When our government was insisting that we go to war with Iraq, I told anyone who would listen that it didn’t make any sense, that Saddam Hussein did not pose any threat to the US and our leaders were simply up to no good. My conservative friends angrily disagreed, almost in unison, declaring that the evidence supplied by the Bush White House concerning WMDs was comprehensive, concrete and that the terror “crisis” was far too dire to entertain any dissent from some blind ignoramus like me.
Now the liberals have their own “crisis.”
Global warming, or to use the latest fashionable phrase, “climate change” has quickly become an article of faith for the Left. Heralding the importance of this week’s Copenhagen Climate Summit, the UK Guardian published the following: “Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.”
This is not the first time the media has aided the scientific community in an effort to warn the world about atmospheric Armageddon. Writes Gary Sutton at Forbes.com: “Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed ‘the coming ice age’… Random House dutifully printed ‘THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age.’ This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported ‘many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age.” Read More…
Do you believe in national self-government, the only basis for international co-operation? In local variation, historical consciousness, family life (founded on the marital union of one man and one woman), and the whole Biblical and Classical patrimony of the West? In agriculture, manufacturing, and small business? In close-knit communities, law and order, civil liberties, academic standards, and all forms of art? In mass political participation within a constitutional framework? And in respect for the absolute sanctity of each individual human life from the point of fertilization to the point of natural death?
If the answer to any, never mind all, of those questions is Yes, then you cannot possibly believe in the “free” market, which corrodes to nought all those and so very many other good things. There cannot be a “free” market but not in alcohol, gambling, drugs, prostitution or pornography; therefore, there must not be a “free” market. There cannot be unrestricted movement of goods, services or capital but not of labor, i.e., of migrants; therefore, there must not be unrestricted movement of goods, services or capital.
The reverse also holds, of course. You cannot have unrestricted movement of labor – few or no immigration controls – but not of goods, services and capital. You cannot have a “free” market in alcohol, gambling, drugs, prostitution or pornography but not in everything else. You cannot wish the end – the destruction of everything that conservatives exist in order to conserve – but not the means – the “free” market.
And you cannot support the “free” market but not its wars, nor oppose those wars without opposing the reason for them.
The older West Indians are the most polite, law-abiding, God-fearing people that you could ever want to meet. A very traditional British education system is still maintained in the Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean, most of which remain staunchly monarchist and several of which freely choose to remain British Overseas Territories, although Britain is trying to stop the Cayman Islands (like Saint Helena, where I was born and whence comes the whole of my mother’s family) from including Christianity in the new Constitution, as the local population strongly desires to do.
All in all, if, as Rod Liddle puts it on his Spectator blog, “young men from the African-Caribbean community” (half of all children with one Afro-Caribbean parent now have one white parent, anyway) commit “the overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London”, then there is something about Britain, and above all about London specifically, that has had that effect on them.
Likewise, Africa is now the most Christian continent on earth, and the heartland of orthodoxy both in Catholicism and in mainline Protestantism. Black Africans have very strong family structures, beautiful manners, and so on. Family-centered attendees at churches which, whatever one may think of their style, are certainly not lacking in substance used to be the archetypal, even stereotypical, blacks in America, too. But what are the archetypes, even the stereotypes, now?
There is no way around this. Africans and their descendants have been horribly corrupted by the great cities of the capitalist Anglosphere, which are not black, but white, constructs on every level and in every sense. When white Anglophonia looks with horror on black London three generations off the boat, or on black Chicago three generations off the train, then it is Caliban catching his own reflection, with everything that that entails. Paleocons should have no difficulty either in recognizing this, or in proposing solutions from within the family-centered, traditionally Christian critique of capitalism and its urbanization.
After the collapse of Anthropogenic Global Warming, which will be the next fortress to fall, the next to collapse among academic disciplines constructed to “prove” highly politicised presuppositions, so that they cannot come to any other conclusion, and no one who doubts that conclusion can ever have any part of the peer review process?
I can think of a few: population control, almost all economics at least as taught to high school students and undergraduates or given media attention (the “free” market), the organization of political science on a spectrum devised by Continental Marxists and not really applicable in practise even to their own countries, the entire sex education industry going back to Kinsey and his gang of psychopaths, embryonic stem cell “research”, the historiography of science assumed by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Biblical criticism, its underlying liberal theology, and that theology’s underlying concept of the rational or empirical method as somehow existing apart from Augustinian illuminism as a whole, to name but a few.
So, once all of those practitioners are out on their ears, what should we do with vast sums of money saved, and why?
It is reported that the Hungarian Gypsy-baiters of Jobbik are to open an office in London. Welcome to “the center ground”, where elections are said to be won and lost. Wherever it is, its British inhabitants are allegedly delighted to be at the very heart of the European federalist project favored by every American Administration since the War.
