Conservative Pessimism

John Derbyshire interviewed at the Economist's Democracy In America blog :

DIA: Give me some examples of how conservative pessimism might translate into policy.

Mr Derbyshire: Abandonment of "nation-building" exercises. Abolition of the federal Department of Education. A 1924-style immigration freeze. Repeal of No Child Left Behind. End of all federal subsidies to "community groups". End of all federal subsidies to arts and culture. End of all foreign-aid programmes that are not plainly and obviously bribes for pro-American behaviour. Restart construction of neutron bombs. Full-bore federal-subsidised research on missile defense. Withdrawal from the UN, followed by razing of all UN structures on American soil and sowing the ground with salt. How many d'you want?

DIA: The candidate button on the cover of your book doesn't exactly look like a political winner. Do you think conservative pessimism can be sold to American voters? Do you see any candidates out there who might take up the cause?

Mr Derbyshire: No. No.

William Gazy - who I don't think is a conservative by temperament - is not much less pessimistic - an outlook possibly triggered by this :

"I liked that advert because it showed that wages for that sort of job have risen about 75 pence in 14 years. I know, because I used to do jobs like that and by the looks of things will soon be doing them again."

But is that a gleam of light on the horizon ?

A Harman government would compound the errors of the Brown/Blair years while bringing fresh stupidity to the table: She could fully bankrupt the country very quickly and bring Labour’s many hatreds and neuroses to the boil in a trice. There would be a vast new drive to go much further in implementing the policies that have made everyone hate Labour; the public sector would become a sort of Marxoid gynarchy; ‘misogyny’would be ‘stamped out’; billions of borrowed money ploughed into ‘equality’; the current underhand Labour policy of underfunding the armed services and diluting them into a ‘European Army’ would be stepped up, despite the country being at war; Labour’s policy of EU and non-EU mass immigration would be fiercely encouraged; the lobotomy of schools and education would gather greater pace; the monarchy would be closer to abolition than at any time for centuries; the police emasculation will continue apace; violent disorder and organised drug addiction will grow. As now, there will be no money but borrowed money. Taxes will soar. The journey to third world status and third world services, begun under Blair and Brown will be properly under way and steaming ahead all engines firing. The sins of the empire will be atoned for – the wet dream of every Labour ideologue – and England will be smothered. Except for the wealthy, civilised life will be a dim memory. Like now but more so, sirens, hip-hop and the Muslim call to prayer will be the soundtrack to urban living. Recycling will be encouraged at all spare moments, rather like the way that under Mao’s cultural revolution every person with a few minutes spare time had to work at digging a hole in their back yard.
For the sane man the only response will be alcohol abuse or revolt. One can almost believe that civil war would occur, and that, plus revolution, is just what this old country needs.

Alas, such optimistic visions are soon dampened as reality dawns :

"Of course, we won’t get a Harman government, we’ll get a Cameron one; and the minute that expenses-fiddling individual sets foot on the Downing Street doormat all the forces of the liberal left, so long quiet about this country’s problems and economic woes, will start shouting and carrying on as if there hadn’t been a Labour government for 13 years. The Specials will probably re-release Ghost Town..."

Have a nice day !

Late Night Music ...

Run of the mill Mayall song (the subject matter is very California 1969), but just enjoy that sax playing and the interplay with the accoustic guitar. The John Mayall/Johnny Almond/Jon Mark/Steve Thompson lineup was IMHO the best he ever had.

Even More Eurabian Fantasies

I mentioned yesterday that the Quilliam Foundation ("the tax-funded Muslim group set up to (correct me if I'm wrong) put forward the moderate face of Islam and lead the youth along the paths of righteousness") had produced their own contribution (pdf) to the Great Eurabia Debate, mostly aimed at the BNP's flavour of the Eurabia thesis.

Pickled Politics gave it a plug, pointing out that "such arguments are easily undermined using proper statistics".

Alas, the pdf, by one Lucy James, contains one statistical howler - on the 2009 BNP Euro-vote :

These were seats that were gained on the basis of nearly one million votes from the British public— 6.2% of the entire votes cast. Although the figures were actually down on 2004 (the slump in Labour party support meant the BNP’s proportion of the vote increased), the BNP have now gained official recognition in European politics.

In fact, the total BNP vote increased from 808,000 votes in 2004 to 943,000 in 2009.

Why the error on something so easily checked ? The original source seems to be this BBC report on Nick Griffin's win in the North West.

"Mr Griffin was elected to Brussels even though the BNP polled fewer votes in the region than it had in 2004 - the slump in Labour support meant its share of the vote increased."

