Petition to oppose political correctness

It’s a bit late in the day now, but here is a petition for parliamentary candidates to sign stating their opposition to the political correctness which has brought our country so low.

The party which shines brightest is UKIP. There are plenty of good statements worth reading there, including:

“I’m not a……sorry, force of habit. Most things people say these days starts with those words. I’m sure signing this will make me an ‘ist’ of some sort or guilty of some form of ‘ism’ that will alert Blair & Brown’s Thought Police to my need for re-education but what the heck. I’ve saved up really, really hard and I can now afford to switch the heating on between 3.15 and 3.37pm as a treat so I’m in a good mood. Just contemplating where I’m going to emigrate to on Friday should THEY get back in again. Got to go, there’s a knock on the door…..”

Bryce Mailer

“UKIP Parliamentary Candidate.
Political Correctness is downright divisive, dangerous and offensive to millions of British citizens. PC nonsense is fuelling growing resentment, anger, hatred and tensions between communities and should be completely outlawed. A UKIP Government and UKIP run councils would ban all forms of political correctness and close all national Government, local Government and quango PC posts and positions. The PC Brigade gravy train wouldn’t be so much derailed but more blown completely off the tracks! Destroy now!”

Steve Grey

I think we will indeed see a big increase in emigration of all the people we most need to stay here if Labour are re-elected. I would certainly look at the option seriously: an already sinking ship would have just had its sails removed and a hole blown in its side. No point hanging around to watch the demise. This is the chance to save the UK, right here, right now.

Unrealistic aspirations

We should all work hard and try our best at everything we do. This much is surely uncontroversial. But watching this albeit moving incident of a girl breaking down in front of Gordon Brown recently put me in mind of the comments from Prince Charles of 2004. I thought at the time they were very sensible and I still think so now. He said:

“What is wrong with everyone nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their actual capabilities?

This is all to do with the learning culture in schools – the child-centred learning emphasis which admits of no failure and tells people that they can all be pop stars or High Court judges, or brilliant TV presenters – heads of state! – without ever putting in the necessary work or effort, or having the natural abilities.”

These comments seem perfectly reasonable to me. He wasn’t trying to stop people trying their best, he was merely pointing out that we cannot be anything we want to be (it is a certainty, for example, that I will never be as good at mathematics as I would like). We should cap our aims realistically according to our aptitudes unless we want to be forever disappointed and frustrated. Many children now, with the help of Big Brother, Pop Idol, etc, are under the impression they can all be (indeed – more dangerously – have the right to be) celebrities, lawyers, professional footballers – where does it end – rocket scientists, astrophysicists, consultant surgeons? It isn’t always possible.

Labour relentlessly pushes for equality, but this can have the effect of dragging down the best students to the level of the worst. People are not all identical, and they cannot be engineered to be so. Although the liberal mind usually favours a comforting fantasy to reality, facts like this need to be faced. Furthermore, differing aptitudes and abilities (within limits) are valuable to society. Labour’s promise of equality for all has resulted in the lowering of the standard of exams, resentment among people for not being able to achieve what they are promised, and the general dumbing down of the country.

The day our high court judges write their reports using SMS abbreviation and say “I ain’t gonna convict this geezer even though e dunnit cos he’s been prejudiced against, innit”, we shall know we have arrived.

Fixed voters

You sometimes hear people say, on vox pops, “I’ve always voted Labour so I’ll vote Labour again this time”. Or – even more idiotic – “I come from a Labour voting family: me granddad voted Labour, me Dad voted Labour so I’ll vote Labour too. I just can’t imagine voting for any other party”.

What people are saying, of course, is that they do not possess the critical faculties to assess party policies for themselves. The Appeal to Tradition is sufficient for them.

In the case of Conservative voters, such blind allegiance is also regrettable, but in this case at least the ideology is, I believe, better. Socialists often try to pass off their position as altruistic and morally superior, whereas I believe they are more often driven by envy, bitterness and a “hard-done-by” mentality. If they cannot be successful they want nobody to be successful, or – at least – they want to reap the benefits of others’ success. (Among these I do not count “Champagne Socialists” and “Limousine Liberals”, who are hypocrites  – often thespian – with unnecessary guilt complexes.) The self-made millionaire and entrepreneur Duncan Bannatyne, for example, faced hostility from many among his northern roots, despite creating 3,000 jobs for the country having started with only an ice-cream van and the determination to work very hard.

