A View From Across The Pond

There are plenty of blogthreads and articles floating around about how us Brits view the Americans in cultural terms. Usually they are either lambasting the US for its supposed crudity in terms that are themselves so crude that they end up creating an unintentional caricature of the author rather than the society he/she is attempting to portray. Occasionally a brighter commentator will suddenly realise that, hey, without these guys we would quite possibly be wearing brown boiler suits and be reading Das Kapital rather than the Sun with our breakfasts and will give a nod to the awesome debt that is owed the American people, and as matters progress in the slowly crumbling monolith that is Europe I suspect will be renewed afresh.

But only, and I stress the word, if one of the most fascinating battles in American political history has the right outcome.

The battle I refer to is not that for the Presidency, unusual though it is in that neither the incumbent President or VP is running for office. The battle is the one for, from this outsider's POV, nothing less than the heart and soul of the Republican Party.

Republican officialdom (what we in the UK often refer to as the Party Hierarchy) is at a crossroads at this moment. The relentless Leftist bias of the US media is beginning to succeed in the final stages of its mission to achieve a tectonic, permanent shift in the perceived location of 'centreground' of multiple issues in US Politics. But it can only complete that mission if senior Republicans (including the Commander-in-Chief himself) allow themselves to heed the seductive call of that perceived middleground.

Because its easy, you see. Really easy, in fact. Easy to accept the consensus on a multiplicity of issues, and narrow down the things that a politician really needs to actually have a position on. So much easier to let their be bipartisan agreement to, you know, not really discuss certain things because the decision about what people think has already been made. And the leading contenders in the Republican primary race are already starting to show signs of this consensus forming, without drawing anyone's attention to the fact.

Take immigration, for example. Well if there's one thing which could bury McCain with the Republican Party, its the so-called Guest Worker Program, which it is painfully obvious is nothing more than an amnesty for illegal immigrants. But Giuliani supports it with very little reservation. Mitt Romney on his own website gives the issue of immigration a huge seven lines, showing the obvious depth of his feelings on the matter. Whilst decrying illegal immigration (but not, it should be noted, calling for the removal of illegal immigrants or even stating a policy position on that issue) he says quite openly that he wants to see even more 'legal' immigration into the US, as if the only part of the immigration issue worth mentioning is whether or not a person entered the country illegally or not.

Even Gingrich, the still unannounced not-so-dark horse in this race, broadly supports it, though he at least is clear as to the issue's immense importance for America's future. However, having spent an amount of time making it clear that he understands that America's cultural integrity and demographic is being destroyed by mass immigration, he then begins to do his best impression of that seductive voice from the centreground, which has only the best interests of those who have entered America to leech from its body politic...

"Note that none of the above requires direct action against people who are here illegally. None of these steps will break up families or cause undue hardship."

Unlike the hardship felt by Americans who have had to support the enormous burden of healthcare, ever-rising crime, falling wages due to cheap labour...

"As we transform our immigration system from a dishonest to an honest one, it is understandable that those living and working here illegally — especially those who have lived and worked here illegally for a long period of time — would be anxious and fearful about the future. While our two-decade-long failure does not mean that we are required to maintain a dishonest system, it does mean that must have a humanitarian period of transition as we replace an illegal channel of immigration with a legal one."

Oh, the humanity. This, remember, is the current top 'Real Conservative' candidate for the Presidency folks, unannounced or not. Warms the heart that he has such concern for people who have been enjoying his country's benefits at the working man's expense for 'a long period of time'.

Gingrich says this 'isnt an amnesty'. I cannot imagine what else allowing a huge mass of illegal immigrants to stay in his own country is if it isnt an amnesty.

But there it is, folks. Probably the single most important issue facing America today (and I include the War on Terror in that - fighting Jihad abroad is pointless while a nation rots from within) and well lookee here - there's that handy consensus from the Big Four of the Republican Party. Mass Immigration is good - as long as its legal, and hey presto, we can make it so by spending your tax dollars on turning the people who have been driving down your wages, hoovering up your Healthcare, into new 'legal' immigrants.

I'm sure some American readers are blinking slightly in the face of this onslaught on what must be in some cases their favoured candidates. Where does this uppity Brit get off telling us what's wrong with our candidates? Where does he get this great insight into where our beloved GOP is stumbling toward?