The same thing happened in the Yorkshire constituency - a fall in the actual vote but a rise in the vote share. But the BBC report got picked up, misinterpreted (probably by people searching for aid and comfort) as applying to the whole poll, and was repeated all over left blogs and the Guardian until it was just one of those things that 'everybody knew'.

Poor girl. It wouldn't matter so much were it not that one of her criticisms of BNP literature is "some statistics appear to be just wrongly cited".

The rest of the pdf isn't bad stuff, quite interesting on the theology and the history with no obvious falsehoods. Trouble is, a lot just has to be taken on trust - for the very reason that Islam is a broad(ish) church. Yes, the Prophet did say 'no compulsion in religion'. He said a few other things too. You have to hope that the youths down the road aren't reading 'fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them'.

She takes issue with gross BNP generalisations about 'Muslims' and 'Islam' by pointing out the diversity of same. And that's all very true. Trouble is, her attacks on the BNP seem identical, in form if not in content, to the BNPs attacks on Islam. The BNP is seen as one monolithic entity, and outliers are taken as representative of the whole, pretty much a mirror image of what she says the BNP are doing with Islam. Not just outliers - convicted bomb-maker Martyn Gilleard, cited as a 'similar incident' to Islamist terror (I know, I must have missed the Tube and airport attacks and the dozens of deaths), was a member of a different party, (I think) to the right of the BNP, the British People's Party. She also quotes a lot from William Underhill. Hmmph.

Not a bad read. Whether it'll convince anyone one way or the other I'm not sure. And I'm even less sure if my taxes should be subsidising such political campaigning. But our rulers have long stopped worrying about little things like that.

More Eurabian Fantasies

I noted a couple of weeks ago Kenan Malik's review of Christopher Caldwell's Reflections on the Revolution in Europe (other, not unsympathetic Observer/Guardian reviews here and here - Ed West's take is here) and said that the 'point-by-point refutation wasn't actually terribly pointy or refutish.

David T at Harry's also linked approvingly to this, by Newsweek's William Underhill. If this is representative of what the Septics are being told about events across the pond, maybe the US-haters are right and they ARE an ignorant bunch who know nothing about the rest of the world. It would be difficult not to be if this is all you're getting.

The first paragraph strikes the wrong note from the off :

To listen to Europe's far right, it would be easy to conclude that the continent is poised for another round of bitter conflict with a centuries-old adversary. "The first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at [the battle of] Poitiers in 732. The second was halted at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Now we have to stop the current stealth invasion," argues Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom, which claims that Islamic doctrine encourages terrorism.

It's rabble-rousing stuff.

What kind of educated rabble do they have in the States - or Holland, for that matter ? I'll wager not one Brit in a hundred knows about the Battle of Tours and not one in five hundred about the Battle of Vienna. Even I get it mixed up with Sultan Suleiman's earlier failure before the walls of Vienna in 1529.

Why are the rabble not only a rabble, but a deluded rabble ? Well, "the rise of a Eurabia is predicated on limited and dubious evidence". For example, a 2004 estimate from the US National Intelligence Council (not an estimate I've heard of, btw) is "speculation based on speculation—and even if it's accurate, it would still mean the number of Muslims will represent just 8 percent of the European population". Even if it's right, it's wrong ! (8%, by the way, was the approximate - and absolute maximum - percentage of Muslims in Burnley in 2001 - when rioting broke out sufficient to decide the council to forcibly integrate the schools).

Not only that, but - wait for it :

"The worst of the scaremongering is based on the assumption that current behavior will continue," says Grace Davie, an expert on Europe and Islam at the University of Exeter in Britain.

Now I am frightened. After all, Mark Steyn's scaremongering includes civil war, pogroms and extermination, mass flight of populations etc etc. And 'an expert on Europe and Islam' (who she?) reckons that's only likely if things go on as they are ? Very comforting.

OK, so what will change, that things do not go on as they are ?

For the number of Muslims to outnumber non-Muslims by midcentury, it would require either breeding on a scale rarely seen in history or for immigration to continue at a pace that's now politically unacceptable.

I'm no demographer and not qualified to talk about the history of 'breeding', but what's this 'politically unacceptable' ? Surely the only people who find current levels of immigration politically unacceptable are the rabble he took a pop at in his first paragraph, and whose arguments his piece is intended to refute ?. As Ross put it in the HP comments :

If this is correct then the writer seems to be arguing that if current trends continue then the Muslim majority talk is right. In other words it will only be avoided if the objections he is seeking to discredit are heeded. Which seems like a strange way to refute something.

Back to Mr Underhill.

More likely, new controls will slow Muslim immigration. The birthrate for Muslim immigrants is also likely to continue to decline, as it has tended to do, with greater affluence and better health care.

