Headlines that don't make sense until after your first coffee #1

Paedophile Glitter arrives in UK

I swear I was thinking "what, glitter for paedophiles? Glitter that attracts paedophiles? Is this a new episode of Brass Eye? WHAT THE HELL IS THE BBC TALKING ABOUT?"

Which just goes to show how necessary coffee is in my life.

MI5 state obvious, media goes into shock

The Guardian has the info.

Am I terribly shocked? No. But then again, I studied terrorism using something other than Parliamentary statements and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. You know, with people who have spent their entire lives studying terrorists, mapping personalities, conducting interviews, modelling radicalization etc.

Marc Sageman in particular has been noting and publishing the trends MI5 have produced since the publication of his Understanding Terror Networks, if not before. Nothing in this report is really new from that. Religious novices? Check. Socially excluded or removed second or third generation immigrants? Check. Low incidence of mental illness? Check.

I'm surprised any of this is even considered news. Anyone who has been following the academic terrorism literature knew this stuff a long time ago. We have reports going back to the Red Brigades and UVF that rule out mental illness, or a particular personality type.

Other background details are interesting, highlighting the difference between the old Al-Qaeda (the professionals in their late 20s to 30s, who have families etc) and the new Al-Qaeda, the kids in their late teens or early 20s. The diversity of background, from sober, nearly areligious (until recently) professional family man with no criminal background, to the kid who has been caught taking drugs and possibly served a sentence for a violent crime, who cannot even read Arabic, is enormous.

And those are just two of the many profiles one could come up with. Factor in racial background, gender, educational history, geographical location etc and you quickly lose anything that resembles a useful description of a potential terrorist.

Even worse, terrorists often tailor their recruitment methods to avoid profiles. By concentrating on certain segments on the population, you just increase the evolutionary adaption of an organization. As the 7/7 bombings show, anyone who had been looking for foreign born, or all Pakistani radicals, for example, would have been caught out. And yes, you could argue the converse, that in fact some lives might have been saved, but the true mark of terrorism is targeting weak points, taking advantage of the unexpected and unconsidered. As soon as you focus on one area, and it becomes obvious (and believe me, with the internet, it will), then terrorist groups will regroup and attack from unexpected directions.

The best way, as Sageman notes, is to map the relationships between known violent radicals, facilitators of violent teachings and those who are involved in activity which is linked to terrorism. Target the smugglers (people or otherwise), the money launderers, the radical Imams with links to training camps in Pakistan or Indonesia or the Middle East. That is how you deal with Islamic terrorism.

And lets not overlook the possibility of a resurgence of rightwing, nationalist terrorism either. Its picking up in the USA, currently, and there could be international implications, when we consider how many have adapted themselves to narrative of the War on Terror, and the persistent Eurabia bullshit.

Anyway, a welcome report, and I am glad to see MI5 seem to know what they are doing.

Reasons to not drink coffee while reading BBC News

Tories 'best' to tackle poverty

George Osborne is set to claim that the Tories are best placed to tackle poverty and create a fair society.

I mean, seriously, are you trying to kill me here? I could have choked...

Oh dear, it looks like Boris is "off message"

Link.

Boris Johnson has described David Cameron's claim that Britain is a 'broken society' as 'piffle'.

In an intervention likely to dismay Tory HQ, the London mayor claimed our success at the Olympics proves youngsters are far from 'aimless, feckless and hopeless, addicted to their PlayStations'.

'If you believe the politicians, we have a broken society, in which the courage and morals of young people have been sapped by welfarism and political correctness,' he said.

'And if you look at what is happening at the Beijing Olympics, you can see what piffle that is.'

Oh dear. It would be terrible if this were the start of the unravelling of the Tory party message, and still 2 years from when the election is due. They'd have to come up with a whole new meme to explain why their plans for radical social reform (hang on, I thought it was the left who did the social engineering?) are so necessary.

Its GO TIME!

Drop everything, its time to protest!

Today, Littlejohn is bemoaning the lack of protests over Georgia and Russia's recent tangle.

I know in LJ's mind, bands of anarchists and communists sit around the streets of London, promoting terrorism and rape and knifecriming and Islam while the government pays them dole money, and so in theory they should be able to take to the streets and express their hatred for the enemy du jour at the drop of a hat, making their lack of current protesting suspect...but back here, in reality, things don't work like that.

Because, you know, things like permits and buses and placards and, oh I don't know, telling people to turn up, takes time, and by the time people considered doing that, the war was already over.

Of course, we could ask why Notorious RLJ hasn't bothered organizing a protest either, but he is likely too busy quivering from fear of the outside world, in his gated community in Florida, to comment.

Hitler was a sensitive man too

A picture of Italian Prime Minister,
Silvio Berlusconi, after the comments
were published

The Italian government is apparently upset by the "fascist" label applied to some of its policies by the Catholic Famiglia Cristiana magazine.

To quote a great American blogger, if they're so upset about being labelled fascists, perhaps they should stop acting like them. Maybe they should stop treating the Gypsy population like congenital criminals, and then perhaps people wont go around drawing obvious conclusions.

Come on Berlusconi, man up. What would Mussolini say if he saw his modern day disciples crying? A disgrace to the movement no doubt. The Blackshirts didn't get infamous by emulating the emo crowd, after all.

Time to scalp a wingnut, part 3: Anthony Browne, Culture Warrior

I realized I had promised some more commentary on Browne last weekend but, for various reasons such as illness, apathy, war-watching, sleeping, drugs, sex, rock and roll, aiding the eventual victory of the Caliphate over Europe etc etc I had simply not gotten around to doing it.

So I will now, while the ibuprofen is still kicking in.

The thing that most comes to mind about Anthony Browne, when he is not talking about EU politics or the environment, is how American influenced his viewpoints seem to be. I know I am one to talk. When I was St Andrews, I hung with a mostly American crowd, and my classes were typically consisted of an American majority - and since my subject was International Relations, I no doubt got a very good grounding in US politics, both internal and external. Also some of my online haunts are American too, and no doubt that does have an influence on me.

However, there is picking up bits and pieces from American politics, understanding the context and the flavour of the political climate, and then there is importing entire concepts and trying to apply them to another country.

I am, of course, referring to the Culture Wars. If you're unfamiliar with the term, the link I give is a quick primer, but you can better understand the divide by reading Daily Kos for a week, then reading, say, Michelle Malkin, or the Pajamas Media crew. In short, it is the irreconcilable culture divide between those who consider themselves progressive and left wing, and those who consider themselves traditionalists and right wing.

The problem is that of boundaries, or the parameters of political debate. The debates have polarized, and each side tends to believe the other is both wrong, yet unmoving in their position. In short, they do not believe the other side is competent as a political actor.

This view tends to be far more prevalent on the American right, which has become increasingly militaristic, nationalist, contemptuous of debate or the rule of law and politicized since 2000. It does not take long to find well known and public commentators who advocate civil rights groups or political leaders be arrested for treason - or worse. Naturally, there is too much of this on the American left as well, especially amongst the more militant groups and ideologies, but it is nowhere as much within the mainstream as it is within the right. The most outspoken on the American right do not just disagree with the Democrats or the American left - they quite literally believe they are not competent to be leading the country, because of their ideologies.

And therein lies the problem.

