...Of the Same Coin

In a particularly cringing act of obeisance to the idol of political correctness new Tory premier David Cameron visited a centre for “black youth” before facing Tony Blair over the dispatch boxes in the House of Commons. Clearly sucking up to minorities has replaced kissing babies for politicians rich in personal ambition but poor in vision and integrity. And if you had been hoping that this embarrassing piece of electioneering barrel-scraping would be redeemed by a blistering performance in the Commons, chances are you were sorely disappointed.

Cameron has vowed to end “Punch and Judy” performances in the Commons, you see. I had thought that one of the great strengths of our democracy was that people were able to violently disagree without agreeing with violence. Not David Cameron it seems. Cameron is a fan of “consensus politics”. I’m a bit wary of consensus politics, personally. Mainly because when they tried it in the old Soviet Union and it resulted in the murder of around sixty million people.

The old cliché, “when everyone is thinking the same, nobody’s thinking very much” seems appropriate. "Consensus politics", even within the context of a multi-party democracy, is just another way of saying "totalitarianism". In The Morning of the Magicians (Louis Pauwel and Jacques Bergier's classic of counter-cultural literature) it was predicted that future governments would take the form of secret societies. Sure enough, in western Europe this secret society has taken the form of an amalgamation of minority interest groups, single-issue agitators and neo-Marxist academics. The acolytes are generally inculcated with the dogma of the cult in our educational establishments, and the belief system is reinforced via the medium of popular culture. Everyone knows that this is where the real "consensus" is coming from.

The differences between Blair and Cameron are so negligible as to be irrelevant. It's more a case of the clothes having no Emperor than the Emperor having no clothes.

Has Anyone Seen My Famine?

Missing! The famine promised by Africa has mysteriously disappeared. Can anyone help?

As recently as a month ago the media was heavy with portents of a dreadful famine destined to blight a mysterious country called "Nee-jerrrrrr". It transpires that this country was, in fact, the incompetently governed west African republic of Niger.

The predicted famine, which we were being told would be caused not by a lack of food (which was, in fact, abundant in the country) but because the starving couldn't afford to buy it (in other words an urban elite and their government allowing their rural population to starve to death. ...Is that really a famine?) seems to have dropped off the media radar. Cynics have suggested that the recent riots by "youths" (Muslims) in Paris, (and Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Greece, Germany...), murder of Anthony Walker, events in Iraq etc., have provided the liberal elite with more productive opportunities to slight Western civilisation.

If anyone finds the famine please post it to either Bob Geldof's London mansion or the five star hotel in Dublin owned by U2. There will be a reward of ingratitude and contempt.

Straight Hate

The BAAF (Britain's biggest adoption agency) stated in November that homosexuals can make better parents than heterosexuals because of their "greater variety of life experiences".

I guess some of them do have a greater variety of life experiences - if you count things like rampant promiscuity, anonymous sex in toilets and overexposure to designer labels, that is. I had thought that relationship stability and financial security were the main criteria when it came to adoption eligibility. Now that "variety of life experience" seems to be "where it's at" normal adopters had better get in line behind the circus acrobats, polar explorers and transvestite midgets.

The main qualification that BAAF seems to think gays have is that they are not heterosexual. In less enlightened times the response to this might have been "If you can't pay the fare, keep off the bus."

"You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch, You really are a heel! You're as cuddly as a cactus, You're as charming as an eel..."

Havant has outlawed Christmas. Instead the town's 99.1% white population will be treated to a sterile mutli-faith "Festival of Light". Despite having a decidedly neo-pagan ring to it this has actually turned out to be the meaning of "Diwali", the celebration held in November by Hindus. Residents of all creeds, now inadvertantly converted en masse to Hinduism by the state, will now be able to join in the celebrations, which they were apparently barred from in some way in previous years.

Initially condemning the move as "political correctness gone absolutely barmy" local councillors were later to be seen scrambling all over themselves like a team of circus clowns trying to do a pit job at the Silverstone Grand Prix after realising that the festival was their own creation. The eviction of Santa Claus from his grotto was pure coincidence, it was claimed, and down to fire safety regulations. Unfortunately the actual marching orders failed to mention fire safety at all, and Roger Green, president of the Lions Club that had ran the grotto, denied that there was any fire hazard to speak of. What with his being a fireman of thirty years experience and until recently Hampshire's premier fire prevention officer I'm inclined to believe him.

The town's "Festival of Light: Cleaner, Safer, More Prosperous" banner was similarly explained away. "It's not political correctness. This is an event for all the community but everbody knows it's about Christmas so there was no need to mention it." said councillor Jane Rayner with supremely twisted logic. Presumably there will be no need to mention the names of Easter or Thanksgiving on their respective dates in coming years either, given that knowing what they are about apparently makes such traditional labels redundant.

Coming Soon to a New Year near you: "Chocolate Capsule Day: Watered Down, Less Christian, More Simpering".

"Audi et Alteram Partem"

The Austrian government's belated admission that it has taken British historian David Irving into custody should come as no surprise to those who have been keeping track of the liberal intelligentsia's escalating campaign against thoughtcriminals. Arguments supported by reams of documentary evidence and original research have been expertly countered by making their conclusions (admittedly dubious) illegal.

When voicing an opinion on a matter of history is enough to earn you a jail sentence of up to twenty years (significantly longer than what a majority of rapists and paedophiles would find themselves facing) simply because a government finds it detrimental to their efforts in re-shaping a society one has to wonder how far removed continental Europe's left-leaning governments really are from the communist hell-nations their side of the political coin produced in the 20th century. Already they are remarkably casual in acting with neither the popular support or democratic consent of their people in curbing voices of dissent and introducing legislation nobody wants because they believe they "know what's best".

Irving's books and speeches on the holocaust do not incite or glorify violence (more than can be said for the works of rap "artists" that put things like rape and murdering policemen up on pedestals) but merely put forth a historical viewpoint. Whether the assertions of the man are a million miles off the mark or not is besides the point. Since you don't get arrested for going about saying other things widely considered untrue - that the moon landings were faked or that Genghis Khan was a parakeet, for example - we can only assume that there is a political agenda.