In fact, in Britain -  a country where it is impossible to do anything, no matter how heinous, that will cause the state to abandon you (let alone put you to constructive work in a chain gang) – people are not as deprived of opportunity as they often like to think.

Brown’s gaffe

Gordon Brown has made the mistake of calling one of his own supporters a “bigot” while he thought his mic was off because she was rightly concerned about Labour’s open door immigration “policy”.

This incident is quite revealing, I believe, because it shows not only that Mr Brown says one thing in public and another in private (as we might have presumed), but it also shows us how detached from reality Mr Brown is regarding the issue of immigration that he could consider someone with her valid complaints “bigoted”. It shows us that Labour still hasn’t changed its crazed position on immigration (or, probably, multiculturalism) at all.

To me it is not so important that one thing is said in public and another in private. I believe it is of importance what is said in each situation. While we should be as consistent as we can be, most if not all people speak somewhat differently depending on who they are with. Diplomacy is sometimes called for in a public situation where there are other costs at stake, but one would hope that the speaker’s genuine position, when in private, would be the right one. In this case it was the wrong one, and that’s what principally concerns me – especially as Mr Brown is in a position to actually realise his plans (or lack thereof).

Brown’s method of dealing with this faux pas was also dishonest, and this was entirely public. He claimed to have misunderstood the woman, claimed that what he said in the car was not his genuine position. Both of these claims are most likely false. He also said he apologised if what he said has been offensive, which is not the same thing at all as saying “I’m sorry for what I said”. Furthermore his initial response was to say he would not willingly have put himself in a position where had to say something like that about someone – undoubtedly his most truthful comment and of course not an apology but rather an expression of exasperation.

No public figure is lauding it over Mr Brown too much, because everybody knows this is something most people do, and they might themselves be caught out in the future, but the fact remains that although people claim to want leaders who are “like them” they really mean only like their good points. Really they want Kipling’s impossible If character. Nonetheless this incident will undoubtedly damage Brown severely at the polling booths, where he was already going to do badly.

If he cared about the party Mr Brown would resign at this point and insert someone such as David Miliband in his place. I’m not very keen on Miliband but he would stand a better chance than Brown in the election. But he will not resign because – unlike Nigel Farage, for example – he cares more about his own success than that of party policy. Ironically this will probably cause him to suffer the humiliation of one of the greatest Labour defeats in political history.

One effect of this incident is that it deprives us of knowing just how heavily Labour would have been defeated on May 6th had the incident not occurred. Quite heavily, I dare say – I believe their vote now comprises almost entirely of benefits recipients and those who are opposed to traditional British cultural identity. But with the addition of this gaffe it is now highly likely that Labour will trail in third place after the Liberal Democrats, as many who would have voted for them now vote Liberal – and this will change our political landscape.

I will still be voting for UKIP, however if hearsay is anything to go by my vote will count for nothing, because I am voting by post and they say Labour have those votes rigged. It wouldn’t surprise me.

Forthcoming election

Many people remain unimpressed by any of the “main three” candidates for the forthcoming election. Brown has allowed incompetence and corruption within his party and almost every decision Labour makes seems to be wrong. Cameron comes across as somewhat slippery and fake and you have no idea what he really stands for. Clegg and the liberals come across as naïve. So who’s left?

As Pat Condell urges here, you should vote with your conscience. Vote for the only credible party whose aim is for us to gain control of our country again. Go out and vote UKIP on May 6th. That’s what I will be doing.

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

The £212 million phone system

It is not uncommon, when you phone a company in the UK, to find yourself thereafter in a perpetual loop whereby you are passed from one person to the next, before you have time to protest, and then finally, after six people, you end up with the first one again, who cannot help you at all. During this time, of course, you have to repeat your situation (usually a product of their incompetence) at length to every individual. To say this experience is frustrating is something of an understatement.

The other common experience is the following, which I just had: you phone a company, the Nationwide in this case, and are answered not by the usual Indian call centre person whom you cannot understand, but by a computer. The computer says:

“Hello. Please say the name of the person you wish to speak to.”