When you look at some of Browne's statements over at the Spectator, you can see elements of this being alluded to within his writing. Such comments as:

"Only in the last few years has it dawned on the government how dangerous the Left's war on Britishness really is."
Saturday, 23rd July 2005, The Spectator

or

"The support of Islamic fascism spans Britain's Left."
August 1, 2005, Times Online

or

"Many of the politically-correct left - including the Guardian, the Independent, most of the BBC… - have chosen to champion those who are deliberately trying to murder innocent civilians."
The Retreat of Reason, page 11

all seriously suggest rather than disagreements with policies or ideology, Browne believes that the left is an actively hostile force within the country, who should be tarred and feathered for their hatred of British culture, love of criminals, politically-correct censorship, promotion of immigration and multiculturalism and support of Islamic terrorism.

Browne's own retreat from reason accuses a good proportion of this country as actively or tacitly seeking to undermine and destroy it, by using lazy tabloid strawmen and grand sweeping statements he cannot back up. The fact that he is treated as a serious political commentator on any subject beyond the environment or EU continually amazes me. And yes, you could easily go back through this blog and find me using lazy strawmen and bad arguments to attack people, but the difference is:

1) I'm funny
2) I'm not paid for it
3) As much as I mock Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems etc I don't suggest that the ideologies behind them, or a vague, nebulous grouping like "the right" is trying to destroy Britain. Well, except the BNP, but they're fascist scumbags who can choke and die on my magnificent penis if they have a problem with it. Also, while they might be trying, the BNP are comedy fascists who couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery, let alone a concerted campaign to undermine the country.
4) My arguments are not designed to be serious political commentary. They are meant to mock and belittle idiots who try to carry out serious political commentary while having no appreciable talent or knowledge about politics.

The thing is, Britain does not have a culture war like the USA does. There is not that deep divide stemming from the Vietnam War, the resurgence of religious belief in a legally secular nation, that polarization of issues. If anything, politics in Britain is converging, with all parties desperately trying to claim the centre, instead of trying to fight at a cultural level to move society in their favour. That has been the overall strategy of the American right in particular, which is why the proliferation of alternative conservative outlets, think tanks, political action groups, education and reference guides is a worry. Home-schooling, Conservapedia, the Christian rock scene, Pajamas Media and so on are all excellent examples of groups whose aims are to supplant the traditional outlets and politicize content in favour of the GOP and "movement conservatism".

Browne in fact has praised elements of this strategy, namely the American rightwing think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute or Heritage Foundation who:

have helped push the whole political centre of gravity way to the right of that of the UK. The AEI is (in)famous for promoting the invasion of Iraq, while Heritage has kept social conservatism and the importance of religion high on the policy agenda. Cato has helped mute the siren calls of protectionism.

[...]

It would be far healthier for democracy and debate in Britain if our ideas industry managed to step up to the American level."
Wednesday, 14th May 2008, The Spectator

Uh-huh. Because it has been so healthy in America recently, and has not turned their political culture into a slanging match where loudmouthed brownshirts like Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson are considered serious thinkers.

Oh, wait.

Oh, and another thing, anyone who thinks that the AEI is a centre-right group is seriously out of whack. Any group which has Irving "I love wars of national greatness" Kristol and John "yeah, torture is fine" Yoo, not to mention Fred Kagan, John Bolton, David Frum, fascist sympathizer Michael Ledeen and Newt Gingrich is not, by any sensible measure near the centre. Unless the centre-right now stands for wars of aggression, unchecked executive powers, torture, suspension of haebus corpus and other nasty policies we have come to know and despise all over again, thanks to the Bush administration.

And I, unlike Browne, who would certainly assert such a thing was a feature of the mainstream left if our roles were reversed, do not believe that to be the case.

The attempt to start a culture war in the UK has always been the preserve of crazies. Look at the sort of people who try it, honestly. We have the BNP, Melanie Phillips, Anthony Browne, RESPECT, those Christian nutters on Channel 4 recently, the Muslim crazies like Abu Hamza...

Sensible people across the political spectrum do not want such a fight. It is pointless, wasteful and nasty. It does nobody any good, it degrades the political culture and ruins politics as a means to a better life. It makes enemies of otherwise decent people and sets the entire politically aware population against each others throats.

Its really not worth it. Not to say its not worth fighting, especially in the case of the USA, where the political culture swung scarily to the right for a while (2002-3), but it is certainly not worth instigating. And I have to question the motives, or indeed fitness for the office of political advisor, of someone who chooses act like there is one ongoing.

Armchair Generals - Russian edition

Lets see what the erudite and great strategic minds over at the Daily Mail have to say on the terrible conflict that erupted in the secessionist Georgian regions yesterday:

Well if they have Russian passports then they know where to move to. Georgia has every right to evict them out of their sovereign lands.

- Neil, Frankfurt, Germany, 8/8/2008 11:54

I hope Germany throws you the fuck out, you hideous little cretin.

Nato will defend Georgia - in which case Russia stop meddling unless you want a bloody nose. This whole problem is the Kremlin's making.

- Terence, UK, 8/8/2008 13:42

Yeah, a bigger war will make everything better! Now, we just have to figure out if Russia can overrun Europe before the troops get back from Iraq and Afghanistan...fuck it, Risk was never this difficult.

Why does John think that it is Ossetians desire to be free?!it is Russia who wants to appropriate the land of Georgia.Ossetia and Abkhazia had been georgians too long time ago.And when Russians conquered Ossetia, 80 percent of population were georgians,that is diffference between Kosovo and Ossetia.....Russia has 50 auonomies and if they all bee free like Kosovo there will be no Russia any more.And if we do not know history we do not have right to speak such things!

- maritucka-15, georgia tbilisi, 8/8/2008 14:29

Yeah, Russia started it by making Georgia invade South Ossetia! Those uppity South Ossetians should have abandoned their homes or been killed back in 92, the ingrates.

It wouldn't have something to do with Russia wishing to get control of the nearby Baku Ceyhan Pipeline, the only one which feeds Caspian Oil to the west, which does not pass thru Russian territory, the one that was blown up by "Kurdish Dissidents" a few days ago ???? Perhaps I am being a little cynical. Anyhow let the games begin and forget the fact that one of the wests major energy arteries is about to be cut.

- alan wilson, London UK, 8/8/2008 14:37

Again, the nefarious hand of Russia forced the Georgian invasion. If only they could use their vast influence to control the Georgian government to give them all that oil...

Russia needs to know that it is insignificant in the face of NATO - it no longer has any real power. The EU & US should secure Georgia and access to its vast oil reserves. Then on to MOSCOW!

- W, UK, 8/8/2008 17:31

I mean, seriously, invading Russia as winter draws closer? What could possibly go wrong?

What a situation to develope! And here everyone was concerned about Taiwan/China.
Will Nato come to the rescue?Will the US/UK prosper from equipment sales/service?
Will the US send troops there also? Could this eacalate to Nuclear war? I wonder what Bush is thinking, while 'enjoying' the games! Will the 'Cabal' send in their UFO's?, to fight the Russians? Maybe it will be a fight between USA Cabal UFO Force and Russian UFO Force. How will China respond? These are surely 'interesting' times

- James Cesan, Wardsboro,Vermont,USA, 8/8/2008 17:57

But what if China responds with its own UFOs? And the reptilian conspiracy ally with them? Do we even know where the Bavarian Illuminati stands?

Poignant questions indeed.

