The biter bit; but not bitter.

I have replies to my post of yesterday, about the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 summit/protest/partial riots, take your pick.

And very grateful for them I am too.

As I’d hoped to take part in this debate, I’ll post my responses as a main page since my correspondents have put up such a lot of good sense it’s a shame to hide it down in the little Blogger boxes.

Anonymous:

Welcome (again?), and thank you for your comments and arguments. I'll take them one by one, respectfully and respectively.

“Well I take heart that we aren't in a police state yet but that's no reason not exercise vigilance.”

Agreed and agreed.

“A lot of foolish people on the right imagine that the machinery of the state is fundamentally good but the wrong people are in charge.”

Maybe I’m being foolish… :-)

I think that the machinery of the State (some of it; that is the traditional functions of law and law creation and enforcement, defence, upholding and circumscribing contracts, and providing public goods – in the economic sense of ‘public goods’) is the State – and without which life would be Hobbesian or at best Hogarthian. So, these institutions are good in a roughly equivalent way to the sense in which air and gravity are good for human life.

“If only we can put our people in charge”

Our people ARE in charge – legitimately and democratically elected British MPs and Metropolitan Police Authority councillors. (You can’t even blame the EU for this one.) Party shouldn’t enter into this. Legislators should uphold the law and oversee its enforcement. Opposition, media and citizenry should hold them to account through the proper channels – and not on the streets in rioting. (Not saying that you support rioting here, but there are those for whom it’s the means and the ends, I think.)

Being ‘Right-wing’; meaning here conservative, does or should contain a strong aspect of respect for legitimate force even when it is distasteful – and when is force not distasteful outside of sport and fiction?

I agree with the general constitutional point that institutions should function irrespective of the party in power, and your point that making some parts of the state lawless or over-mighty is a bad thing even when some of what they might do would be good for ‘our party’, no problem. That’s Limitation Of Powers 101, and Peter Osborn in “The Triumph of the Political Class” points out, as you do, that the erosion of the limited and largely self-limiting Establishment began with the impatience of the Thatcher government.

“… they will make it all good.”

Nah. I’m a conservative, and therefore I don’t think anything in this world will ever make anything all good.

But seriously, no; the State is a rough-and-ready but well-established collective arrangement consisting of weak and fallible people with imperfect knowledge, but what I do believe is that it should be allowed to do its job for the most part. We pay the MPs enough and more than enough to check that it does just that.

Okay, they’re doing a lousy job of it at the moment, but that doesn’t mean we should or could micromanage them or second-guess everything.

“I think that's the root of the difference between say Dumb Jon and libertarians.”

Up to a point, Lord Copper. Dumb Jon is a conservative and therefore takes a view, if I’m reading him right, that some State functions are legitimate to preserve a number of desirable values - and that freedom is only one of them.

Freedom (in the classical liberal, Scottish Enlightenment, American and New Enlightenment sense) to libertarians is both the path and the prize. It may preserve and generate other values, but it’s still top of the list. At least, that’s what I used to think, back when I was a libertarian.

Maybe I’ve just agreed with you, and merely coloured in my version of yours?

“Nice but a bit idealistic. Think Baker bringing in the national curriculum to restore old fashioned teaching. That worked well.”

See the paragraph above for my agreement.

“The point of all this is that the loyalty of the Right to the police must have limits. After all the Stasi were policemen too and this government has done more than any to politicise the force.”

Absolutely! Or, rather, relatively! And in context.

Some ‘police’ forces are or were tyrannical and lawless: Gestapo, KBG, Stasi, etc, and I’m not suggesting tyrannical powers or lawlessness for ours. But they are limited by laws, and there are internal constraints and external complaints procedures, and the officer concerned may be brought to trial – as fair a trial as being posted all over the Internet will allow to him?her?, of course.

Fair trial? Hmm…

Here’s Liberty on privacy:

“The balance between the privacy of the individual and interests such as national security, crime prevention, and freedom of expression, is far from settled.
The extent of a right to privacy in the UK and its weight in relation to competing values is unclear. Current laws protect some aspects of privacy but disregard others.
Liberty are concerned with how the state, the press and others strike the balance between privacy and other interests.”

And here’s lovely Liberty again on this aspect of how “the state, the press and others strike the balance between privacy and other interests” –

“Shami Chakrabarti, of the human rights organisation Liberty, said: "Clear images of an armoured policeman assaulting an innocent bystander from behind impugn the whole attitude to policing protests by the Metropolitan police. The IPCC failed its first major test in the [Jean Charles de] Menezes case. If the commission is to regain a shred of public confidence it must do far better in terms of speed, sanction and transparency."