You say “John Harris”.

It says “Tom Parris. Please hold while I transfer you.” (Apparently this crude artificial intelligence has self-consciousness now.)

After a moment: “This line is does not exist [as if you had claimed it did]. I am now going to transfer you to the operator.” Then it comes… “clunk”.

You think “It can’t have just disconnected me. Why would it do that?” But you know it has. It lied. It wasn’t going to transfer you to the operator at all. You are disinclined to call back, or to have anything to do with the company, but you know you have to, at least temporarily.

You reflect on the money that would be needed to install a telephone system that worked in a big company like this. Or maybe some staff instead. A company would surely need to make some healthy revenue in order to do this. You discover that the said company made £212 million profit last year – they complained this was not enough – and you are thereby reminded that money does not often buy managerial competence, or conscience.

Frank Miller on the threat from Islam

I was just reading up about comic book creator and film director Frank Miller and I reached the section on his political views, in particular his views on the war in Iraq and the threat of Islam as it spreads across the western world. I presumed I was about to read the usual leftist views about how Bush is a war criminal etc. so imagine my surprise when I read the following:

“It seems to me quite obvious that our country and the entire Western World is up against an existential force that knows exactly what it wants … and we’re behaving like a collapsing empire.

For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we’re up against, and the sixth-century barbarism that they actually represent. These people saw people’s heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us.

I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where 3000 of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.

Nobody questions why we, after Pearl Harbor, attacked Nazi Germany. It was because we were taking on a form of global fascism, we’re doing the same thing now.”

- Frank Miller

So rarely do we even get to hear a contrary, politically incorrect, view like this that it is well worth posting here, though it is likely to rile many a multiculturalist liberal.

Rossini: Matilde di Shabran

Rossini (like Donizetti) is often much underrated as an operatic composer. But behold this amazing piece as it build and builds, requiring immensely skilled singing by the performers as the tempo increases (it sounds almost like a tongue-twister) – yet they carry it off.

Click on the video for details of the piece and performance.

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

An evening in central London

These days I spend most of my time either working or at the gym. I rarely listen to the radio, because Radio 4, the only station offering relatively intelligent programmes, is excruciatingly politically correct. The music on Radio 3 (especially late in the evening) often seems to consist of little more than dustbin lids being hit along with a triangle being pinged – this is endearing, in a sense, but becomes tiresome. Classic FM plays reliably good classical pieces, but is slightly dumbed down by some of its “celebrity DJs” and of course one has to tolerate the same, usually fatuous, adverts being played hour after hour, week after week. Fortunately there is Internet radio offering a multitude of channels from all over the world, free of charge with no adverts.

What of the television? I don’t watch that either. I don’t have a TV license, so I never pay the BBC anything and I don’t have to endure any television advertising at all. This brings great peace of mind. I do sometimes see cinema advertising however, and it is often especially insulting, with a predictably vulgar offering from that common brand French Connection being a memorable recent offender.

Again, many things worth watching can be watched on the Internet. I usually, in any case, find creating more satisfying than consuming, so none of these media are a great loss. The peace of mind brought about by avoiding cretinous advertising is alas soon unsettled, I have noticed, by even the briefest exposure to the general public during the average outing into central London. The most likely word you will overhear as you pass someone (probably smoking) on the pavement remains “f**k”. You need to check where you’re going to sit on the Underground as you get onto a train.

This evening my wife and I ate in a Mexican style restaurant on Leicester Square. We were treated to the usual customer service in any such place: nearly none – the polar opposite of American service. The food was okay, but the experience was ruined by the presence of a very self-centred girl sitting nearby who spoke very loudly about herself for the entire time (not an unusual phenomenon in London). By the end of our visit there (and we made haste to leave) we were acquainted with every tedious detail of her unremarkable life. So was everybody else nearby. In a case like this it’s hard to know what to do. If the person even sees you looking, this will likely feed their ego (they almost certainly misinterpret it as interest in them), which is of course the last thing you want to happen. If you get up and ask them to keep their voice down, well, you will likely receive a mouthful of abuse, they will complain to management and you will be asked to leave. If you complain to management, nothing will happen. We did complain: nothing happened. All you can do, really, is leave, and then proceed to face the same problem somewhere else. It doesn’t matter where any more – I’ve experienced inconsiderate behaviour everywhere from McDonald’s to top class hotels.

