BBC slither, slide, snake towards objectives.

When the BBC report Northern Ireland I have certain expectations. They won't be as soft on the IRA/Sinn Fein as they are, say, on Islamic terrorists. On the other hand they will sneak into their reporting some form of apologia for the IRA, some way of accommodating the Republican mantra as promulgated by terrorists like Gerry Adams and Martin Mcguinness. These men may be tired of not being able to say 'we've won' openly and with ever increasing clarity as they enter their dotages. They may be a bit miffed that the trappings of high office haven't yet materialised. But despite that any fool with half an eye can see that they're not the future of Ireland, North or South, or the whole thing together. And the main reason is that they don't know the meaning of sorry. Sorry combined with Adams and McGuinness makes sense like mixing water and oil makes sense.

So, I am almost equally angry with the BBC and the fascists of Sinn Fein when it is reported that 'During the NI Troubles, the IRA was blamed for about 1,800 murders.' . This is such a massive passive! Who 'blamed them' we are left to ask? For a Republican these are mostly to be regarded as smears. They didn't see them as murders because they saw themselves as freedom fighters in a war against occupation. They still do. For the BBC to let them sneak along without full admission of guilt is a crime against the people of Northern Ireland.

Mind you, on this issue (as in truth, on many) there's not much to choose between the BBC and the British Government, or their ununionist lackeys who they have coerced into demoralising the Unionist movement generally .

The British Government's Good Friday Agreement has meant the release of bombers like Sean Kelly, responsible for the murder (and nb. not 'blamed for' but 'responsible for') of nine people on the Shankhill road in 1993. 12 years for something approaching mass murder? And Republicans like Adams and McGuinness have championed his cause. If there's one lesson I would hope we'd have learnt from the jihad it's that bombing and claiming both grievances and rights are part of the same phenomenon. How can Blair claim to want to resist dhimmitude when he rankly submits to the terror rationale of McGuinness and Adams. We know he's not serious. He'd just love a slightly conciliatory kind of bin Laden to emerge with whom he could do business.

Ultimately however one has to say that you can't cheat history. Rapprochement with the Adams/McGuinness nationalist front won't bring stability to Northern Ireland or even Ireland in the long run. It will certainly bring criminality in high places, but it might also bring terrorism right to our door. The anti-colonialist path-ideology requires feeding with blood. The Spanish weren't crazy to believe in an ETA-Islam link up. I don't think it's a cloud diffused but actually a storm gathering.

Btw. This BBC opinion article seems to credit M. and A. with something courageous: There have been minor defections along the way, but Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have steered the IRA through a period of dramatic change without a major split - and without being killed.

Hurrah for rhetoric! I don't believe there was ever any danger of that, given the godfather grip those two have between them on people who understand the wind's behind them even if the demography, reason and morality aren't.

I have a theory about the London bombings that runs contrary to Tony Blair's thesis.

Yes, there is no excuse for terror- but maybe we did deserve it (not the people struck, I hasten to add). For things like our appeasement of the IRA, our unwillngness to crack down on threats to other countries emanating from our country, for being so complacent as to regard our Islamic 'militants' as a matter for the leisurely measured stride of the law- even today, after the horse has bolted-, and at the end of all that playing the Churchillian, even when that was a trick even Churchill could barely pull off with a clear conscience.

Surely it's clear that leaving Islamism up to the courts is just an open invitation to develop a more sophisticated jihad, aided and abetted by powerful legal establishment figures. There's a musical, or a tragedy, waiting to be written about our hypocrite Premiere and his crusading wife- the woman who helped write a suicide note for a nation, with a husband who thinks he can save the world. Maybe the reason the Guardian thought it was ok to hire Dilpazier Aslam was that Cherie had no problem doing a big favour for Shabin Begum (the girl in the not-infamous-enough hijab case)'s big brother, a supporter of Aslam's terror-friendly party, Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Talk about inbreeding- it makes you wonder about Tony Blair's political parentage; can't blame him for that I suppose, but can't really trust him either.

I wish more people on the right were saying what Mark Steyn is saying about the death of Menezes. I wish that more people were saying that generally. He describes it as 'the pathetic public execution of an innocent man'.