Tried and convicted in a single sentence. And the custards ipses likewise. Good old Liberty; always on the side of the individual and the little guy – and never the mob or the powerful.

Back to Anonymous

“It'll take more than electing Mr Cameron to undo the harm done by two or three generations of PC educated elites to this countries institutions.”

Agreed. The upper reaches of the public sector will need to be disciplined, perhaps purged, and certainly there will have to be retraining , ie de-programming from Tony’s Crony’s victim-generating world-view.

Also, I don’t know if you’ve looked elsewhere on this blog, but I don’t hold out much hope that Mister Cameron and his intimates will be able to solve as much as the Telegraph cryptic crossword (even on Thursdays); let alone any one of our country’s problems.

“My view of the death is that it is too soon to judge. On face value the force of the push did seem excessive given the video evidence but I'm inclined to give the policeman some leeway on the basis of "heat of the moment". It's unreasonable to expect the adrenaline to flow one minute and not the next. But that has to be demonstrated.”

Agreed again.

It’s not that what you’ve said is wrong – far from it in most cases – but that said and given the time we have and the lives we lead, comments can only contain so much information, can’t they?

So where do we go now?

Well, I want to add what I subsequently added [rather hastily draughted yet again, perhaps] to the ATW post, is that permanent and institutionalised opposition to the police – and you can be sure that there were plenty of such people amongst the legitimate protesters – can be as hurtful to life and liberty, if not more so, than meek public compliance with our non-existent Gestapo.

It went …after decades of crying wolf over 'police brutality,' when they finally get what seems at first sight to be a genuine example of it - or at least of roughness which preceded death by a heart attack - then the left and the libbies are up in arms.

Now OK, every man's death diminishes me and all that, but the civil rights lot are so up their own... I mean, are so specialized and one-sided in their concerns that they persecute and deride the police and the other security forces when they seek to protect all our lives from the jihadists.

Their arguments are usually one or more of:

A] There is no jihad - there's just a few unrelated Muslim reactions to local conditions - thus 9/11 was truly and only a reaction to US troops being stationed on Saudi territory (Al Q's main bug bear), and not a continuation of Koranic instructions to al the faithful in perpetuity,

B] there is no jihad, and anyway look at how the West stole all the oil, so that's alright then.

C] even if there is a little tiny jihad - or even quite a big one - it can never merit police raiding homes of probably innocent Muslims and thus marking them out as suspects and shaming them in the communidee,

D] the Nu Labour neoconzionists are using a few isolated incidents to set up domestic dictatorships and reinforce neocolonial power overseas.

In each and every case, it is the institutions of legitimate government that are under attack from the civil rights crowd and not the actual bombers and other terrorists and their internet cheerleaders that are threatened with the full force of liberal and libertarian opinion.

Field officers and detectives may in future feel intimidated as a result of the flak handed down from on high as a result of this tunnel-visioned civil libertarianism, and this poor man's heart attack and the political furore that it might result in could cause some armed response copper to hesitate.

And so the next police fugitive on the Tube might turn out not to be an innocent illegally-resident off the books foreign electrician after all, but a home-grown 'suicide bomber' from Leicester or Drewsbury who presses the detonator and liquefies a carriage full of London commuters whilst Plod tries to remember the Portuguese for ' Which was the greater goal scorer - Pele or Shakira?'

The poor chap's dead but not as a result of deliberate 'hit anyone on G20 day' policy by HMG or ultra-Right-wing police training or culture.

But the atmosphere: the stink and the cultural idiom that the civil libertarians will add to in this next bout of 'all coppers are bastards' may threaten innocent lives.

It's an atmosphere in which worse crimes are more likely to be committed against the innocent, and that's wrong.

Cherry Pie, yes, context does matter, we are told. I’d be interested to know how you felt the policing was on that day, however close or distant you were from these events? Not necessarily on my blog to boost my word-count, but maybe on yours?

You were there, trying to make the world better and, I guess from this, largely in sympathy with the main burden of the protests which I have typified as Left-wing. Were you the cherished heir to all those who lost life or loved ones from freedom and democracy, protected by your government’s police, or did it feel like you were there on sufferance? Was there the oft-described dichotomy of peaceful majority and violent minority? And you’re a photographer, and the picture-taker’s opinion of the film and the stills of mister Tomlinson’s push and fall ( or his assault and battery?) might be a good thing to know?