Normally I would never be caught dead giving thumbs up to the Russians, but Georgia has no right to blaightantly kill Russian peacekeepers AND civilians and then call for help from It's bigger brothers (the west).

Besides, at the end of the day, Georgia incuring the wrath of Russia is like a rat spittng in the face of the bear.

- Anthony, Erith, England, 8/8/2008 18:37

Thumbs up you Russian dudes! Great job on bombing those Georgian civilians in retaliation.

Good way to try "our" systems against "theirs" without any one important getting hurt. Look forward to the analysis.

War is fun when someone else is playing it.

- Tim Phillips, Tilburg, The Netherlands, 8/8/2008 18:42

REMF. Capische, chickenhawk?

I see that many people are misinformed that Georgians had started this war,Russians said this too.but it is a lie.2 days ago "Ossetians" began the war,our prezident begged them several times to stop it and offered to negotiate, but they refused.and we have our dignity!

- marituca 15, georgia tbilisi, 8/8/2008 19:17

Again, the dastardly hand of the Ossetian/Russian conspiracy, forcing the Georgians to invade and kill them. Is it just me, or does this sound like the sort of excuse a wifebeater would give? "Look what you made me do" and all that.

It was inevitable that this would happen. Russians have always been the same. Unlike China in its political disagreement with Taiwan, Russia always goes for blood. Its the nature of the beast.

- Phil de Buquet, Newport England, 8/8/2008 20:13

Phil understands the Russian mind, from having read Tom Clancy novels.

I never trusted Russia, they still have the same USSR ideals and their presidents have too much power, I hope a ceasefire can be reached soon before Russia tries to claim back all of Georgia which would have the west get involved and restart the cold war

- Connor, Oreogn, USA, 8/8/2008 20:17

So unlike your own dear President, who has limited his power massively and made clear his hatred of war as a part of foreign relations.

Back to the Old Russia, how cynical while the World watches the Olympics they again abuse their power.


Reminds me of NU Labour, "Hide bad news amongst the good".

Seems thay have killed more civilians than the allies did taking the whole of Iraq.

- John, Creigiau, Cardiff, 8/8/2008 20:29

I totally see the New Labour connection. No, really...

With everyone looking at China right now it is a good day to bury bad news.

Russian democracy in action - Putin style.

- peter, Germany, 8/8/2008 20:49

Because the Georgian President would never order crack down on peaceful protests, or spend 70% of his GDP on his military, oh no....

"150 tanks and other armoured vehicles" is not much of an "invasion", especially not by Russian standards. That's about the bare minimum I would need to take control of some fourth world banana republic or to mount a raid into Zimbabwe for 72 hours.
Ask the Czechs and the Hungarians (or even the Afghans!) what a Russian "invasion" looks like....

- Robert, Worcester UK, 8/8/2008 20:51

Gosh yes, when I was playing Civ III the other day and I tried to invade with 150 tanks, I just got slaughtered....

Sorry, how is it that Georgia started this fighting? Are they the ones who amassed an army at the border and invaded Russia? Methinks it was the other way around. Russia planned this long ago as part of a well thought out military strategy. Everyone has the right to defend the country against a rolling parade of tanks and aircraft bombing their land. If you believe that you don't have that right - then it's no wonder your country is being taken over by immigrants, knife-weilding yobs, and religious consorts who say that Sharia law is the way to go. You don't know how to take a stand - at least Georgians in their young democracy do.

- Marilyn, USA, 8/8/2008 21:06

Ah, another American lecturing us. Pray tell, how did Russia invade if their troops had already been in place for 16 years? Is this like...geological style invasion or something? As for your comments on the UK....enjoy the Reconquista, bitch. I hope you like burritos.

The same Russhian tactic: they give Russian passports to some people, and later they are sending the army "to protect them", and " to avoid" further killings, or to "assure peace keeping".

Let face it: this is the Russian method to keep different war conflict zones and to control different areas.

Poor Georgian people, I admire them for their standing. On the other hand if Putin understands to continue under any means the politic of " Peter the Great", then he has to assume all consequences.

And that will drag Russia in bad political relations and bad economic situation. The oil and the gas will be finished in the future.... After that what will they sell more ? What they are trying to steal from different small countries like Georgia ? "Creating" Russians communities in order to have what "to protect" ?

It is a dirty game, and is cinic that they are playing this game with the lifes of the Russians they are saying that are protecting...

It is regretable

- Petre, Bucharest, 8/8/2008 22:04

Yeah, remember how those Russians gave out tons of passports to facilitate the invasion of Germany in WWII? Moron.

It's far to easy to blame the Georgian authorities for this flare up. Yes some of the SO population want to be part of a greater Russia. But a foreign power (Russia) handing out thousands of it's passports to citizens in a foreign country (Georgia) only then to claim that they are threatening military force to protect their 'new' Russian nationals is tantamount to usurping the national government. The anology is simple if pro French Scots, of which there are still a lot, were handed thousands of French passports would that give France the right to invade Scotland to protect it's newly acquired 'nationals'. Of course not the UK Government would object and take action to prevent such an invasion.
The case for an independant Scotland via the ballot box however is another matter.

- pat, South of England, 8/8/2008 22:09

Dont ask why it is different, it just is.

And something more:

I quote:

Medvedev warned: 'I as president of Russia, am obliged to protect the lives and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are located.

'We won't allow the death of our compatriots go unpunished.'

So where are located the next Russiand to be protected.... You all know the list...

- Petre, Bucharest, 8/8/2008 22:17

Dear god, you mean....Russia might invade Moscow next?

You can't paint every conflict with the same brush, this is nothing like Kosovo. Russia is the aggressor here, Georgia taking back S.O & Abkhazia is no different then we took back the Falklands or Northen Ireland. The problem is Russia dosen't want Georgia becoming an democratic indepant wealthy nation, hence its step in support of the sepratists since Georgia attempt at NATO memebership in April this year.

Russia dosen't give a dam about the 'Russian Citizens' in S.O, its a message to Western leaning nations (Ukraine and other former USSR States) of whats instore if they don't follow suit with the Kremlin and a big middle finger to the US/Nato.

- Jay, UK, 8/8/2008 22:48

Russia is still aggressing by not invading. How dare they???

Once the EU military forces are up snd running, if Britian tries to pull out of the Marxist EU State, the British people will come under fire. We need to leave EU now!

- Catherine Walker, South Kensington, London, UK, 8/8/2008 23:40

One tin-foil hat for Ms Walker, please....

Once the EU takeover is complete, the EU armies will fight the British and Irish, so we all need to pull together and all leave EU now! Do not forget that the English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh are seen as niggling minorities that need to be crushed by EU!

- Patricia O'Rourke, Dublin, Ireland, 8/8/2008 23:49

Make that another, for Ms O'Rourke as well...

Voland of France has hit the nail on the head. International intrigues as ever are behind the scenes . . . . and in our so-called democracies (dumbocracies) all are totally oblivious to the real string pullers. God knows where this will end. All we can be sure of is that the opinionsts of both sides will suffer. And each will blame each other. Man is still a primitive.

- michael, liverpool, 8/8/2008 23:55

Fuckit, make that three....

Who on earth would want to live in Russia it seems they have all got a bit of Stalin in them the way they keep fighting No consideration for human life what ever just keep riding rough shod over anybody what a nation

- Brian Stanier, Stourbridge West Midlands, 9/8/2008 0:24

If only the USSR had an enlightened Georgian ruler, instead of leaders like Stalin...