Following this experience we went along to the The Strand and decided to visit the Savoy hotel, where I had been before, and I was very surprised to see it has closed for a £100 million refurbishment. The rooms were rather shabby, it has to be said, though the reception and bar were nice. Thwarted, we headed over the road to the Strand Palace hotel, where I had not been since the age of 12. The bar here is nice enough, though rather bland and modern, I feel, for a hotel of this title in this area. It’s more like a conference room – and indeed much of the hotel’s business is probably corporate.

From here we made the short walk to the Adelphi Theatre to watch Love Never Dies, Andrew Lloyd Webber’s sequel to his Phantom of the Opera. I am not usually a musical-goer, but this musical has been getting a lot of fanatical reviews full of hatred, so I would like to say here that in my opinion it was excellent. All performances seemed to me flawless, there was not a slow moment during the story (which seemed credible as a sequel) and there were memorable melodies. There’s much more to say about it actually: the costumes were great and so were the sets and special effects. I was particularly impressed by how quickly they changed these elaborate sets – often within seconds. Don’t believe the bitter critics. The show received a standing ovation and for good reason.

We were sitting next to Lord Jeffrey Archer during the performance (he didn’t seem too impressed with the show) and on our way out stood next to none other than “SuBo” (Susan Boyle), who did seem impressed and was quickly ushered into a people carrier which whisked her away. SuBo, of course, has an excellent voice. Trust her, not the vitriolic critics, and go and enjoy Love Never Dies.

When we left the Adelphi we called into a nearby pub. Let’s just say we should have been able to judge the quality of the place from its sign: “Binge drinkers welcome”.

MP calls for burqa ban

Brave MP Philip Hollobone (who also happens to be the “cheapest” MP in Westminster) has come out and called for a complete ban of the burqa in Britain.

This garment is obviously very anti-social. It also indicates a backward mindset which does not value evidence (namely that of Islam) and it is a security risk. All good reasons for it to be banned immediately, but don’t hold your breath in this country of dhimmitude, even if “Call Me Dave” Cameron gets in.

“We are not a Muslim country” says Mr Hollobone. Not for now, I’m sure he realises. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the way things are going we will be in due course.

Idiocracy

In this great film Mike Judge shows how things are going here in the UK.

An example of biased journalism

Radio Netherlands website has run an article on the popularity of Geert Wilders in that country, heavily biased against him, of course. I have “marked” the article here, supplying corrections which will expose the politically correct bias which is sadly evident across all of Europe’s mainstream publications:

“And the winner is… Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party. As elections are held for the country’s municipal councils in the Netherlands, it is already clear who will come out ahead. We need not wait for the ballots to be counted.

Right-wing populist Rising star Geert Wilders, pictured above casting his vote in The Hague this morning, has managed to dominate the agenda appealed to voters once again. Everyone’s talking about immigration, integration and Islam – the Freedom Party’s main issues. Evidence? Or they are talking about the Freedom Party (PVV) itself, and whether it should be ruled out of potential coalition talks due to allegedly racist standpoints. ? You tell us.

30,000 votes
The Freedom Party’s hold (Like a stranglehold? Nobody is forcing people!) on the Dutch national attention is the more remarkable given that it is taking part in only two of the 394 municipalities holding elections on Wednesday. About four percent of the Dutch population will be able to cast a vote for the Freedom Party. Good..

The municipal councils in these two cities, The Hague and Almere, right now are divided between 12 and 10 parties, respectively. The Freedom Party could become the biggest party in Almere with just 30 percent of the vote. Plus, turnout for local elections is always low. Good – reporting facts, avoiding blatant bias..

Add up all these factors, and about 30,000 votes for Mr Wilders’ party will make him the hands down winner on Wednesday. Can you be sure? What leads you to this conclusion?

All politics are national
Wednesday’s local elections were on the calendar long before the fall of the cabinet ten days ago. Local elections are always seen as a barometer for national politics, this time more than ever.