The answer, ladies and gents, is simple experience. Here in my own country, we've had this 'handy consensus' thing going on for a very, very long time now - and on far more issues than Immigration. Our opposition 'Conservative' Party sold its soul to a smooth-talking, photogenic liberal Devil called David Cameron in an act of political calculation which set the seal on our media's campaign to shift the centreground firmly to the Left.

Immigration is the issue which must not be named unless it is to celebrate the increased Diversity (for which read destruction) of our culture. Those small Parties that do are decried as racists, neo-nazis, fascists etc - by our supposed 'conservatives' as well as the Left.

EU Membership? Well once again, our 'Eurosceptic' opposition now has a leader who states quite clearly that he would never have a 'Eurosceptic' in his Cabinet.

The Taxation debate? What Taxation Debate? Again, the three main Parties have decided that Britain should be and must remain a High-Tax, High-Spend, High-Debt economy.

Yet still desperate members of the Conservative opposition continue to campaign for a Party which no longer even vaguely represents their views on the important issues, with a leader who is so far removed from the reality of their lives that his most (in)famous speech to date was a call to understand 'hoodie' criminals (as opposed to jailing them) by giving them a hug.

Any of this sounding familiar to any of you 'lifelong Republicans'? Because if it isnt sounding familiar yet, its going to very shortly.

The GOP is your Party, boys and girls. Its not McCain's, Giuliani's, Romney's, Gingrich's or even ultimate George Bush's Party. And if you settle for a compromise candidate now who isn't prepared to represent your views, who is prepared to kowtow to the 'handy consensus', then if you get him elected you'll very quickly find that you won the Presidential battle just fine...

...but lost the War to save America.

(Cross-posted at The Wide Awakes)

No Offence Mr Hart, But Not Likely

Regarding the below post, Mr Hart has indicated that he will not give his solicitor's details out without my first giving my private address. Obviously as he is in correspondence with leading lights in the terror-supporting Manchester 'anti-war' movement, this is not going to happen.

Mr Hart has a history of preemptive threats of litigation, including by his own admission apparently sending one of his books to the Board of Jewish Deputies with a warm note attached threatening legal action in advance should they adversely comment on it!

He is, as I have said to him, obviously an intelligent man. I can understand an AK-47-waving Palestinian or British Muslim seriously believing this stuff, but for an educated man to do so leads to the conclusion of anti-semitism. But (and here's the rub) is 'anti-semitism' a crime of intent, or a crime of prejudice? If someone has preconceptions about Jews that are offensive and negative and propogates those views accordingly, but doesnt feel an actual *animosity* towards them, are they guilty of anti-semitism?

And which category does Alan Hart fit into? That, ladies and gents, is the 64,000 dollar question...

Answering An Anti-Semite's Challenge

Dear Alan Hart,

You are an anti-semite. You say you will sue anyone identifying themselves who says so. So post your solicitor's contact details in the comments and I'll stitch you up even better in court than David Irving. I've left the same message on your Blog, though comment moderation means it'll never be seen.

Bring it on.

(Cross-posted with a disclaimer added at A Tangled Web)

English Only Poll

"Scotland should immediately be granted full political and financial independence from the rest of the United Kingdom, and vice versa."

Please vote Yes or No and feel free to give your reasons.

Hey, No Worries, Its Just Legitimate Criticism Of Israel, Right?

...or not. S'funny though when you think about it. A swastika-waving Neo-Nazi group produces a leaflet saying that if you join the US Army you are fighting for Israel and features a stereotypical bignosed Jew giving orders to a US soldier...this would no doubt be called anti-semitic in nature by all but the most rabid of commentators. And yet...

Waving flags of organisations dedicated to killing Jews and destroying Israel at a Leftist rally? That's 'showing solidarity with the poor oppressed Palestinians'.

Waving banners calling Jews 'Zionist pigs' with fanged demons wearing Israeli skullcaps in the background at a Leftist? 'Legitimate criticism'.

'No blood for Israel' signs at a Leftwing rally? 'Hey, that's because, you know, Israel, you know, leaned on the US somehow to invade Iraq, right? We have absolutely no proof of this but, well what about AIPAC and the Jewish, whoops, sorry Zionist lobby?'

Let me repeat, all these messages are Leftwing messages, found at every so-called 'antiwar' rally, found on every Leftist Blog such as the increasingly vile and more importantly openly anti-Jewish Daily Kos. Leftist opinion journals like Counterpunch carry this kind of material constantly...here's a subtle and tasty quote which puts me in mind of a cockroach running for the darkness at the mere thought of having the light shined on it...this is how Counterpunch writer
Arthur Neslen feels about the latest report (not suppressed this time thankfully) on anti-semitism from the EU.

