It looks as if I was right all along.
Since I have had a few communications on this point, yes, the 9/11 bombers themselves said that they were motivated by the presence of American forces in Saudi Arabia, Bush acted accordingly, and there has been no further attack on American soil. Likewise, if we had not been in Iraq, then there would have been no 7/7 attack. As the 7/7 bombers themselves made clear.
As for the Danish cartoonists and those who reprinted their work, they wanted a reaction and they got one. They could hardly complain. Back when the West was still the West, such behaviour would not have been tolerated according to our own standards. We would not have needed Muslims to complain first.
The usurpation by the pseudo-West has now brought about its own reaction. That is the real lesson here. We have only ourselves to blame.
Saturday, 23 July 2011
Unwanted, Abusive and Harmful
According to Enda Kenny, the Vatican attempted to frustrate this Inquiry within the last three years. But 1997 was not within the last three years. Not a word of the Report accuses the Vatican of having attempted to frustrate the Inquiry or anything else. The Taoiseach has lied to the Dáil.
More broadly, like Blessed John Paul the Great, the then Cardinal Ratzinger unreservedly condemned the war in Iraq. Iran has had an arrangement in place for several years whereby the Vatican would mediate in any dispute with the United States should, as is now mercifully most unlikely, that matter ever really come to a head. Benedict XVI is, as John Paul II was, a great admirer of Pius XII, under whom the Holy See had quite warm relations with the State of Israel, which was not at that time imposing military law on the Catholics of the West Bank, nor occupying that part of the viable Palestinian State created on both sides of the Jordan at the end of the British Mandate, nor bombarding the Catholics of Lebanon.
Well, we cannot have any of that, can we? So the Pope’s moral authority must be destroyed by absolutely any means whatever. Lest, having been right on Iraq, he prevent a war against Iran, and possibly even bring about the reunification of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan while securing the sovereignty and integrity of Lebanon. All that, and he does not agree that the world has too many proles and darkies in it. Nor that femaleness itself is a medicable condition requiring powerful chemical or surgical intervention. Nor that the preborn child is simultaneously insentient and a part of the mother’s body. He might even dare to ask whether it is the whole of a woman's body that is insentient, or only the parts most directly connected with reproduction?
From The Times of London to The New York Times, we cannot be having any of that. Instead, we must all join in protest behind Peter Tatchell, who would lower the age of consent of 14 and thus legalise almost every act of which any Catholic priest has ever been so much as accused, but who is reliably signed up to female reproductive (if not total) insentience, to XX Syndrome and the drastic measures required to counter it, to ridding the world of proles and darkies, and specifically to ridding the world of Levantine proles and darkies. So, that’s all right, then. Isn’t it?
There is no call whatever for any sort of apology from Tatchell, who wrote in The Guardian (26th June 1997) that: “The positive nature of some child-adult relations is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of 9 to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that no all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.” Last year, David Cameron offered Tatchell a peerage.
Nor is there any call for any sort of apology from Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt, who ran the National Council for Civil Liberties when it was passing resolutions in support of the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation, and when it was publishing calls to legalise and destigmatise sex between adults and children. Nor from Stephen Fry, author of The Liar and The Hippopotamus, both of which glorify sex between men and teenage boys, exactly the acts that have brought scandal on the Catholic Church. Nor from successive Chairmen and Controllers of Channel Four, in its dramatic output a relentless, publicly owned campaigner in favour of such acts.
Nor from Germaine Greer, author of The Boy, a book-length celebration of the sexual fetishisation of the adolescent male both by men and by women. Nor from Richard Dawkins, who in The God Delusion describes having been sexually abused as a child as “an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience”. Nor from Philip Pullman, whose famous trilogy concludes with sexual intercourse between two children aged about 12, and who has repeatedly denounced the absence of sexual content in the Narnia novels. Nor from Geoffrey Robertson QC, who made his name defending the Schoolkids’ Edition of Oz and whose wife made hers writing explicit depictions of teenage sex. Nor from everyone, or even from anyone, who has rushed to defend and to laud Roman Polanski.
Nor from those in any way involved in Internet pornography, the principal, and highly commercial, sexual abuse of teenage boys in the world today. Nor from those who have taken us to war in Afghanistan, in defence of the endemic abuse of such boys, an abuse to which, whatever else may be said of the Taliban, they were very actively opposed and not without success in seeking to eradicate, whereas the regime that we have installed in their place actively colludes in it as surely as in the heroin trade.
Nor from the numerous Social Services Departments that ran homes in which, at the same time as the Church was hushing up sex between men and teenage boys on the part of a small number of priests – and thus, however imperfectly, indicating disapproval of it – such behaviour was absolutely endemic, with major figures in that world publishing academic studies, used for many years in the training of social workers, which presented it as positively beneficial to both parties and therefore actively to be encouraged. Nor from the Police, who long ago stopped enforcing the age of consent from 13 upwards; as with their non-enforcement of the drugs laws, one really does have to ask for whose benefit that is. Among many, many, many others.