The first point is exceeding moot. I don't see any 'new controls' at all, sir. Every government initiative to 'crack down' or 'toughen up' on immigration is purely for domestic consumption, for amusement only, government by signifier. It would be discriminatory to target Muslims as such, and there is no slow-down in immigration. Nearly 300,000 new National Insurance numbers were handed out last year to non-EU workers. As for the birthrates, it would be likely that they would indeed reduce over time - were it not for the practice of chain migration i.e. choosing your bride or groom from the ancestral village back in Mirpur or Sylhet.

This takes the biscuit :

Also, fertility rates are edging upward in some Northern European countries, which would offset some of the Muslim growth.

I hate to say it, but "fertility rates edging upwards" is the Muslim growth !



I'm not a 'Eurabian' in that I'm not hung up on exactly what the Muslim population size is likely to be and whether or not it is a majority. As any Marxist-Leninist should be able to comprehend, a smallish number of people with sufficient will can have a pretty hefty effect on a society.

Just look at the numbers of Muslims in the UK now, maybe three million tops. Not very large, is it ? Yet the relationship between the Government and this small section of the governed has been at or around the top of the UK political agenda for nearly ten years now. Stories like this, where women police in Bristol have been issued headscarves for use when entering mosques, or this, where in Yorkshire they try wearing burkhas 'to improve community understanding' are commonplace. As Salman Rushdie put it "you see it every day, this surrender". One of the things which triggered Michael Caldwell's book was his observation that the relationship between black people and the US government had been a dominant theme of US politics for the last forty years, despite black people comprising less than 15% of the US population.

If Muslim issues grab a disproportionate share of our rulers attention now, at maybe 4% of the population, what will politics be like when they're 8% - or 14% - or 24% ?

Another anti-Eurabian trumpet blast has come from the Quilliam Foundation, the tax-funded Muslim group set up to (correct me if I'm wrong) put forward the moderate face of Islam and lead the youth along the paths of righteousness. They bang the 'only 3%' drum like good-uns.

Max at Shiraz Socialist (currently my locus classicus for well-meaning, decent leftism that manages to get many important things totally wrong) welcomes the report, and adds an argument worthy of William Underhill himself :

David Thompson recalls a debate:

At some point, I made reference to migration and the marked tendency of families to move from Islamic societies to secular ones, and not the other way round. ‘This seems rather important,’ I suggested. ‘If you want to evaluate which society is preferred to another by any given group, migration patterns are an obvious yardstick to use.[']

This is key. If Muslims are abandoning the theocratic world for the godless decadent West, what does that say about Muslim support for theocracy? Why try to ’Islamise’ Europe if you are running from an Islamised Middle East?

If they didn't like our society, why would they come here ? If they like their theocracies so much, why do they leave ?

Well, maybe - just maybe, the things that they come here for aren't the things that Max or David Thompson put so much value on. Maybe they come for the same reasons we went across the globe.

I’ve heard some interesting ‘nothing to see here’ arguments recently, but the ‘they wouldn’t leave if they liked the religion so much’ argument has at least originality, if nothing else, to recommend it.

Peru, Brazil, Mexico,Virginia, 1580 :

“This is key. If Christians are abandoning the theocratic world for the infidel West, what does that say about Christian support for theocracy? Why try to ‘Christianise’ the American continent if you are running from a Christianised Europe?”

Max seems a decent sort, like David T at HP, who maintains a touching belief that everything will be OK because Muslims will stop having kids on the grand scale. Why it would be a problem if they don't, he doesn't say. But David, as a supporter of Israel, is a tad wary of a demographic trend that could mean a transformation of foreign policy in the UK and across Europe, as the Muslim vote increases and the possibility of a reversal of support for Israel looms larger.

Not that Max hasn't his limits :

"Any kind of sharia areas/sharia court proposals is something to be shot down immediately"

But Jewish Britons already have their eruvs and their Beth Din courts. How in justice can you deny them to Muslims ? And what sort of position will you be in to do the denying ?

Here's Ian Buruma, articulating the sombre sub-theme which has been running through the whole debate since 9/11 - and bringing us somehow full circle.

Do the many supporters of anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders fully realise the dangers of a divided society?... If people feel rejected, one shouldn’t be surprised if they develop a hostile attitude. As the hostility increases we will get exactly what so many people are so afraid of. The distinction between believers and ideologists is blurred. Sympathy turns to action. Society as a whole is divided into camps, Muslims against non-Muslims. That’s when the blood starts to flow in the streets... whether the 40 percent of Dutch people who now say they agree with Wilders will still want any part of it is another question altogether.

That's certainly a novel way to combat bigotry, encourage moderation and cement the notion of a religion of peace. I wonder if they'll try that one over here ?