Just a thought.

Julia M thanks for the inspiration once more.

“who exactly is this 'our people'? Call-Me-Dave's bunch? Unlikely...”

It sometimes amazes me how everyone but we ourselves the less-than-anarcho-capitalist Right seems to think we’re so all up the Tory Party’s historic brain pan. They need to read you more.

Home

A man is dead, and there's no shortage of fingers

Ian Tomlinson: nigger, Nazi or victim?

I'm plagiarizing my own comments in other posts on this one, and I may soon regret posting in haste about the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 riots - sorry demonstrations - but there's good eating on Left-wing hypocrisy and libertarian me-tooism.

Julia does her usual thorough autopsy of the news and blogging coverage of death of Mister Tomlinson here.
Note that her comments are about the attitudes of bloggers and others to the news; it is in no sense an attempted justification of a 'police murder.' Mine might be, but hey, that's just me, right?

It's quite simply the best I've seen so far.

But the left wing media and blogs totally lost their collective shit.
Anyone from the ‘right’ of the blogosphere (either self identified, or those considered to be on the right by the left) who didn’t immediately post was castigated for ‘ducking the issue. By a Lib Dem blogger, no less!

Those who argued, once they’d seen the video in question, that other interpretations and conclusions were available, were howled down as the ravening pack descended on their comments section.

And this the crux to me:

"Wiser heads who elected to say nothing at all until more of the facts were in were mocked by commenters and pretty much told they should write about what the mob wanted them to write."

And that’s the difference between the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ (if those terms have meaning anymore). Emotion. With the left, emotion and immediate gratification rules. They react with passionate intensity to what they see, what they feel, and what things immediately look to be. If I’ve read once that Ian Tomlinson was ‘murdered’, ‘beaten to death’, viciously attacked’, I’ve read it a hundred times on blog comments. I’ve read that the police ‘caused his heart attack’ as if this was a) possible, and b) deliberate.

Left-wing history gets written when some adolescent-minded numpty reacts instantaneously and a Cause is born. It becomes Left-wing history proportionately to the number of people who express outrage and to the frequency with which their outrage is treated as measured and well-considered by the main opinion-formers and news-vendors of the day.

Ye gods - that means the mainstream media!

Over at A Tangled Web, Mike Cunningham had posted a quotation from Gordon Brown:

"And let me, therefore, promise you our continued support to ensure that there is no hiding place for terrorists, no safe haven for terrorism."

...and then immediatley after photo of a line of riot police guarding (I think) Westminster Bridge a next copy of the Guardian video showing Mister Tomlinson being shoved to the ground, and then arguing with police.

Hmm...

For those of us who want this to be a one-off incidence of what appears to be genuine police brutality, it's not an easy call, but still and all the police are by and large institutionally the good guys, and so in I dived with my ha'pennyworth:

This looks bad. The Guardian's decades-old assault on the forces of law and order can always do with a boost, and what appears to be a genuine example of police brutality is just the ticket.
It's being investigated already, according to our highly selective news.

And all the while, in back rooms and basements across Britain, and in camps in Pakistan, young men, enraged by internet hate sites, dream of doing Allah's work.

And the civil rights Left and the holier-than-thou-libertarians will draw together New Labour's increasingly authoritarian attitude to...well, to everything, and they themselves will choose to dream that there is no jihad - or at least not one caused anywhere but in 'Palestine,' and some land transfers and more 'aid' will solve that.

And the government's slippery resolve to protect us all will slip a little lower down the spin cycle.
And more of us will die. The grave is where you have no civil rights - none at all.

Not too bad for a Wednesday night before the pub with Mrs. Northwester wanting us out the door ASAP as scumble awaited, but still it seems I was right about the civil rights crowd.

We got:

Apparently certain sections of the police force get 'masked-up' because they specialise in brute, physical violence, and need the anonymity.
Good news of course for those in power who also seek anonymity while they pillage the State's coffers to enrich themselves. It kinda fits into the general ethos.

At least the thug has handed himself in I hear.
bernard

And then

I suppose I should really arrest myself, too. I'm a terrorist, as I often amble along the street, lost in thought. (Thought is doubleplusungood, as Smythe surely found out in '1984').
Tom Tyler.