What’s that you say? They do not purport to be moral authorities? Really?
More broadly, like Blessed John Paul the Great, the then Cardinal Ratzinger unreservedly condemned the war in Iraq. Iran has had an arrangement in place for several years whereby the Vatican would mediate in any dispute with the United States should, as is now mercifully most unlikely, that matter ever really come to a head. Benedict XVI is, as John Paul II was, a great admirer of Pius XII, under whom the Holy See had quite warm relations with the State of Israel, which was not at that time imposing military law on the Catholics of the West Bank, nor occupying that part of the viable Palestinian State created on both sides of the Jordan at the end of the British Mandate, nor bombarding the Catholics of Lebanon.
Well, we cannot have any of that, can we? So the Pope’s moral authority must be destroyed by absolutely any means whatever. Lest, having been right on Iraq, he prevent a war against Iran, and possibly even bring about the reunification of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan while securing the sovereignty and integrity of Lebanon. All that, and he does not agree that the world has too many proles and darkies in it. Nor that femaleness itself is a medicable condition requiring powerful chemical or surgical intervention. Nor that the preborn child is simultaneously insentient and a part of the mother’s body. He might even dare to ask whether it is the whole of a woman's body that is insentient, or only the parts most directly connected with reproduction?
From The Times of London to The New York Times, we cannot be having any of that. Instead, we must all join in protest behind Peter Tatchell, who would lower the age of consent of 14 and thus legalise almost every act of which any Catholic priest has ever been so much as accused, but who is reliably signed up to female reproductive (if not total) insentience, to XX Syndrome and the drastic measures required to counter it, to ridding the world of proles and darkies, and specifically to ridding the world of Levantine proles and darkies. So, that’s all right, then. Isn’t it?
There is no call whatever for any sort of apology from Tatchell, who wrote in The Guardian (26th June 1997) that: “The positive nature of some child-adult relations is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of 9 to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that no all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.” Last year, David Cameron offered Tatchell a peerage.
Nor is there any call for any sort of apology from Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt, who ran the National Council for Civil Liberties when it was passing resolutions in support of the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation, and when it was publishing calls to legalise and destigmatise sex between adults and children. Nor from Stephen Fry, author of The Liar and The Hippopotamus, both of which glorify sex between men and teenage boys, exactly the acts that have brought scandal on the Catholic Church. Nor from successive Chairmen and Controllers of Channel Four, in its dramatic output a relentless, publicly owned campaigner in favour of such acts.
Nor from Germaine Greer, author of The Boy, a book-length celebration of the sexual fetishisation of the adolescent male both by men and by women. Nor from Richard Dawkins, who in The God Delusion describes having been sexually abused as a child as “an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience”. Nor from Philip Pullman, whose famous trilogy concludes with sexual intercourse between two children aged about 12, and who has repeatedly denounced the absence of sexual content in the Narnia novels. Nor from Geoffrey Robertson QC, who made his name defending the Schoolkids’ Edition of Oz and whose wife made hers writing explicit depictions of teenage sex. Nor from everyone, or even from anyone, who has rushed to defend and to laud Roman Polanski.
Nor from those in any way involved in Internet pornography, the principal, and highly commercial, sexual abuse of teenage boys in the world today. Nor from those who have taken us to war in Afghanistan, in defence of the endemic abuse of such boys, an abuse to which, whatever else may be said of the Taliban, they were very actively opposed and not without success in seeking to eradicate, whereas the regime that we have installed in their place actively colludes in it as surely as in the heroin trade.
Nor from the numerous Social Services Departments that ran homes in which, at the same time as the Church was hushing up sex between men and teenage boys on the part of a small number of priests – and thus, however imperfectly, indicating disapproval of it – such behaviour was absolutely endemic, with major figures in that world publishing academic studies, used for many years in the training of social workers, which presented it as positively beneficial to both parties and therefore actively to be encouraged. Nor from the Police, who long ago stopped enforcing the age of consent from 13 upwards; as with their non-enforcement of the drugs laws, one really does have to ask for whose benefit that is. Among many, many, many others.
What’s that you say? They do not purport to be moral authorities? Really?
Friday, 22 July 2011
Indtil Dovre Falder
Libya? Afghanistan? Reprinting the Danish cartoons? Banging up a radical cleric? Each of those, though not an excuse, is an explanation. An explanation in terms of specific policy, not in terms of "hatred of our way of life". I, too, hate the stupefied, promiscuous, usury-based "way of life" of which even the Irish Republic apparently now wishes to declare itself just another outpost, thereby negating any reason for a continuing existence outside the United Kingdom.
An explanation in terms of specific policy, not in terms of "hatred of our way of life", was also given by the 7/7 bombers; the specific policy in question was the Iraq War. And an explanation in terms of specific policy, not in terms of "hatred of our way of life", was given by the 9/11 bombers; the specific policy in question was the presence of American forces in Saudi Arabia, forces that, in the one good thing that he ever did, George W Bush then withdrew almost immediately, thereby guaranteeing that there has been no further attack on American soil in the 10 years since.