Where the U.S.A to help the georgian people?

Where the sense of justice from U.S.A?

- Roy Jones, Island, 9/8/2008 3:38

The American military is too busy playing kinky sex games with Iraqi prisoners to help. Sorry.

Is there even any point of making fun of Labour anymore?

I'm seriously starting to wonder. With the Parliamentary summer recess here, and Labour in an absolute shambles, it just seems a waste of effort now.

And this is coming from someone who spent a lot of time, online and off, attacking Labour from about 2003 onwards. Maybe if they experience a resurgence, it might be worth it...but right now, attention should be paid to the front-runners in this two horse race.

Which, incidentally, is something that really annoys me about the cowardly press in this country. Beyond the usual suspects moaning about "PC Brigades" and "ZaNu-Labour" the spineless bastards in the press waited until Blair was gone to start sticking the dagger in. What a bunch of wet, useless bastards, whose alleigance to opinion polls would put even a spin doctor to shame. "We can't attack teh Blair, he is sooper popular!" And now the country is sick of Brown, rightly or wrongly, they've suddenly found the backbone to kick a party while its down.

Wow. Impressive.

Naturally, of course, this has resulted in more positive attention being lavished on the Tory party. I have nothing in particular against the Tories, except for the fact that I believe their Thatcherite economic policies are unjust and that the social conservatives are a fucking embarassment to the party. Honestly, the more centrist Tories are much more to my liking than, say, the American Republican Party. But come on, seriously. The Daily Mail, just the other day allegedly held an editorial meeting where reporters were told to push the "broken Britain" meme. The same "broken Britain" which is a central plank of the Tory re-election policy.

Its going to be the same shameful shit all over again. The press will only offer token resistance to Cameron in the way they did to Blair. Not because they are necessarily ideologically rightwing, just as the press was not ideologically leftwing during the Blair years (moaning from certain people about "teh librul press!" aside). No, its because reporters are too close to their sources, and believe they have a greater duty to their "friends" within the political system than they do to the public and truth.

And that is where the system is fucked. A good journalist should be treating every statement from a public figure as he might a turd being dropped into his drink. Regardless of political convictions, a politician is the natural enemy of truth, and should be treated as such. There is a price on their head and everything they utter is suspect. Fawning idiots, be they Polly Toynbee or Daniel Finkelstein, are the reason why the press is treated with utter contempt by most intelligent people.

We don't need ideologically charged propagandists. We don't need contemptible, spineless cowards too afraid to upset some politicians writing for national papers. What we need, and sadly lack, are people who care about the truth more than point-scoring Westminster-bubble bullshit.

Unfortunately, very few of those seem to exist.

Surprise! The Daily Mail is in favour of Feudalism.

No, really. This is getting beyond parody now. The Daily Mail must be charged with killing satire and fucking the corpse.

Aside from the cows, there isn't much in the way of traffic here. There is a bus service, but it comes only once a week and goes as far as the bright lights of Blandford Forum. If you find yourself here for no reason, you are well and truly lost.

The traditional cliche for pretty little villages such as this is 'sleepy'. But there's nothing bleary-eyed about the Dorset backwater of Chettle.

This is a village which defies every statistic and market trend. It has zero unemployment. Its businesses are booming. It has no problem with outsiders buying up second homes - because they are simply not allowed. Rents are way below the market rate.

This is the village the credit crunch forgot. Young couples are not driven out by property prices and there are as many children (22) as there are pensioners.

Everyone knows everyone and crime is virtually non-existent. The last intruder was driven off by a lady pensioner with a pick-axe handle. So what is Chettle's secret? The answer is enough to make a sociologist or a Labour MP weep.

For the past 1,000 years, this entire village and all the land around it - every last square inch of it - have been owned and controlled by the lord of the manor. And that is just how everybody likes it.

BREAKING NEWS!

Paris Hilton's "policies" are just as stupid as the other two candidates.

As you were.

Oh, well thats us told then!

Jonathan Swift once wrote "When a man of true Genius appears in the World, you may know him by this infallible Sign, that all the Dunces are in Conspiracy against him."

Going by this standard, those of us posting at Mailwatch must be the smartest posters on the internet, given the conpiracy of dunces offered against us.

Looks like we upset some morons by daring to criticize their favouritest paper ever! You know, for a group of people who blather on about self-reliance and PC idiocy and the like, the people posting at Don't Start Me Off do seem to be some of the whiniest little bastards on the internets. "Oh no, they made fun of the Mail! Oh no, someone on the site was nasty to me! Oh no, I can't refute them, so I'm going to call them all cunts and think I'm being really clever doing so."

See what I mean? I cringed even at writing that, so just imagine how annoying people who think like that all the time are.

Its not so much the criticism, mainly because their isn't any, its just that they both fail to, you know, either actually make a valid point or be funny about blasting us. In fact, they seem to share those characteristics with Mail and Have Your Say commentators, who think that things like "Gordon Clown" is the height of wit.

Look, I know its probably hard for you, being as you are people blessed without any sort of sense of humour or intelligence, but if you are going to have a go at us, try and at least make it interesting. Replicating the sort of tedious monotony one normally finds in a Peter Hitchens article is not going to get our attention beyond a couple of chuckles at your expense. Also, saying "There is nothing wrong with the Mail" in a non-ironic fashion probably did not help your case either.

Hell, even Quentin Letts is funnier and more cutting than this, and if thats not a damning indictment, I don't know what is.

Trolls on the internet! Oh my!

I suppose I better mention it, since people will be wondering why I didn't if I don't.

Yes, I have read the New York Times article on internet trolling. And firstly, is it just me, or is really fucking embarassing when you have someone writing an article when:

a) they really don't have a clue what they are talking about, and
b) the topic is removed entirely from its natural environment and dissected in the sterile lab of the mainstream media?

Its not just me, I hope.

So anyway, yes, I was alerted to this article by a compatriot troll, Ten Ton Mantis. And now I have finally read through it. The above quibbles above, I'd just like to make some minor points:

• Trolls existed before /b/. The first paragraph implies otherwise.
• /b/ is not the be all and end all of trolling. In fact, in the last couple of years, it has been downright embarassing.
• At least you mentioned Usenet. Thank fucking god. However, the naive-noob tactic was just one of many used back in the day, and really only an entry level tactic. alt.syntax.tactical, for example, favour the longer term, infiltration and sockpuppet approach.
• Lulz is not how trolls "keep score". Its an abstract concept, and a massively overused word, when considered against actual instances of lulz. It can be excuse, justification or result, as well.
• The troll got it dead on. Article over, amirite?
• Um...Anonymous and the trolls were one and the same, at least originally. I understand there was a something of a split between the /i/nsurgents and moralfags, but lets be honest, for the most part, its the same people who took part in both.
• The fact that anonymous communications allow for people to be more sociopathic is not new nor interesting. Learn2sociology, plz.
• Jason Fortuny is a fun guy, but he doesn't speak for me.
• You probably got suckered by one troll or another in the course of your research. Live with it son.
• Not all trolls are emotional fuckups. Some of the most extreme ones probably are, but I wouldn't generalize, or imply in the way you did.
• Sometimes trolls are social hackers, its true. And literal ones as well. Anyway, the point is, sometimes they illustrate things people tend to overlook, either in their social interactions online, how they present themselves, the amount of information they give out. Something like that. Better to get burned for it by a jerk with an inappropriate sense of humour than by the next Ted Bundy. Its not always a perfect justification, and sometimes a line should be drawn, yes, but thats a very grey area and another debate.
• Don't take it all so seriously is pretty much the message I try to relate as well. Sometimes the internet is useful for important stuff, but 99% of it is going to leave a very poor and shallow cultural legacy. I like to think I am doing my bit for people who think "OMFG MY MOM WONT BUY ME A FURSUIT FOR MY BIRTHDAY" or having their "artwork" criticized is a crime against humanity. Twits with no perspective and big mouths are far too numerous.
• Weev was trolling you dude. He does have a point though, about certain bloggers. Those few suckup artists who the media like to go crawling to in order to pretend that they are keeping up with the new internet culture and soliciting feedback from voices that would normally be excluded. Like Iain Dale for example. Real fucking excluded, isn't he? Lets try a single mother blogger who is working while trying to raise her three kids. Oh, thats right, people like that don't have time to blog. And even when some people in some part of the world where dangerous and interesting things are happening (such as Iraq) people would rather get their views from the likes of Charles fucking Johnson than someone who actually lives there. Because, God forbid, they may contradict the media narrative.
• I like this Kate chick. She has style. Kate, if you're reading...well, you know how to get in touch, I'm sure.
• Hatred? I wouldn't go that far...of course, I would expect a MSM hack from somewhere like the NYT to give that line. But I wouldn't try to look too deeply into a troll's motivation. Mine, for example, the above aside, comes from my trickster and showy personality. I like to be the centre of the attention, and yet at the same time, display certain ambiguity. There are also certain people I like to upset, and if you've read this blog for any length of time, you can probably guess what type they are.
• I would say trolls are the internet. The interesting parts at least. Just as pirates where the ones who innovated much of our modern world, economy and culture (where would commercial radio be without pirate stations? What about the US government, who stole patented technologies throughout the 18th century?) trolls push the boundaries and in doing so create new online realities. The internet may not be so much the Wild West as a number of armed enclaves among a sea of anarchy. Sure, if you stick to places like Myspace or Facebook or your politically chosen network of blogs you'll be mostly safe...aside from the occasional raider. But in other areas, the only things that exist, from your identity upwards, are those you choose to invent. That anarchy, while terrifying to some, is also a lab for inventing, tampering with and altering all number of social events and processes.
• Those state legislators are idiots. You can't police the net, at least not in the way you hope to. Hell, people cant even stop copyright infringement, and "Spartacus actions" among legally threatened bloggers are frequent. Try it with people who know how to conceal their identity and enjoy games where the roles and characters are not as substansial as they may appear, and you're entering a policing nightmare.
• Precisely. The law is not your hug-box. I am not responsible for your hurt feelings. I'm sure you could do something more productive with money spent on trying to police jerks on the net, such as nearly catching Bin Laden and then letting him go in order to justify the invasion of Iraq Iran.
• Fortuny is right. OpenID and similar schemes for multiple site IDs are doomed to failure because so long as you can get more than one account, you are back where you started. So you either charge for everything, and create a gated community (urgh), or you don't take everything so seriously. Pretty simple, really.
• Fortuny's morals are not everyones. Again, there are different motivations.
• What a delightfully hopeful note to end your article on. It still doesnt change the 99% of the net which is different, however.

I think that is all I really have to say. I probably shouldn't have had a couple of beers while writing this either, but oh well, too late to worry about that now.

Conspiracy of the Week, pt....wherever we got up to now

I know its been a long time since I done this feature (it came from back in the day, when I used to troll conspiracy forums with half a dozen textbooks on engineering on my desk) but its time to restart this thing.

According to Greg Hands, the true weak link in the War on Some Terror But Not Others is not a flawed foreign policy, the problems of dealing with sub-state actors while promoting an international based around the sovereignty of the state, blatant hypocrisy or the Free World being led by a man who is widely seem as thick as two short planks....but instead a Left Wing Conspiracy (is there any other sort?) at the Lonely Planet, putting terrible propaganda in their guide books!

I know, I know. You feel your trust has been betrayed. I know when I want to know about the recent political history of a country, I too pick up The Lonely Planet Guide to see what its talented geopolitical commentators say. Their editorial stance and books have been cited by leaders the world over as the way to Win This Thing. And all the time, they were secretly manipulating us. *sob*

the books are almost always written from a Leftist political stance. Wait a moment, readers might ask, how can a description of which bus route goes to Tutankhamun's tomb have any kind of political bias? Check out the "history" section of these books, however, and you will see what I mean. Liberal, "progressive" forces are invariably good, battling with the forces of conservatism, all around the world.

History and reality are supposed to have a well known liberal-left bias. So I've been told, anyway, by my secret masters within the Liberal Conspiracy. No, the other one, not that site run by Sunny Hundal.

As expected, this is particularly true of guides to the USA and to the UK. Margaret Thatcher and George Bush are vilified. Clem Attlee, Franklin D Roosevelt and JFK are idolised.

Of course, George W Bush and Magaret Thatcher are the poster-children for compassionate conservatism. The only possible reason someone could disagree with their claims to greatness is because they are a bitter liberal. All those unemployed people and dead bodies and stuff are mere coincidence and as any good empiricist knows, correlation does not equal causation. On the other hand, those people widely seen, across the political spectrum, as statesmen due to their fairly good leadership in times of crisis are liberal stooges.

The brand new Lonely Planet guide to the USA (5th ed, 2008) tells us that "Roosevelt did much to ameliorate the pain of the Great Depression", there is praise for Clinton whose attempts to create socialised healthcare were scuppered by the Republicans, who were then out to get him over Monica Lewinsky, etc. But the real monstering is reserved for George W Bush, who "attacked Afghanistan in an unsuccessful hunt for Al-Qaeda terrorists", he "undid environmental regulations" and "fostered a moral, religious and cultural crusade, espousing 'family values'". The chapter introducing California suggests that Arnold Schwarzenegger's only successes were as a result of him distancing himself from Bush, and on it goes.

Shorter Greg Hands: We're now in Bizarro World! Everything is reversed, and I am now right.

Some readers of this blog might even ask, it's so well-known, why even bother to write about it? Well, the new Lonely Planet Egypt guide (9th ed, 2008) simply cannot go without comment. The book is an apology for radical Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ah yes. This must be part of that neverending struggle in The Lonely Planet to potray Liberal organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, as good guys, and conservative forces as the bad guys. Right? Because the Muslim Brotherhood are all fluffy kittens and free abortions and gay love and stuff.

Any objective view of the Brotherhood is this - it is a jihadist group, whose credo is "Mastering the world with Islam" and "building the khalifa".

Uh-oh. Doesn't this kind of conflict with this statement "Check out the "history" section of these books, however, and you will see what I mean. Liberal, "progressive" forces are invariably good, battling with the forces of conservatism, all around the world"?

You know, Greg, if you want to make your point, its generally best to not quote a part of a book which completely fails to make your point at all, and in fact undermines it. You know, as a general rule. We do things differently here, in reality.