(unpleasant/abusive/bigoted comments will be deleted. Don't post them)

Tomorrow, Minsterworth, 10 am

"there were no explanations or excuses for the offences other than drink"

Thus defence counsel Jonathan Devlin.

Amir Rehman, 18, shouted racial abuse as 51-year-old Ronald O'Connor walked to a shop for a loaf of bread, near the gates of Lister Park, Manningham, last December.

Leeds Crown Court heard that Rehman shouted: "Manningham belongs to Muslims. We dont want whites. We rule Bradford. We are going to get you out."

His victim tried to get in the shop, but Rehman ran towards him and stabbed him twice in the upper arm with a four to five-inch bladed knife. Rehman, of Manningham, tried to slash Mr O'Connor's face and the victim also had the palms of his hands slashed as he tried to defend himself.

Hmmm. On that evidence, and if the reporting is correct, Jonathan Devlin seems to be a man with exceptionally limited powers of analysis and deduction. I suppose there's a chance he's referring to the robberies of children rather than the racist attack.

Mr Gioserano said Rehman attended Bradford Crown Court for a preliminary hearing of the case in March, but went straight from court to Pudsey, with two other men, Amar Farooq and Tanveer Hussain, where, later in the day, they committed a series of robberies on children on their way home from school.

Methinks ..

This post bears repeating.

Pippa von Humbolt-Parker (second from left; 19 'A's) plans to spend her gap year in the Congo, teaching Pygmies to bungee jump.

A government spokesman denied A-levels were getting easier.

Cognitive Dissonance Alert ...

At Shiraz Socialist they're worried about the anti-Muslim lies of the BNP, and their commenters (bar one) are supportive :

I think it correct to expose the obvious lies of the right, by pointing out the population stats etc but that, on its own, plays the BNP game. We should also point out that even if Muslims constituted 50% of the population, so what?

A short click away, at Stroppyblog, the hypocrisy of the Mail never fails to raise the old feminist blood pressure :

Like it or not, women like sex as much as men and if they have lots of it with many people then so what ? Some actually prefer men, or women, that do not judge and are not so insecure in their sexuality to be threatened by women who like sex and know what they want.

I can't help feeling that should "so what ?" A come to pass, then the Stroppers wouldn't like the answer to "so what ?" B.

HAS THE LEFT BLOWN ITS BIG CHANCE ?

Asks Andy Beckett in the Guardian and at Socialist Unity.

in Britain and most comparable countries the left is not thriving. Quite the opposite. The Brown government’s mild tilt to the left has made it no more popular. At the European elections in June, left-leaning parties, whether in office or opposition, cautious or militant, were trounced across the continent. Votes went instead to mainstream conservative parties or far right and anti- immigration groups. Over the summer the broader political debate, particularly in Britain, has shifted in the same direction: “The crisis of the financial markets has become a crisis of public spending – it’s incredible!” says Hilary Wainwright, editor of leftwing magazine Red Pepper. “Public servants are going to be scrutinised down to the last paperclip, while bankers are not going to be scrutinised down to the last million they have received from the government.”

Has the left missed its moment?

Why, yes, says Laban, repeating himself here and here. But it was a comment by 'socialist' StevieB that struck me :

StevieB - “the USSR was better than capitalism because it raised the living standards of the workers and peasants far higher than the previous capitalist regime had. The revolution allowed the USSR to become a substantial economic power.”

These two things were in fact inversely related. The USSR became a substantial power in the 1930s by depressing personal consumption (aka living standards’) to levels which kept the population in poverty and starved several million, but which enabled the government to massively expand education, the military, aviation and heavy industry. Just in time for WW2, as it happened.

Similarly levels of personal consumption are relatively low in China today, though nowhere near Soviet levels and due to a high savings ratio rather than confiscation, which enables the government to expand etc etc.

In the West, by contrast, personal consumption is actually higher then GDP in many countries - the difference being made up by borrowing. Not a sustainable scenario.

This got me thinking about education. When the Soviets expanded education, it was real education, with right and wrong answers. They wanted - and needed - engineers, chemists, agronomists, vets, metallurgists. They weren't targeted on how many peasants' offspring got to college, nor less did they want to dumb down grades to exhibit their glorious sucesses - they needed large numbers of real, competent people to face a real potential challenge.

In the UK now we expand (using borrowed money) psychology, media studies, sociology, while physics departments close. The purpose of education is increasingly to make HMG (and young people) feel good about themselves, rather than to meet perceived national needs (quite apart from education being good in itself).

And if we find we still need 'real' educated people ? Import them.