In the wake of the cabinet’s collapse (after failing to agree about extending the Dutch mission to Afghanistan), national elections have been called for 9 June. Wednesday’s municipal elections are the kick-off to what will be an intense three-month campaign.

Geert Wilders currently has nine seats in the lower house of parliament (out of 150), but his party has been polling much higher for the last year. The Freedom Party could become one of the largest, if not the largest party in The Netherlands.

And that on the basis of 20 percent support, due to the fractured nature of the Dutch electorate.

Wilders already in the driver’s seat
That steady support for Geert Wilders means that he is already much more influential than he was before the fall of the cabinet. The Netherlands is now being governed by a caretaker government. The cabinet must defer to parliament much more so than under normal circumstances. But not only is the current parliament more powerful – the wishes of potential coalition partners in the next government are also taken into particular account. No one wants to make policy that will be reversed after the next election.

So Mr Wilders’ current nine seats in parliament have already grown in influence in a certain sense, if not – yet – in number.

Proof in the pudding
Of course, many question the Freedom Party’s ability, or even its willingness, to govern. Who? Who questions this? It is not enough to merely cite “many” Taking populist standpoints Risking one’s life on principle is easier than making policy. A number of PVV policy proposals would be difficult to implement, but are attractive to some many voters: a ban on Muslim headscarves in public buildings, eliminating the fee for residential parking permits and eliminating the tax on dog ownership.

And that leads to another reason why Wednesday’s municipal elections matter. For the first time, in Almere and The Hague, the Freedom Party may be in a position to leave the opposition benches behind, and join the government. Governing at city level is not unlike governing at the national level – it involves forming coalitions, and making compromises.

Wednesday’s elections will tell us a lot about the state of play in Dutch national politics.”

6/10 Not too bad – some facts in here, but readers will be able to see your extreme liberal bias. You present Wilders as though he is some kind of villain, without giving any reasons why he should be seen as such. Stick to the facts.

Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema: Under the Roof of Blue Ionian Weather

A requirement of all modern art seems to be that it is stark, bleak and ugly. Enjoy this classic by way of contrast.

Great quotation

“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.”

Arnold Toynbee

Richard Dawkins’ forums suspended

It’s hardly the biggest news in the world. Given some of the panic on the web one would think whole of the Internet was due to be shut down. Richard Dawkins’ web forums have been suspended pending an overdue clean up. I’ve been commenting at length on this here.

My original article critical of his forums has been receiving a massive amount of traffic, mainly from a cesspit of substandard debate which makes the Dawkins forums look as if they were frequented exclusively by leading intellectuals.

I have been called “an absolute f**king c**t” on this forum, as they flounder to find some fault in my argument. Finding nothing it can criticise validly, the inferior mind resorts to vulgarity. This is nothing, though, compared with what technical admin Josh has been receiving over at RD.net – an avalanche of despicable abuse which has motivated Richard Dawkins himself to make a statement.

What truly, utterly pathetic people these are who have nothing better to do than mail abuse to people because their crutch (an Internet forum not even on their own site) has been taken away (because of misbehaviour of contributors and moderators, mind you). If ever the phrase “Get a life” was relevant, it’s now.

Richard Dawkins has certainly received a wake up call as to what was going on at his forum, as he says himself above. This, despite him having said this previously, when writing of the marvels of the Internet:

“Of course there are negative aspects, but they are easily forgiven. I’ve already referred to the lamentable content of many chat room conversations without editorial control.

The tendency to flaming rudeness is fostered by the convention — whose sociological provenance we might discuss one day — of anonymity.

Insults and obscenities, to which you would not dream of signing your real name, flow gleefully from the keyboard when you are masquerading online as ‘TinkyWinky’ or ‘FlubPoodle’ or ‘ArchWeasel’.”

Richard Dawkins

To people who have not connected the dots yet, I don’t publish intellectually substandard comments on my site here, so don’t be surprised if your comment isn’t turning up. Don’t even waste your time posting it. That’s one of the benefits of having your own website: you can run it however you like, as you are finding out as Prof Dawkins exercises his executive control. Tough.

I’m going to e-mail some support to Josh now, and then probably have nothing more to do with this debate. It’s just not important enough. If you have any kind of life at all you’ll do the same.