It was indeed that- and I find it disquietening that so many people have just swallowed the scenario so easily. One could list some reasons why the police action was unacceptable (it's difficult to believe such a final and brutal act could have any real, sensible operational foundation based on such flimsy pretexts as the police have proffered. The operational guidelines are clearly idiot guides to human situations), and Steyn does just that. That's not to say that a shoot to kill policy isn't necessary for some conjunctions of events, and of course we don't know all the facts- Steyn says the police accosting Menezes were plain clothes; I have heard other people say otherwise.

What I don't like is the sense I get that the quietude over Menezes' death is a reflection that people just want to make the suicide bombers a law enforcement issue. Thus they give the law enforcers a free rein, meanwhile hoping that the statistical chances of being a victim of that freedom bear out in their own cases. Of course the authorities have to act, but we need to sharpen up their game and not accept their ineptnesses.

Convenient isn't it, now that the BBC's cherished notion of a fictonal Al Qaeda has been demolished by recent events, that they should have at hand 'The New Al Qaeda'? As the article suggests, the ingredients for this new group are truly simple:

'widespread anger at US-led policies in the Middle East, the proliferation of information about bomb-making on the internet and the ability of Islamist extremists to blend into Western society. This potent cocktail has created the new al-Qaeda, the subject of Peter Taylor's new BBC Two television series.' (i.m.)

If at first you don't succeed in any serious analysis, try, try and try again. Let's see now, which of those ingredients can be seen as avoidable? The internet, the blending in of extremists, or US-led policies in the Middle East?

Laban Tall has a great post up about assimilation issues.

Questions for the mufti. Marc poses them, and what we have to remember is to listen to what the Islamic scholars say (especially the ones whom we have allowed to stay in this country), and how their debate goes, rather than simply to their mouthpieces. These mouthpieces are constructed specifically for our consumption, not to tell us the truth about the intentions and views of the Umma.

I was interested to hear what Hani al-siba had to say to Al Jazeera (and keep in mind that this man is London-based):

“The term civilian does not exist in Islamic religious law. There is no such term as civilians in the western sense. People are either of Dar al Harb [literally, house of hostility, meaning any non-Islamic government] or not.”

(embolding mine)

Imagine then the debate between the mouthpieces and the scholars. One says that killing civilians is wrong; the other that there is no such thing as a civilian.

Compare it for a moment to British social discourse along ideological lines: Margaret Thatcher telling socialists that there is no such thing as society. The difference is that while common sense tells us that there is such a thing as a society, just as common sense dictates that we have a heart and consider there is such a thing as a civilian (the very elderly and young babies, at minimum), the Imam or scholar of Islam has chapter and verse from a book without which the mouthpiece would have no religion to apologise for at all.

Anyway, the headline issue was that the Egyptian British based Islamic scholar said that the London bombings were a great victory, but that's not really the full reality of what he said- what he said was something more reasonable:

' “If Al-Qaeda indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it. It rubbed the noses of the world’s eight most powerful countries in the mud. The victory is a blow to the economy.” '

This is undeniable, if al Qaeda were a group which one could describe as aiming for victories rather than tragedies. To me there is no such thing as an Al Qaeda victory- only a tragedy for humanity. But I think we should quote them accurately.

But finally I want to refer back to Enoch Powell, just as our Government is intent on erecting legislation in the context of religion-centred speech (I find it hard to summarise this hydra). Powell said, speaking when the original race-relations legislation was in the course of being enacted:

'a one-way privilege is to be established by Act of Parliament: a law, which cannot, and is not intended, to operate to protect them or redress their grievances, is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.'

The 'them' he referred to was the non-immigrant, traditional white christian community of Britain. It's difficult not to believe that the current legislation is one more step down the road to allowing the furtherance of the jihadis aims. Who, do you think, will use the new legisation with greater skill and aggression- the jihadis or the Anglican church?

Meanwhile we have this from the BBC, as Marc notes.

To understand the nature of the ideological tussle, this is a helpful article.