Not only is it supposedly moderate, mainstream and centrist to wish to be subject to a legislative body, the Council of Ministers, that meets in secret and publishes no Official Report. But is also to wish to be subject to the legislative will of the sorts of people that turn up in the coalitions represented in that Council. And, indeed, in the European Parliament. Stalinists and Trotskyists. Neo-Fascists and neo-Nazis. Members of Eastern Europe’s kleptomaniac nomenklatura. Neoconservatives such as now run France and Germany. Before long, the ruling Islamists of Turkey, and their opponents, variously extreme secular ultra-nationalists and Marxist Kurdish separatists.
When Jörg Haider’s party was in government in Austria, the totally unreconstructed Communist Party was in government in France. In the Council of Ministers, we in Britain were being legislated for by both of them. In the European Parliament, we still are, because we always are. People who believe the Provisional Army Council to be the sovereign body throughout Ireland may not take their seats at Westminster. But they do at Strasbourg. And so on, and on, and on. Jobbik already legislates for us in Britain, so it may as well have a branch here.
Speaking of people who believe the Provisional Army Council to be the sovereign body throughout Ireland, that view, backed up by arms, does not preclude their governing Northern Ireland, to the delight of “centrist” opinion, in coalition with a bizarre fundamentalist sect unconnected to mainstream Ulster Protestantism and with no Unionism beyond the view that the British taxpayer should foot the bill for its statelet. It does at least present that as Unionism. Its coalition partner presents having all the bills paid from Westminster as somehow Irish Republicanism.
“Centrists” do sometimes wish to exclude “foreign-born preachers of hate” from the United Kingdom. Quite right, too. And yes, that does mean the Islamists whom they have in mind. But what about a great many more? The signatories to the Project for the New American Century. Those American and other ecclesiastics who have expressed racist views about Africans and others who do not share their liberal sexual morality. Hans Küng, whose disparagement of the late Pope John Paul II’s Polishness made and make them the authentic voice of the age-old Teutonic racism against the Slavs; Küng only gets away with it because he is Swiss. Let these and a whole host of others, including Jobbik and indeed Geert Wilders, be excluded from my country. Their presence most certainly would not be, and periodically is not, conducive to the public good. Nor is being subject to their legislative will.
What say the “centrists”, who have never recanted their 1970s Stalinism or Trotskyism, or their 1980s support for Pinochet and apartheid? And how can they complain, as we all should, about preachers of hate from the Islamic world when they positively rejoice that Northern Ireland has been carved up among its own preachers of hate, while all of these islands have been handed over to the preachers of hate from the Arctic to the Mediterranean and from the Atlantic to within the former Soviet Union? Including Jobbik.
Freddy is absolutely correct in saying of the contrast between Obama’s rhetoric and neoconservatism “it’s not much of an argument, but it is right.” And so because I don’t have too much credibility apologizing for Obama in this connection, not least of all with myself, I will simply refer readers to Pat, who nails it as always, and also to Steve Walt. And it is for all these reasons that I must register strong disagreement with Jack Hunter that, whatever else Obama may be doing, he has not adopted the “Bush Doctrine”, indeed I’ve always questioned whether one should take seriously the existence of such a thing in the first place.
I would just also add that yes, this is really all about keeping violence down until after the midterms and then getting the hell out, and it would be for that reason especially that Obama will be sure to get out before going back to the voters. The moral objection to all this has its place, but it is pernicious to use it as cover to argue that we are dealing with Bush the Trotskyite all over again.
With his speech on our war in Afghanistan this week, the president who once preached “change” fully embraced his predecessor’s most dangerous idea: The Bush Doctrine. Describing this doctrine at West Point in 2001, said then President George W. Bush: “If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long. The war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge.”
At West Point eight years later–President Obama reaffirmed the Bush Doctrine. Read More…
The New York State Senate has re-affirmed that marriage is only ever the union of one man and one woman. Yet Obama easily carried New York, just as he did Maine, where the electorate recently made the same re-affirmation, even though it returns the two Republican Senators most likely to vote for the Healthcare Bill. “Yet”? “Even though”? So we are expected to believe. But Obama won California and Florida on the same day as those states endorsed traditional marriage. And traditional marriage is in fact Obama’s own view.
He still has some way to go on foreign policy realism, although he is better than either his internal or his external rivals. But on the nature of marriage, on paleocon trade policies, on support for the Stupak Amendment and the Pregnant Women Support Act, and even on illegal immigration and the status of English (although he needs to stop dropping hints and start taking action), Obama is both right in principle, and in tune with public opinion. Clinton and Bush dynastic retainers alike need to face up to the fact of their defeat.
Nasty old Obama. Yet more approved lines for useless embryonic stem cell “research”, which has never delivered anything and never will, whereas ethically unproblematic adult and cord blood stem cell research works yet struggles to secure funding. If only McCain had won? No, actually. McCain is no less in favor of this wicked and pointless “research”. And Sarah Palin was happy to be on his ticket.
Bank of America has to repay its bailout. So that it can start paying bonuses and huge salaries again. Faced with the behavior of the nationalized (to save it) Royal Bank of Scotland, its directors threatening to resign unless they can pay out any bonuses they like, all we can say is: God Bless America.