Two Cultures

As the Sixties and Seventies boomers, the generation when sex, drugs and rock'n'roll went mainstream, get older we see more stories of this nature :

Burnley magistrates were told how Lesley Anne Cassidy, 48, had had 127 tablets of valium which she had bought from a dealer. She had served a jail term for peddling drugs.

Cassidy wept as the court was told how she would take between 10 and 20 valium pills a day and her late husband would take the same. The defendant, of Smith Street, Nelson, admitted possessing a Class C controlled drug ...

The defendant was present and said she and her late husband had taken drugs. She said she had gone to sleep and had awoken to find him lifeless on the settee. Mr Hartley said Cassidy was admitted to intensive care, and after she was released she was arrested.

Police investigated and there was no evidence to show Cassidy supplied her late husband with drugs. There was evidence both had bought drugs. The defendant had 127 valium tablets which she had bought from a dealer. Jasmine Basnyet, for Cassidy, said she had taken valium for a long time and the number of pills she had had would only have lasted the couple for about a week or so.Both would take between 10 and 20 tablets a day.

Aye. 48 was once a respectable age for a man, a matronly one for a woman. As you get older you find that you can't do all the things you did when younger - not without a physical toll.

In the same neck of the woods, a younger woman takes a message on board :

In one of the shops I visited on a regular basis the assistants said he wanted to say something and hoped I would not take offence.

He commented on my attire or should that be the missing item not supported. He said he admired the work I was doing as a disabled person but I really should cover my head.

I instantly jumped to my defence declaring I prayed five times a day as required and even prayed the Quran on a daily basis.

The man praised this but said I would be questioned for not covering my head as it was a compulsory.

I again attempted to justify myself ‘I might not be wearing a head scarf but at least Iam decently covered, I am wearing loose clothing and nothing is showing. What’s better to dressing like this without a head scarf or covering your head whilst wearing jeans that fit like a second skin and a top that leaves nothing to the imagination’?

He replied that she would be questioned about this on the day of judgement but at least she was fulfilling the requirement of the head scarf which meant that it is one less thing to answer for.

Sometimes someone says something and it really affects you, for the first time I saw it differently. I had been asked to cover my head by various people but always said ‘Inshallah when I’m ready’.

Little did he know his good advice had sown the seed.

When I got home I was overtaken by a desperate need, the likes of which I had never experienced, to cover my head. I put on my scarf and called my mum...

It’s been about a month that i have worn it and to be honest i don’t even notice it’s there anymore. I am still the lively, bubbly, chattering Sarvat that is me.

The reaction from fellow Muslims has been a surprise. I have for many years been someone who practises my faith but now thanks to a cloth on my head it works as a visible statement that says I am a Muslim and am practising my faith.

What twisted irony, the head scarf was once used to aid me in my quest to impress, vanity. Now it is worn in the true essence of what it stands for - modesty. Allah Subhanatallah works in mysterious ways.

This little tale could have come straight from a Victorian newspaper. Righteous words, spoken in due humility, are never spoken in vain. Praise be !

Another Told-You-So

To quote :

I was never a fan of the project to democratise Afghanistan. The politics and culture of that fascinating nation are nearer to those of fourteenth-century England than to modern America. Imagine men from the Planet Zog arriving in 1350 to bring democracy to England.

Man from Zog : ‘Here you are, all registered, polling stations set up, we’ll check the count, carry on !’
1st Great Lord – ‘Super. Knights – you’ll all be voting for me‘
Knight – ‘Super. Squires – you’ll all vote for the Great Lord ‘
Squire – ‘Yeomen – put your cross by the Great Lord’s name if you want to keep that farm ’
Yeoman – ‘Serfs – I’ll show you where to put the thumbprint tomorrow’.
Serf – ‘Yes, Master’

From Our Own Correspondent :

Over the last few months, there has been a scramble by candidates to secure the backing of the big beasts of the Afghan political jungle. They are mainly the leaders and major commanders of those jihadi factions who, after years of warfare, ended up on the winning side in 2001 - in other words, with the US-led forces.

Added to their ranks are civilians who have come back from exile and some tribal leaders. All are men who have done well since 2001, establishing themselves as important patrons who look after their networks. Many face continuing allegations of corruption, opium-trafficking and human rights abuses.

They promise to deliver voters - blocks of voters - for their chosen candidate. Then after the election, it will be payback time. The next government, according to one joke I heard, will have 200 ministers to fulfil all the back-room deals made.

I suppose there's one similarity to US politics. The concept of the (halal) pork-barrel seems to have been enthusiastically adopted.

If you wanted to defend this type of politicking, you could say that Afghans tend to act communally - at the clan or village level, as tribes or ethnic groups, or as factional networks. One friend told me, quite matter-of-factly, that 300 people were waiting for him to decide who to vote for (family members and former students who looked to him for guidance).