Not wishing to be unpatriotic, unhelpful, or lacking seriousness, but if it's true that the police (as they suggest themselves) shot the wrong guy (I mean an innocent man) the other day then it makes me very angry. They expect the British public to identify the bombers by the photographs they issued, and then they fail to notice that the man they're tailing is not one of the four. It's not really tenable to say 'better safe than sorry'. It's just stupid jittery behaviour tinged with criminal negligence that endangers all the activities they need to succeed in at the moment. I want to hear that this man was in some way connected- that he knew the bombers and was associated with them. Otherwise it was just a guy who found the police intimidating, who happened to make the police feel intimidated, too. What is worse is that just a couple of hours ago I watched a smug looking Sir Ian Blair on TV saying with a smile that he was very pleased with how things were going. 'Very pleased' is not how I would feel if the first time my guys had seen fit to use their most lethal power they had hit a man completely innocent of the activity I was trying to combat. I would call it a classic own goal in all sorts of ways, and to smile through it compounding the folly. As Helen at EurRef describes 'not coping', I would call it a symptom of not coping.

Jihad is real enough to kill any of us.

The BBC's 'Power of Nightmares' sycophancy needn't have waited till July 7th to be exposed, or till the latest round of attempts exposed an ever wider circle of threats to Britain, or till the jihadists proved that jihad has a global intent that doesn't always need to kill 'decadent' westerners- instead targeting Egyptians. They could so easily just have looked at Thailand any time since the tsunami to see a global threat that manifests itself in real murders, as Mark Steyn's letter page's star letter writer points out with direct reference to the Beeb (emboldened by me):

' TERROR IN THAILAND
I have been enjoying your writings for years. I have been living in Thailand for 3 years and Asia for 5 years. As you have recently noted in Thailand over 800 people have been killed this year in the southern provinces next to Malaysia, where Islamic terrorists want to set up an Islamic state under sharia law. The youth who largely commit these murders are trained in ponoh schools where they are taught nothing but Islam. These schools are financed by Saudi Arabia and many of the teachers are from the Middle East. Over 20 teachers have been murdered. Schools have been bombed and torched. Yesterday 7 people were murdered. A few days ago there was a coordinated attack where power lines were blown up, hotels bombed and police stations attacked. There have been 7 recent beheadings including 2 Laotian farm workers who earn a few dollars a day. Everyday there are killings and bombings. Over here there are a few English language radio stations. One broadcasts the BBC news! . I have been listening to the BBC news for a few years now and not a word that I'm aware of has been said about the situation here. Outside of Iraq the fatalities here are probably equal to what is going on in Afghanistan. Yet not a word. But if Israel bombs a suspected arms depot with no fatalities this becomes a featured story. If the item can't denigrate the U.S. or Israel it isn't considered news by the BBC. I also find that the majority of the broadcasters and interviewers are women with a snotty attitude who can't hide their bias. I thought the CBC in Canada was bad but the BBC takes the cake.'

What we need(ed) to hear

Earlier I linked to Enoch Powell's speech, I suppose out of a vague hope that people will cut some slack to one of the most villified men of British politics in recent history. Well, as I mentioned, that inspired me to re-read his speech- which is so well written it's difficult to believe he hadn't intended it to be read rather than heard. Anyway, I defy anyone to say that it isn't with a sublime piece of wisdom that Powell began his speech. How we need such wisdom now, or how we have needed it and now need it more than ever:

'The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: At each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: 'if only', they love to think, 'if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen'. Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it, deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after. '

Great post at Samizdata by Perry De Havilland on our assimilation issues- I am sure Enoch would have approved (and by the way I went on to re-read Powell's famous speech after I linked to it yesterday. It's a model of statesmanship in many ways, and his name really needs rehabilitating).

What can I say about these comments? Howard for Prime Minister!

The dead bomber: CNN carry the fullest account I've read of the last seconds of what looks to have been an intended suicide bomber. It includes a certain ethnic element of the main witness account that the BBC leave out.

CNN: "He looked like a Pakistani but he had a baseball cap on, and quite a thickish coat. It was a coat like you would wear in winter, a sort of padded jacket."