So to quote the master:

For those who are keeping score there's the Tangled Web quickie posting [and I've done it myself, it's a legitimate dramatic effect for bloggers to use] which connects: a national security statement about terrorism from the Prime minister with a (probably illegal, yes, I got the irony, thank you so very much) photograph of street order arrangements for G20 with an egregious example of what appears at first sight to be unprovoked police brutality,

...followed by my (admittedly hasty) comment to the effect of 'Hang on, let's see if it's true, and what about the real destroyers of life and liberty; will they be discouraged by anti-police propaganda from the Guardian et at?'

and followed by a rack of we-are-all-victims stuff from posters. And it's not the worst on the web, by any means. Look here at the comments in Old Holborn and of course The Independent.

Admittedly, ATW attracts a lot of trolls of the 'you're wrong so nah!' type, but coming from the Bar Sinister end of the blogosphere - the one utterly silent on the rain of rockets onto Israel during the ceasefire and the suicide attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan - I suspect that the inalienable Rights Of Man not to be randomly killed for political convenience is not its chief motivation.

But even if we are all selective in the victims we publicly mourn, and we are, these are people happily feeding the febrile atmosphere of a cause celebre with little or no concern about what it's going to be like to be a police officer on public order duties over the Bank Holiday Weekend.
Their words of pain and outrage can't possibly be inflammatory and inspire heroes of the revolution to bottle them in revenge, but in any case, even if their moral panic did cause some police officers to be hurt, and even if the Left did force itself to admit that hurting police is bad [to some value of bad], we must all remember that using free speech to grunt inarticulately about our deep hurts that we suffer from and to express grievance at a system that ignores and diminishes them is their Absolute Inalienable Right, and should be enjoyed and exercised no matter what the consequences.




Unless someone says 'nigger,' obviously, as that can have TERRIBLE consequences for the named group.

Absolute Inalienable Rights have their limits, and you really have to check with the Guardian to see what they are, what with some grievances being merely vindictive grudges and all.

This poor dead bloke may very soon be painted as a latter-day Francis of Assisi, devoted family man, inventor of the cure for cancer...unless Ian Tomlinson eventually turns out to be a BNP supporter, in which case all bets are off.

Wow, even the BBC has this only as English news.
So maybe it is just a little local difficulty to the Government's analinctusest cheerleaders.

But with fresh 'news' and 'evidence' coming out all the time, will the light of truth finally be shone on this tragedy, or will more darkness merely be added?

As for the Left, we know just what they'll say,
But for the Right, let Dumb Jon end the day.



Home

A Bob a Bob a dildo

I believe in magic.

Rib me if you like about ‘six impossible things before breakfast’ , but I really do think that there’s very likely an occasionally kind, often cruel and frequently puckish providence – perhaps some kind of Fate or Wyrd - that effects our daily life.

I’m a big-time Judeo-Hellenic civilization groupie in case you haven’t noticed; but not a Christian believer despite the clear and present good that our civilization has derived from that faith and its abrahamic predecessor.
Yesterday however, Pan and Loki were having their day of glory. They put three gems in front of me that produced a nice, Right-wing sort of sequence.

I thought I’d take a look at The Independent for a change: that national bastion of all the Left-liberalism that isn’t already in the Guardian or on the BBC for a spot of - and I’ll be frank here - internet-assisted pleasure. What were those gems?

A dildo.

Now, call me old-fashioned. Please.

The first link that I noticed was one to an old page entitled ‘The Ten Best Sex Toys.’ Quite why an article dated September 2008 should appear on the front page in March 2009 on was not clear but I’m a growing lad and prurient enough and in good health and I wondered what the Great and the Good are doing to each other and what they’re doing it with. Being saddled with a bicameral brain of two hemispheres (be careful not to sit down on them too quickly, gentlemen) I decided to take a look.

The first item was a scarf which was being used to tie up the attractive hands of, I guess, a professional model. Bonny lass from what I could see; but a device that means a chap has to do all the work? Not with my back. Next there was a padded bat for spanking and then a ring that…Well, whatever. Later on there was a set of joined up cushions for support in the act or acts, and even some massage gear that would be pleasant even outside the marital bedroom. Later still there was some fairly chaste-looking lingerie and a pillow book which - let’s face it - in a world containing the Internet would be no surprise if not necessarily no great shakes.

The clincher for my social conservative ambitions, however, was the porcelain dildo.
Correction; the Hot and Cold Ceramic Dildo - £109. If you must, if you really must, then look for it from the link here.