I wondered if in Britain I could actually contact 300 relatives or colleagues to even discuss an election.

We "acted communally" too, for a very long time - via the web of institutions, clubs, political parties, societies, churches, trades unions and charities which once made up British society. I think there's a qualitative difference between that sort of 'communality' and this sort of 'communalism'. We acted that way in 1400 - but without worrying about a facade of democracy.

No one was paying the great lords to provide such a facade, of course.

One might be tempted to ask why it's so important to sort Afghanistan - or to worry about Pakistan for that matter. Why not just use Western military might to duff up the Taleban from a great height and Al Quaeda with special forces - and let the Afghans do what they will as long as they don't bother us ? What's our dog in the fight ?

After all, Afghanistan and Pakistan are a very long way away. Why should we care about what happens there to the extent of expending blood and treasure ? We don't do that for Sudan or Burma, for example - both ex-British administered territories, which is more than can be said for Afghanistan.

I think we all know the answer. Afghanistan and Pakistan are rather closer to us than their geographical position would indicate. Just as the citizens of Carmarthen preserved their dead tree for many years, so our rulers - perhaps with good reason - are concerned with preventing the fulfilment of an ancient prophecy.

A Small Post ...

At Biased BBC.

"being a Muslim has made her a better Christian"

Even the US Episcopal Church has its limits.

The decision was made by Bishop Geralyn Wolf of the Episcopal diocese of Rhode Island. Redding was ordained as an Episcopal priest in 1984 and lives in Washington State, but had kept her canonical ties in the state of Rhode Island.

Redding has said that being a Muslim has made her a better Christian. "Some people don't need glasses, some people need single lenses. I need bifocals," she told CNN in a television interview.

The statement issued by the Rhode Island diocese said that Bishop Wolf found Redding "to be a woman of utmost integrity and their conversations over the past two years have been open, honest and respectful". "However," the statement concluded, "Bishop Wolf believes that a priest of the Church cannot be both a Christian and a Muslim." As a result, Wolf imposed what is officially called "a sentence of deposition", in accordance with the canonical laws of the Episcopal Church.

Method In His Madness ?

I must try this when the £1800-odd council tax bill drops through the letterbox :

Anthony Bell, 62, told the court he works directly for UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon and though he was unable to pay his £936.96 bill he was expecting $10,000,000 to be wired to his account from Africa in the next few days.

They were among a number of claims he made under cross-examination by solicitor Eleanor Horner, prosecuting for Cotswold District Council.

He's obviously getting some 419s in his email, the poor soul.

Representing himself, Bell said he was a top world advisor on climate change and was due to address the US senate in the next six weeks.

He said that although he only had 7p to his name, the UN was working hard to pay him millions of dollars.

He also told the court he believed his important foreign work, which includes helping to regenerate Africa, meant he was entitled to diplomatic immunity from council tax.

Bell sought to prove his position at the UN by producing a series of ID cards to magistrates, including memberships for the Royal Society of Arts and the University Club in Washington DC.

He said: "I have been running on my own funds and have spent an enormous amount of time in Washington. When you are working 18 hours a day for the UN, you don't have time to pay your council tax."

Prosecuting for Cotswold District Council, Mrs Horner asked Bell: "If you were struggling to pay, why did you not apply for council tax relief?" He replied: "Do you know what it's like to be extremely busy when you are running Africa?"

Mrs Horner answered: "No."

Among other claims given in his evidence, Bell said he had advised Conservative leader David Cameron and Environment Minister Hilary Benn on climate change issues.

He said he had written the framework for the Copenhagen climate change agreement and he was in regular contact with Cotswold MP Geoffrey Clifton-Brown on the issue.

Bell offered magistrates his views on monitoring CCTV cameras in Cirencester and said he had recently been the victim of several attempts on his life.

During a break in court proceedings, Bell said he had been granted US citizenship because "the FBI are very pleased with what I did for them".

A Renaissance sort of a chap, obviously. You can see why 'they' might want him out of the way. But whatever he is, he's not daft.

The court cancelled the debt – totalling £1,153.96 including court fees and costs.

Mr Bell seems to be getting more change out of his local council than the similarly-challenged former MI5 operative David Shayler :

Glancing along a row of empty seats the judge decided to proceed without Mr Shayler and his fellow squatters, remarking: "This particular lot of trespassers usually make themselves fairly well known if they are going to turn up."

Although bailiffs were expected to arrive within the next few days to serve an eviction notice, it is thought likely that the process could take several weeks.