BBC: "He [the suspect] had a baseball cap on and quite a sort of thickish coat - it was a coat you'd wear in winter, sort of like a padded jacket.

The CNN account certainly assists the visualisation process for what it's worth.

Get Real!
This is why it's no time for joking around with fake 'fatwas'. David Vance pointed me to Jonah Goldberg's direct and devastating article at Townhall. What is being experienced in London is as near as dammit to what a certain Mr Powell, a very decent man by all accounts of those who knew him, envisioned. See also Wretchard's brilliant analysis of our problem- a 'must read' so 'must' I've now linked it twice in one day. Two Americans, a British Ulsterman, and one dead Englishman 'getting it' suggest that the current specifically home grown lot should be doing a lot better. And that's no joke.

p.s. Here's what seems to be a good account of Enoch Powell's life from Wikipedia, including his notable military service and trememdous learning, which provides some perspective. Also ps., I suppose it's only sensible at this point to link to the speech Enoch became notorious for- I'm frequently too squeamish about things like this.

It's with a little fear and trembling that I put together a post about this subject- the subject of the recent fatwa issued by the British Muslim Forum, presumably not on its own authority but on the authority of the scholars and clerics that it called to the task.

For one thing it's complicated- and its complication is enhanced by the BBC's presentation of it, invloving the presentation of two declarations from separate groups (BMF and BMC) side by side. Furthermore, as Melanie Phillips points out, the text of the BMF statement is slippery (though I really only want to concentrate on the quotation from the Koran which underpins the 'fatwa'.)

I'm of the view that statements such as these are as important to us as the Koran is to Muslims, since they regulate the status of our relationship to them, so no amount of scrutiny can be too great. There are several reasons for this scrutiny. One is that muslims take the Koran so seriously that every punctuational mark, every word, is vital for their interpretations. Secondly, the Koran, being written in Arabic, is not valid for them in its English form, so that statements in English that link precisely to the Arabic are the best you can hope for, and even these may not really be felt binding held against backdrop of the the Arabic whole.

As The Adventuress reports, there is a serious problem with some of the quotation from the Koran in the BMF 'fatwa', which the BBC in turn appears to be covering up in its presentation of the 'fatwa' (this latter point is my view in particular, which I explain in an evolutionary way in the comments to the post).

As I understand it the Beeb journalist who listened to the statement quoted the Secretary General of the BMF, Mr Gul, in this article, and inserted ellipses where he quoted the Koran saying '"Whoever kills a human being ... then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life it is as though he had saved all mankind."'. Various English versions all include an extra line thusly, 'unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land', where the Beeb's ellipses are (see T.A. for more English Koran versions).

But the statement that was issued by the Muslim Forum, which Mr Gul read and the BBC quoted, had no ellipses- thus '"Whoever kills a human being, then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life, it is as though he had saved all mankind." (Koran, Surah al-Maidah (5), verse 32).' - which is, imho, a lovely line when shorn of context.

What's weird is that to know to include the ellipses would require an impressive level of knowledge of the Koran- kudos to the BBC's Islamic education, or their equal opportunities policy, or their links to British Islamism and penchant for affirmative action.

The problem is that it helps to cover up the BMF's dishonesty, highlighted by Melanie Phillips. It might seem insignificant but it's not- it's deadly serious. That little line, which could never have been overlooked by serious muslims seeking a serious resolution, opens the whole issue up to a breadth of interpretation that plays havoc with the BMF's declared determination. It's just typical of the kind of contempt, not just for British non-Muslims, but of the English language (as opposed to the holy one, Arabic), which means that the Muslims in Britain play their poker with two hands, appearing to lose with their 'British' one, while appearing to win with their 'Arabic' one. (nb. please forgive my frequent sins of capitalisation and non-capitalisation- I really need to think it through, and I may update, but I'm impatient to post now)

Oh yes, I almost forgot, this Belmont Club post inspired me to write about this subject, and so did Mark Steyn.