If it is a wholly irrational, unspecific, almost policy-free "hatred of our way of life", itself defined in terms of the best of it, that you are looking for, then that would be provided by the Far Right, the people most like, and not unconnected to, Geert Wilders and our own dear EDL.
An explanation in terms of specific policy, not in terms of "hatred of our way of life", was also given by the 7/7 bombers; the specific policy in question was the Iraq War. And an explanation in terms of specific policy, not in terms of "hatred of our way of life", was given by the 9/11 bombers; the specific policy in question was the presence of American forces in Saudi Arabia, forces that, in the one good thing that he ever did, George W Bush then withdrew almost immediately, thereby guaranteeing that there has been no further attack on American soil in the 10 years since.
If it is a wholly irrational, unspecific, almost policy-free "hatred of our way of life", itself defined in terms of the best of it, that you are looking for, then that would be provided by the Far Right, the people most like, and not unconnected to, Geert Wilders and our own dear EDL.
Untermensch
And I was starting to see the point of her.
If she had said that outside parliamentary privilege, then Piers Morgan (one of very few journalists to come out well from the run-up to the Iraq War) would have sued her, he would have won, and that would have been entirely just.
It looks as if I was right about her all along: "Listening to either of them [her and Liz Truss] is not at all like listening to women in their thirties. It is like listening to a certain type of tiresome fresher girl who, mostly because Daddy has furnished her with an income comparable to a professional salary, thinks that she is that age and expects to be treated accordingly. Are all the new Conservative women like that?"
It seems to be taken as read that Truss is still a Lib Dem (and an anti-monarchist). Might I also have been right all along that Louise Mensch has never ceased to be a member of the Labour Party, and thus, both of a party within that party, and of a party within the one under whose colours she has secured a seat in Parliament?
If she had said that outside parliamentary privilege, then Piers Morgan (one of very few journalists to come out well from the run-up to the Iraq War) would have sued her, he would have won, and that would have been entirely just.
It looks as if I was right about her all along: "Listening to either of them [her and Liz Truss] is not at all like listening to women in their thirties. It is like listening to a certain type of tiresome fresher girl who, mostly because Daddy has furnished her with an income comparable to a professional salary, thinks that she is that age and expects to be treated accordingly. Are all the new Conservative women like that?"
It seems to be taken as read that Truss is still a Lib Dem (and an anti-monarchist). Might I also have been right all along that Louise Mensch has never ceased to be a member of the Labour Party, and thus, both of a party within that party, and of a party within the one under whose colours she has secured a seat in Parliament?
Of Education Secretaries I
Fiona Millar may have Glenda Jackson's seat in her sights. But Education Secretary? She can dream on. Blair's Court was exiled when the right Miliband won the Labour Leadership. It won't be coming back.
Of Education Secretaries II
Michael Gove is a one-man disaster area who was only put in the Cabinet because he was a Murdoch hack. With Murdoch brought low, why is he still there? Remind me, exactly how many of his flagship "free" schools, the Conservative Party's only policy on any subject in 2010, are there? And how many of those are not existing private schools that saw the opportunity for a bailout?
Gove was appointed because he was, and is, the point man for Murdoch and, via the Henry Jackson Society, for the Fox News and Weekly Standard tendencies in American politics. Heaven knows, it was not his years of parliamentary experience (one term in Opposition) or even of pre-parliamentary activism: when he applied from Oxford for a job with the Conservative Research Department, it turned him down on the grounds that he had no discernible connection to the Conservative Party.
So he joined the Murdoch Party instead. Look at him now. But for how much longer? And why still, all things considered?
Gove was appointed because he was, and is, the point man for Murdoch and, via the Henry Jackson Society, for the Fox News and Weekly Standard tendencies in American politics. Heaven knows, it was not his years of parliamentary experience (one term in Opposition) or even of pre-parliamentary activism: when he applied from Oxford for a job with the Conservative Research Department, it turned him down on the grounds that he had no discernible connection to the Conservative Party.
So he joined the Murdoch Party instead. Look at him now. But for how much longer? And why still, all things considered?
Their Banner The Cross
Enda Kenny (a TD since 1975, so condemned out of his own mouth) is cheered on by the Irish Times not once, but twice.
But balance is provided by the Belfast Telegraph, which points out, among other things, that only the most extreme anti-Catholic regimes have ever legislated to break the Seal of the Confessional.
Let there be no doubt in which part of Ireland the Faith is now safer. Indeed, there is no such doubt, with 52 per cent of Northern Ireland's Catholics, and rising with each succeeding generation, committed to the continuation of the Union.
But balance is provided by the Belfast Telegraph, which points out, among other things, that only the most extreme anti-Catholic regimes have ever legislated to break the Seal of the Confessional.
Let there be no doubt in which part of Ireland the Faith is now safer. Indeed, there is no such doubt, with 52 per cent of Northern Ireland's Catholics, and rising with each succeeding generation, committed to the continuation of the Union.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