We are told (p. 44) that "despite their use of religion, Egypt's Islamist groups are part of a political response to harsh socio-economic conditions". They have suffered under "a repressive political system that allowed little chance to voice legitimate opposition" and have been "denied recognition by the state as a legal political entity".

"Context is part of the liberal conspiracy."

One can't help feeling that the writers at Lonely Planet desperately want themselves to believe that radical Islamists are a manifestation of protest against economic conditions, and are trying to re-arrange the facts accordingly. Perhaps the Brothers really are sitting around in Che Guevara T-shirts, debating the Marxist dialectic, driven by a desire to alleviate poverty, just like the Taliban were in Afghanistan?

"Poverty, poor education and lack of legitimate opposition have never spawned extremist religious organizations. Ever. Not once at all in history. People who say otherwise are part of Liberal-Left Conspiracy. Also, now, liberal-left means Communist."

Why should we care? Two reasons. First, these books sell well, and the market is predominantly young, well-educated people, gap-year teens, students and former students, whose minds are open enough in the first place to embark on a journey to somewhere like Egypt. Probably exactly the sort of people we don't want to be telling that the Muslim Brotherhood are the good guys.

I love Greg's dichomtomous worldview, where telling people the origins of an organizations key support is SECRETLY HOPING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF THE INFIDEL MURBARAK'S TYRANNY, ALLAHU-AKBAR! Oops, sorry, forgot myself there for a moment. Greg clearly thinks people are too stupid to realize a highly socially conservative religious movement in the Middle East with links to terrorist organizations might just be as bad as a regime that practices routine torture and denial of human rights, despite how their opposition is rooted in economic and political concerns of the nation in question.

Because, you know, pointing out the roots of support for the Egyptian Brotherhood may have some sort of legitimate basis is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as supporting the Jihadists and wanting to establish an Islamic Cailphate. Obviously.

Second, and this never ceases to amaze me, we, the British taxpayer, own Lonely Planet. The BBC bought it in 2007.

We should be asking the BBC why they are promoting Islamism, and in the meantime perhaps we should persuade Fox News to buy Rough Guides, re-balance the editorial line and give travellers a real choice?

Ah yes, the BBC. Main cog in the international liberal-left conspiracy. Once again betraying this great nation by promoting Islam, the eating of aborted fetuses, multiculturalism, marrying men with dogs and other perversions. Only Rupert Murdoch, who would never cosy up to illiberal regimes for the sake of sales, can restore the balance.

Oh hee hee Letts, you so FUNNAY!

Shorter Quentin Letts:

Women who agree with my politics are brave and courageous figures beyond reproach. Those who don't are evil Feminazis, trying to cut my balls off and emasculate the nation.

The Shorter concept, shamelessly stolen from Sadly, No! and Elton Beard.

Civility and Decency

This is a spin-off from my post yesterday about Quentin Fucking Letts, but its something I've been considering for a while, and wanted to talk about more, as a general trend within current political discourse, especially among the “opinion-formers” in the media.

Its hardly a novel or surprising insight, I'll be the first to admit. I know that its a particular aggravation of the brilliant American blogger HTML Mencken, of Sadly, No! fame and the more I see it within our own papers and political discussions, the more it pisses me off.

Some people, it seems, are far more in favour of civility in a discussion than actual decency. As anyone who reads me fairly often knows, I am hardly the poster-child for civil discussion. I rant, I swear, I mock and I troll. “All your carefully picked arguments can be easily ignored” and all that. But I think, underneath it, I am a fairly decent person. Not in the 'decent left' sense, hell no, those people are the poster children for Civility over Decency (especially as Alan 'Not the Minister' Johnson's lack of concern for human rights shows), but in the basic sense that no matter how nasty or cutting or rude I am, I'm only violent in my presentation of language.

In short, I'm not the sort of person who calls for pre-emptive attacks on enemy countries. I do not condone torture. I despise 'extraordinary rendition', hate racial profiling, cannot stand people who barely disguise their bigotry and blood-lust under the guise of cheerleading the “war on terrorism” and the war in Iraq especially. I don't think we should be throwing out everyone whose skin colour is a little too dark, nor cutting benefits for those most at risk in society. I don't think we should deny gays, atheists, Muslims, transsexuals or anyone else rights that the majority enjoys.

That's decency. Having some motherfucking respect for the people around you, not demonizing people who have never hurt you, not acting like a jerk simply because “I've got mine, and fuck everyone else”. Or cowering in a corner going “oh no, scary people who are different to me are here, this is an outrage!”

Because, lets face it, when you dig behind what is, on the face of it, 'respectable' and civil writing of commenters like Richard Littlejohn, or Mad Mel, or Amanda Platell, or Alison Pearson. Its dressing up ugly and vile opinions in nice sounding tones. A perfect example is that insufferable cunt Peter Hitchens, who just recently denied that homophobia has any real meaning. Well I'm sure gay people all over the world who are being killed, denied rights, attacked and smeared for their sexual leanings will be SO glad to hear that.

But you see, he said it in a nice way, with clean respectable words and no swearing, so he's perfectly alright!

Whereas on the other hand, all those nasty people over at the Guardian who were saying rude things about Thatcher are evil and horrible leftists. Never mind that none of them are contributing to a set of beliefs designed to deny Thatcher any of her basic human rights. Never mind that Thatcher put in place policies that did ruin many peoples lives, to benefit a few. Oh no, the problem is all those terrible and potty-mouthed Guardian types, who refuse to shed a tear at the idea of Our Great Leader passing away.

Well fuck that, and fuck anyone who thinks in that way. Oh boo-fucking-hoo, the nasty little leftists won't be all nice and civil when discussing your sacred cows? Civility is “manners masquerading as morals”, to quote Sidney Blumenthal. Its about an unspoken social code that relates in absolutely no way to the actual ethical ideas. Its a way of controlling the forms of argument, of dismissing people without actually having to refute what they say.

Noting the letters that Lett's reprinted at the Mail, the common theme among them seems to be that Thatcher's leadership did not enrichen or improve their lives, so why the fuck should they have to kowtow to her and her legions of brainless followers and admirers among the press corps? Letts doesn't answer that, because he can't. The idea of treating such a woman as a great leader worthy of such honour is to very many people disgusting, and the level of invective it deserves from those quarters is well beyond that expressed in the Guardian. Presumably Letts would have us all drink tea with our little finger's sticking out while discussing the pro's and con's of torture and genocide as well.

And the worst part is when people on the Left capitulate to such people and cede the ground to them, hoping to engage them in debate. The fact is that you simply can’t fight some people and the ideas they espouse by being civil. You have to let people know that they’re vile, hateful scumbags with no sense of standards or simple human decency. You have to stand up to them and (rhetorically) kick them in the balls. Repeatedly, in some cases. This whole “oh I respectfully disagree with your views on kicking out all the 'Muslim terrorist scum infesting this country with foreign diseases'” bollocks has to stop.

And yes, I am an angry leftist. If you call yourselves a decent fucking human being and you look around at the state of current affairs: a supposedly left-wing government tearing down civil rights and engaging in pointless foreign wars while the gap between rich and poor rises, and a bunch of cretinous reporters in the tabloid media who are willing to give them hell over the only few things they have done right, then you'd be fucking angry too.

And if you don't like it, Letts, you can blow me.

Why wont hateful lefties just DIE SCREAMING WITH SHARP OBJECTS IN THEIR EYES?