Loads o' people talking about multiculti matters. Here's three great takes (and I have to say it's ordinary British bloggers who are shining in this regard, as much as any established journalists. Of course there's Steyn, naturally). So here's a terrific trio: George, and Andrew, and yes, Mark (whose wife is English). Of them all I think perhaps the most startlingly well-written is Andrew Mc Cann's contribution- which is saying something when the competition is from Mr Steyn.

However, I did love this comment on the Blair-Heath axis of pseud:

'Sir Edward's successor, Mr Blair, said on the day of the bombing that terrorists would not be allowed to "change our country or our way of life". Of course not. That's his job - from hunting to Europeanisation. Could you reliably say what aspects of "our way of life" Britain's ruling class, whether pseudo-Labour like Mr Blair or pseudo-Conservative like Sir Ted, wish to preserve? The Notting Hill Carnival? Not enough, alas.'

Yes, but, heartening -and necessary- though it is to do a bit of inward looking analysis of the country we're becoming, I think it's important to see what others are doing. The BBC, realising that they can't immediately make a link between the Iraq war and the London bombing, are attempting to ratchet up the quagmire factor, adding whatever tasty new morsels they can find. It's merely turning the other end of the 'it wasn't worth it' screw, preparatory to a renewed spate of 'Iraq made the bombs' reportage.(incidentally, I've been following the quagmire bandwagon for a long time- I think a history of the BBC's Iraq coverage could be written with their use of this word- occasional, but political, meaningful and totally insistent- as the fulcrum).

David Kaspar, on a slightly different tack, has a good anti-quagmire analysis- at least, taking on the puff-chested idiots who claim vindication with every media opportunity. (via Instapundit)

As Steyn says of a different group of dhimmis, 'Cherie Booth and Dave Brown and the Bishop of Lichfield will get you killed.'. I'd like to add Jenny Tonge to that trio, were it not snappier to leave things triplicate.

What angers me so much about the quagmire BBC is that they basically offer the coverage the terrorists need to achieve their objectives- just to prove themselves right about the whole business. They'd be absolutely welcome to that victory if it were not also a defeat for everything decent that currently exists. I think I'll finish with another little link which I found very telling. I don't always judge people by the language they use, but I found this little exchange reported by Stephen Pollard very telling. The BBC are really something like low-life these days.

Why they hate us. Melanie Phillips does the sensible thing and looks at what Yorkshire Muslims have been taught to think. To use the BBC to understand the thoughts of Muslims in the UK would have left her sadly misinformed, as Laban Tall points out, contrasting this BBC article with this News of the World one. Same guy, different character.

What's interesting about the sermon Melanie quotes is how it grounds the jihadic behaviour not just in ideas of retaliation for violence against Muslims, but the Islamic notion of 'corruption'. What this means in practise is anything which is seen to damage the historic Islamic faith. That means anything which gets up the nose of the faithful- meaning just about anything in Britain these days.

So, I return from a little absence (I had a long weekend somewhere nice- Vienna actually) to find at least one thing unchanged- the BBC's agendarising of the news. I find them trumpetting each denial of links to the London bombers, especially each potential link to Al Qaeda- at the same time highlighting each bombing in Iraq. Like some endlessly morphing virus, their fervent anti-Iraq war feeling merely grows resistant to every event and fact that challenges its right to dominate the handling of the news. Then I read this.

Others have linked it; so will I. The Weekly Standard's newshound Stephen Hayes has a simply devastating extended article about the Saddam Al Qaeda connection that we know didn't exist. Especially devastating is the fact that it was so in your face- including Jihadi conferences in Bagdhad that appeared on Iraq state television. All that was needed was to widen the eyes far enough. I read it over an extended dinner and couple of beers in the sunshine- it really needs digesting.

Vengance is mine, saith the BBC. At least, that's the implication. As the BBC say they are pursuing some kind of policy vis a vis the 'terror' word, they let slip the absurdly judgemental word 'vengeance' to describe Ariel Sharon's actions in Israel- as Melanie Phillips reports.

Interestingly, they say that they had had'complaints from audience members who argued that since the BBC does not use the word to describe many other acts of violence around the world - such as the Middle East, Spain and Northern Ireland - why had it used it in this instance?'