Speaking outside the farmhouse, about five miles from Guildford, Mr Shayler, barefoot but wearing men's clothing, said that his right to stay in the property rested on his belief that he is a reincarnation of Jesus Christ.

"You are looking at the man who has the power to give all authority on the planet and all wealth," he said.

"We are going to stay, I am the lawful user of this place.

"I have publicly claimed under oath that I am the Lord Jesus Christ which means that I am the highest authority under the law and that trumps everything."

I wonder if MI5 are regretting the day when they decided that alcoholic, promiscuous upper class homosexuals no longer represented their ideal recruiting pool ? Still, I suppose it's always possible that Mr Shayler is still in MI5. He's operating under pretty deep cover if he is.

Audacious £40m Heist

A breathless shop assistant, Mr Mandelson, told the Mail how four smartly dressed men walked into the exclusive Westminster office of the Department for Trade and Industry, held a gun to the head of chief salesman Stephen Byers, and ordered him to hand over Longbridge "or your Birmingham support gets it". "What else could he do ?" said Mr Mandelson.

No prosecutions have followed, or are likely to. "Looks like they got clean away", said Mr Mandelson, who has just returned from recuperating in Corfu and is reported to be "intensely relaxed" following the incident.

More on Birmingham ....

I, like the vast majority of people in Birmingham love the fact that our city is so diverse and vibrant. I felt that this was worth defending, especially from a bunch of trouble makers many of whom were from outside the city.

Unfortunately it turned out the UAF were no more interested in our community than the racists many of us turned out to oppose!

The young Muslims who rampaged through the city streets were incited to violence by UAF activists. I was near the front of the rally in Rotunda Square and I saw how they worked and I saw how it got out of hand.

The UAF should have switched rhetoric when they saw that the young Muslims were getting restless and angry. Instead what they did was get increasingly aggressive speakers to talk about ‘smashing the BNP’ (who not directly involved with the protest) whilst sending agitators into the crowd, with megaphones, to whip up anger there.

The writer of this letter to the Birmingham Post is a young Liberal Democrat.

Nevertheless it was clear that despite a majority of peaceful protesters there was a group of trouble makers intent on causing a fight. The UAF completely ignored this state of affairs and led a series of inflammatory chants and speeches calling for blood shed. When the expected march did not materialise the crowd of youths became restless. UAF agitators in the crowd stirred up trouble using megaphones and some bottles and pieces of wood were thrown at the crowd watching the protest. A great way to get people onside. Eventually the dam broke and the protest crowd surged forwards. I followed as they ran down the street, 'looking for the BNP' scattering both the Police and innocent shoppers, throwing glass bottles and damaging street furniture.
As the Police pushed back I returned to the place where the protest had started. The UAF had vanished, their work as agents provocators done, a riot was now in full swing.
The UAF's actions were insensitive and I believe that they have set the cause of race relations and anti-far right extremism in Birmingham back by years. The sight of young Asian men beating people up and running through the streets seemingly proves everything the BNP says. I have come away with the impression that the UAF is a cowardly organisation that seeks only to provoke violence and causes more harm than good.

Now to be fair, if I understand it correctly, the bottles and bits of wood were thrown - initially, anyway - at the four or five 'come on then' youths the other side of the police cordon - which our writer may not have been able to see. But I take the general point. 'Smash the BNP' to an audience like that translates as 'beat them up' - as approved by Billy Bragg.

And if you can't find any 'BNP', try any young white male. Or middle aged one. Or a bunch of girls and boys out for a drink*. At some point on this continuum - and not very far along it - protest turns into robbery with racist violence.

I wonder if the Guardian will print the letter above ? I wouldn't hold your breath.

(*I have received reports that young people arriving in Brum later that evening for a Saturday night out were beaten and robbed of wallets, mobiles etc by a large gang of doubtless sincere anti-fascists).

Hmmm

"Thamesmead was intended to be a vibrant, riverside community in south-east London."

Birmingham - a few afterthoughts

What appears to have happened in Brum on Saturday seems to fit a pattern that's been apparent since the Oldham, Burnley and Bradford riots.

a) "the provocation". This may be real, as in Oldham, where unpleasant Stoke City supporters abused and (probably) assaulted people on their way to Boundary Park, or imaginary, as in the non-existent "BNP rally" which was the ostensible reason for the 'big' Bradford riot (the earlier Bradford riot had a real trigger). In the case of the Brum trouble the provocation seems to have been a bunch of white guys leaping about and giving it the "come on then" from the far side of a pretty large police cordon. Eventually the police chased them off. Why they didn't quickly surround and arrest the two or three chief offenders I don't know - given the circumstances, "conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace" would seem a reasonable charge. But the chasing off only started once missiles were coming over the cordon.