Say what you like about Quentin Letts, you have to give him credit - he's consistently wrong, no matter the issue.

The Letters page of The Guardian, seldom the sanest of arenas, has this week descended to virulent venom.

Unlike the Daily Mail's comment section, where "virulent venom" (surely a redundant phrase) would in fact be an improvement.

there have appeared several letters which gloated at the prospect of Margaret Thatcher's death

Oh no? Really? How terrible. I bet they even gloated about genocide in typically racist terms.

Their vengeful tone, though hurtful about the still very much alive Lady Thatcher, has been instructive. It was a timely reminder that no one does viciousness quite like the Left. Far from the Conservatives being 'the Nasty Party', Labour's preachy brothers and sisters have long deserved that title.

Yes. I absolutely agree. I remember vividly how that Far Leftist Lord Dixton-Smith was hateful towards black people, as indeed is ex-Colonel Patrick Mercer, a notorious Marxist-Liberalfascist. In fact, one can barely move for the number of hateful leftists out there, being all terribly rude and nasty about people*.

The Guardian letters were sparked by reports that Lady Thatcher will be given the rare honour of a state funeral. Even to discuss such arrangements is, let us be honest, a difficult matter.

Indeed. How dare people suggest that Thatcher may die? We all know she will ascend to the Heavens upon a flaming Chariot, in the manner of the Prophet Elijah, once her time among the mortals is up.

Some Guardian readers have taken a markedly less charitable line towards the former Prime Minister.

In contast to Lady Thatcher, who as I recall was rather keen on charity, so long as it didn't involve rich people having to pay for it.

Typical of the response was that of one Chris Gibson, who said that on seeing the headline about a state funeral for Lady Thatcher: 'I thought that the week had got off to the best possible start.' Charming.

Indeed. I often think the best possible start to the week is one where I don't have to look at the pile of shit which reputedly passes for a Quentin Letts article in the Mail. A little perspective is all I'm asking for here.

But the fact such horrible letters were written, let alone published in a national newspaper, tells us something else.

They have Paul Dacre as their editor as well? OMG!

Why is it that socialists, in contrast to their professed humanity and Methodist origins, are so remarkably malevolent? Why is the Left so mean?

"Why is the Left, which I and my employers villify on a basis as being responsible for every social ill in this country, from paedophilia to knife crime to terrorism to littering, so pissed off and nasty towards right-wingers (the all important, yet left out qualification)? I just can't understand it..."

Left-wingers like to talk of ' progressive politics', by which they suppose they mean open-mindedness, but historically they are far more dogmatic than the Right.

Factionalism and drunken intrigue were rampant in the trades unions of old.
On immigration, Left-wingers have been exceptionally illiberal. Commentators and politicians who questioned the pro-immigration consensus were shouted down as racists.

I had to quote that in full, just so you could get a full flavour of the make-believe world Quentin lives in. Apparently, factionalism (and drunkeness, for some bizzare reason) is proof of the Left's dogmatism. Because nothing says "unthinking follower" quite like...uh, spinning off and creating a new group based on minor political or economic interpretation of certain theories.

Furthermore, when people on the immigration debate are making such enlightened comments as:

The British government hates all things British and especially English. Why are we so surprised at this payout and the far smaller ones for servicemen? It is in line with the secret agenda to eliminate any sign of British/English pride.

Then yes, it seems that perhaps, just a few of them, may not be motivated by a deep and abiding concern about depression of wages and stress on local services quite so much as "ZOMG DARKIES!!212!"

The thoroughly decent former Tory leader Michael Howard was cast as something close to a Nazi for daring to suggest that immigration was becoming a problem. His assailants were not shamed by the fact that Mr Howard is of Jewish émigré stock. He'd had the temerity to oppose the Left. He had to be destroyed.

And crushed him we did, like a huge monolithic Red Army. Of course, that Howard was playing dog-whistle politics with the more extreme and xenophobic elements of the right throughout his entire campaign is of no consequence. Context is just leftist tyranny of...something.

Tony Blair's regime was infamously unpleasant to people who tried to stand in its way. Government scientist David Kelly paid for his independence with his life - suicide, we were told, although he was pushed into any such suicide by Labour-ordered briefings

Ah yes, Tony Blair. That chap who is widely admired on the left and considered by some to be the second coming of Marx himself. His deep devotion to the working class, wealth distribution, weakening of social hierarchies and improving social mobility certainly mark him out as possibly more left-wing than Mao himself.

One of the Left's great propaganda achievements over the years has been the idea that it was somehow kinder to support Labour than to be Conservative.

Yes, gosh, I wonder how people ever thought that not supporting the richest and most privileged in society was somehow kinder than doing so? Ooh, my brain hurts, help me figure out this problem Quentin!

It demands communal conformity rather than independent freedom. It seeks to dictate supply rather than allowing the market to find a level. It places the state above the citizen.

And of course, right-wing politicians would never act in authoritarian ways, nor come up with some big, communal idea that everyone must bow down to. You fucking moron.

Some days, I think I may be a prick. Then I realize, if I didn't have to live in a country where idiots like Quentin Letts are paid for shit like the above, and I'm still unemployed, I'd probably have a better outlook on life.


*I'm going to do a follow-up post along this theme soon, as its something I've seen quite a lot in the American blogosphere, and it fascinates me. Also, I haven't forgotten about my promised book review, if anyone was wondering. It's just The Pirate's Dilemma is fairly long, and in depth, and I'm trying to find a job, which is sucking up lots of my time.

Framing and the stigmergic learning potential of propaganda groups

Stimergic learning is covered here.

The structure of secular conservative "framing" of events is discussed here.


Note the most interesting thing, that actually being an amorphous mass with seperated command structures but all communicating is actually an effective strategy. Its essentially an open-source platform, applied to political and information operations.

In both cases, each rely on various groups innovating and trying varying methods of attack, the communicating their effectiveness back to other groups who share their aims. The techniques are refined, then packaged for mass release. Then the process is repeated. It is constant refinement based on the ability for fast feedback AND, a mass of people willing to try various strategies.

Its essentially a Black Swan approach to events. By allowing groups to experiment, the whole movement can take advantage of successful methods, whereas failures will only impact on those directly involved in them. Its very smart, really.

Daily Express headlines - in the style of haiku

End of the road for speed cameras?

Fining people for
breaking the law is bad
when it affects me


Convicts hug a tree to go free

This headline is
factually incorrect
but never mind right?


'Sex on beach' Briton sorry

What a slut, I
am now in favour of Dubai's
awful Shariah law


Tories attack 'U-turn' over victims

Cameron to Brown:
Damned if you do and
damned even if you don't.


Top knife crime officer: teenagers must do national service

Violent teens? Put them
in the Army. Its the stock
answer to all ills.


95% of Express readers say 'quit EU'

Stand in awe as we
show you the art of stating
the bleeding obvious


OK, that's enough haiku for today.

Teh Atheist Conspiracy...

I know I really should leave such things to Anton Vowl, as he is so much better at them. But I was trolling around the Daily Mail messageboard on a slow Friday afternoon when I saw the topic title....

"are atheists infiltrating organizations such as education, government etc?"

and I just knew it was going to be a clusterfuck of epic tinfoil hattery and right-wing paranoia. I was not disappointed.

In the thread about the dreaded Heinz Mayo "gay" ad, one respondent stated that atheists are infiltrating organisations that influence government, educational policy, etc.