'Anti-Semitism', its report began, 'is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred'. Such a perception could include stereotypical or dehumanising libels about, for example: "The power of Jews as a collective - such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."

But it could also include a litany of lobbyist shibboleths, such as:

"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor); Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation... Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."

Uh-huh. So whilst he wouldnt dream of thinking of himself as an anti-Semite, Neslen feels that claiming the very existence of Israel is racist and that its actions are comparable to Nazism is legitimate criticism. Expecting Israel to behave to a totally different standard of behaviour than every other nation? Not at all unreasonable! Collective responsibility (hmmm, where have we heard that one before, could it be from Leftists like Neslen whining that the security fence which has so drastically reduced terror attacks on Israeli soil is 'collective punishment' for the Palestinians?) ? Perfectly fine and dandy - as long as it is only applied to the Jews.

Ironically, Neslen claims himself (without evidence of course) to have been a victim of anti-semitism from...you guessed it, the BNP! Who he then goes on to mention (broadly) supported Israel's efforts against Hezbollah in Lebanon - you'd think that might be food for thought for someone who is 'definitely not an anti-semite' but most definitely didnt express the same support for anyone but Hezbollah themselves...

Its when Neslen comments on Palestinian anti-semitism though, that his true colours really show through.

"Certainly, some Palestinians talk about 'Yehuds' in a derogatory fashion, cite libellous texts without forethought and make foolish statements about the Holocaust. But that's what happens to language when you step on someone's throat."

'A derogatory fashion'?!? Palestinian schools feature literature, teaching and posters with subtle and tasty quotes such as 'Killing a Jew brings you closer to God'. Libellous texts? Well, after the Koran, Mein Kampf is currently the bestselling book in the Arab world. And the PA is currently run by Mahmoud Abbas, a man whose doctoral thesis was, you guessed it, a denial of the Holocaust.

What kind of person can interpret the undeniably genocidal nature of the Palestinian attitude to Jews as 'talking about them in a derogatory fashion'? Only one kind, the same kind that genuinely believes that Israel is 'stepping on Palestinian throats' by protecting itself and that claiming the very existence of the world's only Jewish State is racist is perfectly legitimate.

At least the people who distributed the literature in Berkeley are honest about their racism and their hatred. The anti-semites of the Left dont even have that to commend them.

(Cross-posted at A Tangled Web)

Kick The Dogs

Via the wonderful House of Dumb, we have another piece of Tory PC lunacy to either laugh or cry at, depending on your political allegiances. This time its that luverly photogenic 'Muslim female in a suit' that the Tories love to trot out from time to time, such as afer 7/7 when she called for dialogue with the bombers' colleagues in a statement that had a marked lack of exhortations to, you know, bring them to justice.

Yes folks, the latest piece of cuddly Tory nuttiness is this: rejected asylum-seekers should be given a 'revokable' licence to work. That's right. People who have come to Europe's most liberal asylum regime and whose claims have finally filtered through the labyrinthine system of bloodsucking advocacy lawyers and Home Office encouragement and still have had their claims found to be so laughably false that they are rejected should be...allowed to stay here anyway.

I liked this bit best:

"They are unable to work or contribute to society, unable to leave and sleeping rough."

Uh-huh. So now rejected asylum-seekers are 'unable to leave'. Lady, that's the Government's job. I appreciate that its going to leave a wee carbon footprint to put the small percentage of failed asylum seekers in Britain on a plane back to their point of origin, but then again hopefully this would be our poor impoverished asylum-seeker's only flight that year anyway, fulfilling another of Blu-Labour's nutty policies.

Quite apart from the general lunacy of the Tory hierarchy in abandoning any pretence whatsoever that they are going to control mass immigration into Britain, what should we make of the loyal diehards at Conservative Home? Those 'true-blues', spinning frantically along as they try to make sense of their leadership's latest kick in the teeth to everything they believe in, usually by, as can be seen, blaming the messenger as if any such message in the 2007 Tory Party is issued without the approval of Central Office.

The Tory hierarchy figured out some time ago that it is possible to come up with any Policy, make any statement, perform any action no matter how antithetic to the beliefs of the Conservative membership, and still have that membership deliver the leaflets, send the money, put in the effort and generally roll onto its back to have its collective tummy scratched come election time.

These true-blue doggies have been kicked so many times that it seems they've actually started to like it.

(Cross-posted at A Tangled Web)