"me and twos move down new street, as some possible skin heads, possibly just drunk guys come up mouthing off, the protesting mob goes crazy and starts throwing missiles so shoppers scatter while the police chase them down the street then turn on the rest of us taking cover in the alley, while one guy is struck on the head with a brick"

b) the response. Mostly if not always disproportionate to the ostensible provocation. Where the police still control the streets, takes the form of random, opportunistic attacks on whites, with at the most a bit of robbery 'on the side'. Where control is compromised, arson and looting are also prominent.

c) the reporting. Without actually stating so, the reporting will give the impression that injured victims were casualties of 'clashes' or 'fighting' - with the implication that it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. In fact, many if not the majority of casualties are victims of racist gang attacks - for what else can you call half a dozen onto one ?

Let's look at the Mail and Telegraph coverage of Brum - not exactly the left-wing press :

35 arrests in Birmingham after rival protesters clash

But apart from one chap with a Union Flag getting attacked, having it torn from him and burned, rival protesters didn't clash - and a good thing too.

Mass brawl between right-wing group and anti-fascists as race riots spill onto streets of Birmingham

Down on his knees as his attackers' feet fly in, this man's face was left a bloodied mess. It was just one of the sickening scenes photographed when a riot erupted in a city centre after Right-wing protesters clashed with anti-fascist demonstrators.

But there wasn't a mass brawl, and the guy in the green shirt just happened to be in the wrong place with the wrong skin colour (and the guy with the Union Flag who was attacked is shown in another photograph, minus flag, speaking to police. Caption : "Trouble brewing: A man appears to argue with police officers").


If this is the narrative the Mail and Telegraph are handing out, don't look for much from the BBC and Guardian. If the green shirt guy had been Asian being attacked by whites, the "English Defence League" would now be proscribed by law and the victim would be on the news 24/7.

Fame At Last ...

I was on holiday when this came out and missed it completely. Thank you, Ed West.

Blogs like Laban’s have changed the political climate in Britain. It’s one of thousands of similar blogs out there, all telling the truth about demographic change, abortion, the underclass, welfare mismanagement and Government debt. They go where newspapers, with our advertisers and middle-class hypocrisy, sometimes fear to tread, and so these blogs are setting the agenda. Together they chip away at the lies put out by our Government and our political class, and continue an English tradition of freedom-loving that stretches from Hereward to Tom Paine.

It's the chipping away that's important. We can't all be Guido or Iain Dale, so let's do what we may. As Marian and Izz Huett wrote to Angel Clare :

"... continual dropping will wear away a Stone - ay, more - a Diamond".

Not that there's much precious about this government, mind. They're stony broke but that's about as close as they get.

"The Real Face of Fascism"

Morning Star :

But it is with the people of Britain that hope lies. It is with those who took to the streets of Birmingham who showed those spreading hate that such poison will provoke an instant reaction.

Well, yes. Absolutely. An instant reaction. And not just to those spreading hate either (possibly distressing video content in the link) :

"as far as i'm aware the story behind this guy is that two people said to each other "lets rob him" and because they started hitting him ..."

Nasty - looks like a jump to the head from the thug in trackies. If hope lies with him and his mates the future looks bleak.

"... the rest of the crowd, already wound up from the drunk guy gobbing off from earlier all pounced on him with at least 10 or 15 people kicking this guy on the ground. don't think he was EDL but can't confirm ..."

And if he had been demonstrating with the English Defence League it would still have been a disgusting attack. From the comments at Harry's, RandomBrummie :

The majority of the people who were attacked were random passers by. The “fash” as you call them had long gone by then. If you were a White male passing by the crowd you were going to get a kicking. There was even a foreign White guy who made the mistake of taking pictures of what was going on and he was attacked in front of his young baby who was left unprotected in its pram. Granted the majority of the attacks were not as brutal as the pictures on the Daily Mail Website but i still don’t think it should have happened. Ironically the UAF scarpered when they saw what was beginning to happen with the ethnic minority youths attacking innocent White passers by (not saying that a few of the people who were set upon weren’t inciting the minorities because they were, but the vast majority just made the mistake of being in the wrong place at the wrong time) so it seems that the UAF only protest against racism when it is White racism directed towards ethnic minorities, not when it is the other way around.
I was in full support of the UAF originally as i agreed that the EDL were not what they seemed but after seeing what ended up happening i have changed my opinion completely.

I just thank god that i am a female so was not in the roaming youths line of fire.

As I wrote back in May :

I do not approve of beating up innocent people, be they respectable fast-food vendors of the wrong ethnicity in Luton or respectable fathers of the wrong religion in Coleraine.

Better add white Brummies to that.