I wonder how many were really complaining that the BBC failed to call terror terror when they should have, rather than that they were using the term at all? It would be a cunning use of complaints if so, but I've no doubt it's possible- at the BBC. The 'terrorism' double standard's one that shames this Briton, for one. Stephen Pollard has some more.

Questions arise following analysis of these profiles of the London bombers. First thing to note is that although one of them was 19 years old (everybody has heard that I suppose, who has read about them at all), another was 30. What could have bound together man with boy in the same endeavour? Second, although three came from W. Yorkshire (Leeds, Dewsbury), one came from Luton. How could they have met? Who introduced them? How did they communicate? Just a few questions I know the authorities will be asking. Then there are the explosives, and the ideas behind the attacks. Who made them, how were the ideas evolved? I do indeed suspect a level of organisation here that must involve an organisation we know as Al-Qaeda.

meanwhile the BBC report this: that one of the men 'went to Pakistan for two months earlier this year to study religion.'

Some things you just have to add: I love Beagles. Possibly the most beautiful and clever Beagle ever was my childhood treasure ('Treasure' was her name). Of course it's a silly BBC 'feel good' story, but it made me feel good.

'either way, you still get bombed.' David Araanovitch is brilliant in the Times today. I'd regard it as the definitive put down to those who think it's clear as daylight that our presence in Iraq is the reason why the bombs came, and came to London. People of quite blinding, bullying stupidity, like Phillip Adams, for example.

Meanwhile, after being reassured the London bombings were not the work of suicide bombers, we are finding out that they were the work of suicide bombers, from West Yorkshire in fact. I am sure that Andrew McCann of A Tangled Web will have something to say about that. Bradford- a city in West Yorkshire- is, I believe, where he lives. It's not like there weren't warning signals. In fact, he does.

From the Bradford report- concerning riots a couple of years back-, an interesting line from the local Islamic community. Sort of a 'how long can we get away with this' schoolboy tactic-

'It is total nonsense to even suggest that Islam had anything to do with what happened.'

No, if you are a carefully managed community like the Islamic community, then your youth belong to you, and your people's actions are your product. It's time for accountability, here, there, and everywhere.

Not good enough, Mr Blair.

It was far too pat, far too uncontroversial. Mr Blair says we're going after them as far as is 'humanely possible'. He means to reassure those who think we deserved it that they can hold such attitudes without fear- that helping terrorists will not have consequences, thus repudiating a central plank of the Bush doctrine (which the FO types can only smirk at even now).

So, having made numerous errors concerning immigration and multiculturalism, having mired Bush's campaign against Saddam by his own need to run to the UN for backing, having failed ever to make an honest case but instead relied on spin, Mr Blair now says that he's learnt no lesson at all from the failure of soft-pedalling the WoT, and intends to go softer.

It's sad because in the cocktail of socialistic nonsense in Mr Blair's brain there's a fairly good strand of understanding. The dishonesty of being a pseudo-conservative (or if you are of the Left a 'revisionist socialist') though has made it terribly misshapen.

If Mr Blair needs a shove it can come from John Simpson, who repudiates the WoT (partly by never mentioning it- or Al Qaeda.):

'When the big IRA bombing campaign first hit London in the 1970s, a famous columnist of the time, Bernard Levin, advised his readers to respond to the bombs as a refined hostess might respond to a dinner-guest who belched loudly at the table: just ignore it, he said.'

At the time it seemed to me effete and mannered. Now I see it was exactly the right advice.'

Simpson believes that grown-ups don't fight wars on terror. It's a tragically shallow argument. Ignore them and they will go away. The world is large and they are few. Chase them quietly. He still believes that Bush's nightmare is more powerful than the terrorists bombs.

The reality is that we're in the midst of some pretty powerful geopolitical shit here and we should realise it. Otherwise Simpson's siren song (deliberately construed in this fashion to shock his opponents and raise a smile of wonderment on the faces of the unalligned) may seem a strand of opinion among many, but so confident as to command trust.

