of all the concrete boots, horse’s heads in beds, and such like.

The fact that Representative Joe Wilson felt compelled to apologize for calling Obama a liar during a televised address speaks volumes for President Obama’s success in portraying himself as a kind of noble, lofty, honest figurehead, far above the grubby business of mere politics. But Obama isn’t. And as several commentators – including Kevin Williamson at National Review and Toby Harnden – have now amply demonstrated, Obama almost certainly WAS lying in this case when he said that his Obamacare plans would not result in US taxpayers forking out more for illegal immigrants.

“I’m a big believer we all make mistakes,” said Obama, magnanimously accepting Wilson’s apology.

But where was the mistake?

Related posts:

  1. Is ‘Kojak’ Obama losing all his hair?
  2. Obama: when all else fails, blame Dubya and the CIA
  3. Benghazi and Obama: the media is trying to shore up this desperate administration
  4. Obama’s won the Nobel Peace – WTF?!