There are uglier objects in the world; just look wherever British tourists go to seek the sun and tell me differently. Hey ho.

I’m not actually a prude as far as I can tell though I’m by no means the social libertarian I was back in the days before my back went and my daughter was born, and so the pleasures of the marital bedroom aren’t something that I think the Right, in any of its configurations, has much business in regulating.
There are caveats, of course, and ‘I don't mind where people make love, so long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses’ is not quite sufficient. I think there’s still a good reason why number of legal participants is kept down to two at most (and fewer still for Greens and Keynesians) and it involves the potential for violence and larger numbers ganging up to rape individuals in the most vulnerable and compromising situations imaginable. Crying ‘rape’ at an orgy? You’d get more police attention if you cried ‘racist.’

I recognise that the issue is so knotty and intrusive that even the severest social conservative (at least of the sort unwilling to employ a scimitar or piano wire) might have consistent reasons not to pursue or to legislate further. Sex amongst consenting adults may be the social Right’s Dardanelles.

So we live in a world of risk where sometimes the cure of law may be worse for the body politic than the disease of general uneasiness and the potential for even more broken marriages. As if the Money Conversation wasn’t enough for that.

But the thing is. The thing is. The thing is that this is a page in a great national newspaper: new by the standards of the other three but still a high value news and comment outlet. And it’s carrying advertisements for sex toys.
Is it the end of the world? Is it a Daily Mail-style-virtue holocaust of bad taste and permissiveness which will lead who-knows-where?

Well, no. That was the Nineteen-Sixties, and they’ve led us here.

I have little doubt that British society was excessively uptight about some things in the 1950s and 60s and change can be for the better. Effective contraception and cures for venereal disease have put the commonplace practice of teenage incarceration in mental hospitals for unmarried motherhood and the scourge of tertiary syphilis into the history books. Mostly. Cohabitation is an effective way of testing commitment and compatibility before marriage, and on the whole I agree with it. Not that cohabitation prevented me marrying into an unhappy relationship for all concerned despite some degree of forewarning, mind you, but still, it’s probably a plus. So a bit more freedom and a lot less shame and some things are better, or potentially so.

So this is where we start, because this is where the 1960’s ended. Why is it such a mess?

I think it’s because the very notion of right and wrong has been so subverted that those who sack off instead of shacking up, and those who shack up instead of cohabiting, and those who cohabit instead of marrying only see degrees of grey and no black and white.
So we get the serial bastardy and the dole that finances it and the land whales and meat people carriers of our charming underclass ghettos, and the ’needing space’ for the middle-class with its tax credits and the officialdom that sees little need for fathers except for their account numbers and sort codes for BACS transactions.

Speaking of…When I was trying to hold my previous life together; wife, daughter, mortgage, car, after serial redundancies I took the first job offered to me; Norman Tebbit style. Delivering fast food at night. One delivery I made was to some housing association flats on the edge of Castle City’s worst council estate and the shaven-headed vest-and trackie bottoms body-builder type who answered the door had music on full blast. I handed over the food and wished both customer and his ‘partner’ bon appétit, Northwest style. I had delivered food to them several Friday nights in a row. Partner was absent and I looked around as he started checking the food bag to see if I’d brought the right items.
‘She’s in the spare bedroom, sleeping,’ he explained at my puzzlement. ’She’s got an early shift tomorrow.’
‘I’m surprised she stands for that music,’ I said, thinking that the Mark One Mrs. Northwester would give me hell if I woke her up at four when I got home.
‘Don’t matter mate,’ he smiled casually. ‘If she squawks, chuck her out and get another one.’
And he meant it. Next time I delivered a new girl answered the front door as if it was her own. She lasted a few months.

It’s that easy.
You abandon absolute morality, or at least very strong customs with some degree of flexibility, and in forty years you get a ‘man’ who’s prepared to throw someone who shares his bed and (usually) his fast food onto the pavement at the slightest hint that she thinks he’s not perfect. And I am far from perfect, as you’ve noticed. I don’t think he’d have avoided a visit from her brothers and uncles and father if he’d tried such a thing when I was a kid.

But you never know. The times, they are a changing.


Bob One.

Bob Dylan; scourge of the Establishment of Two Continents, (excluding eastern Europe and Russia, oddly); troubadour of the anti-American Vietnam ‘peace movement’, authentic voice of the Sixties drugs culture and the musical herald of the Permissive Society with all its drop-outs and love-ins and let it all hang out, hasn’t cleaned out a portaloo on his Malibu estate and his security guards won’t let public health officials in when neighbours complain about the smell.