Can atheists really do that? After all, they are not an organised as such. Is the real truth merely that more people are rejecting religion and becoming de-facto atheists, such that the proportion of atheists in all sorts of organisations is increasing because of that, i.e. it's mere statistics?

Is it really a conspiracy?

A sensible start....surely this cannot last. Atheism debates are like those on abortion...pure flamebait.

YES Mikey my man, oh yes!! Read Peter Hitchins, an ex-communist..

The communist party used to say...go out and submerse Into the establishment, government, schools, authorities...I'm not quoting but find out Mikey. Look at government... the number of ex-communist party members and ex-marxist types...

YES, THE COMMUNIST CONSPIRACY IS BACK IN FASHION! POST #1 BITCHES, AND WE'RE ALREADY BACK TO THE 1950S, BOO-YAH!

Just look at the members in the NUT to find out how far these people have infiltrated education and the 'elf and safety brigade in local councils are teeming with them. Even the higher ranks of the police have them in abundance.

Reminder: if lots of educated people agree, its not because of superb reasoning skills and access to more factual information, its because they are being manipulated by a conspiracy.

I haven't read anything this funny in a long time! "These people" indeed. Atheists were around long before anyone caught religion, and do you know what? We're not communists, marxists or fascists, we're just people who lead ordinary decent lives without believing in any gods - and you sound so horrified, as if we're trying to undermine society!

Atheist disinformation agents have even infiltrated the Daily Mail!

i think you are right. you only have to look at Great Britain with high teenage pregnancies, broken homes, political correctness and not being allowed to make judgements about peoples' lifestyles. There are people being shot dead for being in the wrong place.

I think having christian values did keep people on the right track.

Goddamn those fucking Atheists and their lack of morals making it unacceptable for me to persecute teh gheys. I see no unintentional irony in my previous statement whatsoever, either.

The people that have infiltrated our society have no religious preferences. They probably call themselves atheists but their religion is Marxism. They don't worship a deity, just an idea that is a proven failure. I suppose that's the difference: nobody has ever proven that God does not exist whereas Marxism has been tried and has failed miserably.

But that won't stop those who are hungry for power over the proletariat. Antyjax is obviously familiar with the type, and there are thousands of them, in education, local government and the criminal justice system. It isn't an organised conspiracy, but each of them are following the teachings of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.

I'm sure that sounded really smart in his head.

Atheists tend to have the evangelical zeal of all religious zealots. They are so arrogant in their personal beliefs and self esteem, that they will not brook alternative belief systems!

All the PC claptrap, about renaming Christmas and the like, are all down to Atheists in Local Government.

What makes their actions all the more disgusting are their attempts at blaming Muslims, or Hindus, etc.. These unfortunates find themselves beset by Press Commentators, blaming them for something for which they have no knowledge, or inclination! To the contrary. They mostly enjoy the family aspects of our CHRISTIAN celebrations!

(The Muslims also hold Christ in high esteem and see no reason why they should not celebrate Christmas alongside Christians!......... Go to Saudi Arabia and you will find that out in short order!)

Yeah, goddamn Atheists and their Winterval! Religious nutters of the world, UNITE and let us be rid of this menace.

The point of the Bible, and Christianity is to promote harmony and a moral life. The 10 Commandments are good rules for morality, and which every decent human being will follow naturally. As our community has gone away from the church and the fear of what comes next (heaven, hell?), we are heading for barbarism. This is already clear by what is happening in every inner-city and now suburban streets with young men and woman being killed in cold blood for little or no reason. All religions have their own version of the 10 Commandments which again are moral pointers for the followers.

To go to the original question, Jax has answered it pretty well in my opinion. So yes I do really believe that atheists have infiltrated government at every level, hence it will reach the education system. Private church schools, I suspect, are an exception.

Britain was harmonious back when peasants believed the King ruled by the divine grace of God, and I approve of this system. Speaking as an agnostic.

I am more alarmed that teachers are using their jobs to poison the minds of our young children with their left wing convictions. It isn't as if the teaching profession can be proud of their acheivements as so many children leave school without the ability to read or write properly. Universities are having to train youngsters the basics before they can persue the courses at Uni.

As for the police they have alienated the majority of the law abiding population with their policy of appeasing criminals and taking ot out on the rest of us.

Because ignorance and irrational brutality are hallmarks of all Atheist thought.

I cannot see God but I can have faith In God's existence. Science may someday come to a proof of the truth or falsehood of a creator, but It Is In no position today to do either. If you say.."I see no evidence that there Is a God" fair enough. But go as far as saying.."I know there Is no God" and you have taken a leap of faith as large as that of any theist.

Although theists are better, because they are right. Or something.

I'm a Christian and I believe In God. It's really quite easy, I believe there Is one God. He actually Loves you, and you try to mock and sneer, and yet he still Loves you. But I don't actually have to explain my BELIEF to you, rather you have to explain your ASSERTION that there Is no God?? And you have to do a lot better than "I know there are no God's because there Is no evidence." You have a BELIEF that there Is no God, and that Is fine. But you don't KNOW. So for all your assertions, you're not being very assertive are you?

Because asserting an unknowable without evidence is an excellent system of logical thinking.

I believe the heading of this post is misleading and would be less so if it read "are the extreme left infiltrating organisations such as education ,government,etc.
the answer is yes they are and always have done just because tony blair denied them the right to stand as labour candidates doesn't mean they have gone away or changed their beliefs they are still out there burrowing away into all aspects of our lives,and i don't believe it will be long before they rear their heads again and feel safe to come out into the open again.

They are in all probability atheists,but that is not the b all and end all of their beliefs but may be the basis for them.
The question is ,are they a danger to our society must be an undoubtable yes,but is far more outreaching than just are they atheist !
Many atheists are content in their non belief,and content to let the rest of us believe what ever we want.

The extreme left are not .

Atheists are a front for the Communists! COMMUNISTS!!12!

I find it unbelieveably funny how non believers get so upset about something they don't believe in

ok, you don't believe in God. thats your choice. but why do you get so angry and upset with those of us who do believe in God? I find that it is especially the Christian faith which gets such anger etc directed towards it

I do not for one second believe in the hindu religion. However I don't get all worked up and angry about it. Let them believe what they do.

atheisem is a belief aswell btw

Well, last time I checked, it wasn't Hindus who had a majority in this country. But of course that couldn't be the reason, could it?

On numerous occasions, I have had an atheist say to me something along the lines of

"we don't know what caused the universe"

yet they will boldly claim that there is no evidence of God. If God caused / created the universe then it stands to reason that the universe (in fact all of creation) is evidence of God. Are you able to prove that God did not cause / create the universe?

Incidentally, to answer your question about why I believe in God, there are two reasons.

1. I believe what is said in the Bible about Him. The central theme is that before God, all have sinned and the punishment for that sin is death. God loved the world so much that He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross so that people can be forgiven of their sins. Only in Christianity can I find this redemptive message where salvation is based on what Jesus Christ has done, not on some works-based method present in all other religions.

2. Since becoming a Christian, I have the testimony in my life as to answered prayer, or how God helped me through a difficult situation. The personal evidence for my faith is therefore my testimony. Now others can choose what alternative explanation they give to what I attribute to God at work, but description of something doesn't alter what it is. It only affects one's perception of it.

Logic is really wasted on some people.