Quick! Which is true: Ageing Hippy Hypocritical Potty Packer, or Lone Libertarian Stands Against Forces Of Oppression In The Land Of The Free? You choose.

What’s he playing at having a private security force at his age? Admittedly, there are probably a lot of spaced-out, burnt-out, and outright ravingly insane druggies and whack-job conspiracy theorists on the loose in California these days for some reason. I wonder if the man who composed and performed the score to the dismantling of the Anglo-Saxon world’s moral structures knows why?

And that’s all that’s important in Dylan’s life right now, so move along my gentle fellow gentiles and ignore the screeching of aggrieved neighbours and the howling of the American underclass Los Angeles style, and move on to our last Indy treat of the day.



I always preferred the Welshman and the rabbit anyway.

Bob Two.

He is non sequitur made flesh. He is the master of the factoid and the throwaway evasion. His surname is a byword for the debunking of propaganda which masquerades as objective reporting.
He is Robert Fisk.

And here he is.

I’m only going to refer to a couple of points as he’s aways such an easy target.

“Why Avigdor Lieberman is the worst thing that could happen to the Middle East.”

Let’s think about that for a moment, shall we? The worst thing? The very worst?

Iranian mullahs get the Bomb and nuke Tel Aviv?
Nah.

Hamas fulfills its charter and destroys the State of Israel by conventional warfare and the Jews go where, exactly? On foot, given a conventional war’s implied air cover? Big yawn.

Hezbollah gets dirty bomb, and martyrdom operators cleanse the Muslim Holy city of Jerusalem of all multicellular life. Whatever.

Iraq descends into three-way civil war with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran coming in as ‘peacekeepers’. Actual - rather than imaginary - hundreds of thousands killed during first week in vaguely accurate bombardment of anything that moves bigger than a gerbil.
Snoozeroo, daddy-O. You ain’t hep to the beat.


No siree Bob; that ol’ Zionist right-winger Lieberman wants an oath of loyalty from all the inhabitants of a beleaguered and universally cursed neighbour. He also thinks that the population of two self-made ghettos whose leaders just can’t decide between them whether embezzling all those billions of dollars of aid on the one hand or spending it on rocketry and talking mice whose deaths at the hands of Zionists children’s’ television delights in is the better investment on the other might not come up with a smaller and equally peaceful version of all the other peaceful and just Islamic states, such as, oh, you know, the one with all the big hotels and…Leicester, maybe.

I mention is passing that Lieberman believes that the war from ‘Palestine’ is not about land or human rights but about ideology, ie, Islamic anti-Semitism, but the Koran does not exist for Fisk and his dhimmi pals.

Hamas’ genocidal charter does not exist for him, and so it cannot be wicked.

Their leaders’ bloodthirsty comments that all Jews everywhere, including the children, are fair play for assassination, and so can’t be evil.

And then this:

The Iraqis produced the hateful Saddam, the Iranians created the crackpot Ahmadinejad – for reasons of sanity, I leave out the weird ruler of Libya – and now the Israelis have exalted a man, Avigdor Lieberman, who out-Sharons even Ariel Sharon.

And so…what, Bob?

The ‘hateful Saddam’, huh? Say - does anyone know what happened to him? He still around being ‘hateful’?
And the ‘crackpot Ahmadinejad’ ; what does his crack pottery contain? Anything to do with the Bomb and death to Israel? Any ideas at all?
The weird ruler of Libya – would he be the guy who gave up his nuclear ambitions some time after, oh, around 2003, wasn’t it, when something Bob decided was an illegal war happened in Iraq.

None of them is evill in morally-fluid Fiskland.

I’m not saying that sexual permissiveness and hippy drugs culture necessarily directly lead to a so-called journalist who is willfully ignorant of the genocidal hatred contained in mainstream, orthodox Islam worldwide, but it is probable that moral blindness is a continuum and once you turn on, tune in and drop out then the constantly-threatened conventional and nuclear genocide of the Middle East’s Jewish population becomes a bit too much hassle to think about.

Which is why I’m grateful right now for the benevolent - or at least the twisty - intervention of Pan and Loki.

I was trying to think of some way quick of conveying what I feel about Fisk and his dhimmi genocide-supporters.


Which brought me, quite handily, back to the first topic of this post.

And it also gave me the title.

Home