For reality checks I could start in a number of places but I think the EUReferendum blog's the best- for pointing out the way that Blair has sold us into a Euro-centred perspective. The strategy of appearing to be America's best friend has served many purposes, but the overwhelming geopolitical one has been to enable Britain to tie itself very closely to the emerging EU joint military plans.

What this means in effect is that Britain couldn't chase the terrorists actively, even if we wanted to. It's not part of the deal, as independent action isn't envisaged, nor allowed for. Constitution or no, it's independent power or compatibility with other forces that counts. We only have it, going forward, with the Euros.

From that reality check to another- Mark Steyn on assimilation:

'Few European leaders have a clue what to do about this,but,as that French headscarf law and Britain’s Incitement to Racial Hatred bill and Dutch responses to the murder of Theo van Gogh all underline, mediation between what Tony Blair called on Thursday “our way of life” and Muslim values has already become a central dynamic of European political culture — a remarkable achievement for a minority few Europeans were more than vaguely conscious of pre-9/11.'

The fact is that Muslims from the so-called 'third world' we always used to talk about as a very distant place have evolved a kind of momentum and strategy to regain what they lost through the success of Western history. No masterplan, just momentum into which Al Quaeda breathes life and from which it is invigorated. Nothing but a sense of timing and a knowledge that the West is geared defensively and sees George W. Bush as a spanner in the works.

Been Away. Needless to say, am very, very angry over the London bombings, and basically want revenge. No, we didn't in any sense 'deserve it'; no, we haven't cashed our WoT chips already in Iraq, and the only way to make some good out of grief that has crystallised for us now is to ram home the war on terror. It's not what I'm hearing out there so far, but each person so determined could make a valuable contribution. Some good info on this site- and a rebuff to Robert Fisk (via GR), while Marc at USSN has some stinging words for the utterly predictable Paul Reynolds of the BBC. It's vital to pour as much vitriol as possible on those who suggest that bombings on the Underground are 'our fault', our decision. This is totally against reality, totally head in the sand stupid, and totally counterproductive. Anyone amongst the British people who says it has a dangerous pathology of self-hatred that manifests itself in the hatred of their own people.

Death toll.

Well, it's rising, as I felt it would- but 'unlikely to top 100', so we are told. It's not close to my nightmares though- I thought the Underground, if attacked, would yield a harvest of death much more catastrophic, terrible though the situation seems anyway.

At the moment I feel a little relieved that such a well organised attack wrought fewer casualties than I would have anticipated. I still live in fear that the British Government are playing the same game they played with the Tsunami- ie. deflecting attention away from the bottom line about numbers of dead. I also live in fear of the chance that beyond my immediate circle there may be some I care for involved- though at the moment I care for all those involved.

But, beyond that, is there anything to say? Certainly some are saying things- like Galloway, for instance. I think that asserting out role in Iraq or Afghanistan as the reason behind this outbreak of violence in our capital is utterly foolish. We all know that for the terrorists such things are a given 'grievance'- but they had many such grievances before those campaigns (and of course 9/11 came without any possible solicitation either from occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan- unless you consider Saddam's resolution-pressured Iraq directly linked to 9/11, that is), and the US withdrawal from Saudi was a classic example where giving them what they wanted was really neutral as far as violence toward the West is concerned- in fact violence climbed in the Kingdom subsequent to the US withdrawal. So there's no genuine coherence there, only politicking- which leaves Galloway behaving absolutely true to form.

Marc, however, at USS Neverdock, makes a legitimate point on behalf of all those people who might have lowered their guard as a result of the undermining of the notion of a War on Terror by some BBC journalism. 'The Power of Nightmares' assured us there was no real organised Islamic movement bent on our destruction, yet the massive organisation behind the London bombings- the syncronisation, the planning- suggest quite the opposite. It suggests the BBC's flagship programme of the last year, it's main publicised recent claim to excellence, was in fact highly flawed. And as forewarned is forearmed, the BBC has in this regard, and others less well-known, certainly been unconducive to the public good.

The Belmont Club says

'These coordinated attacks are, technically speaking, at far higher level of sophistication than the Madrid attacks of 3/11 which involved a single train. The attack on London was a "time on target" attack which required simultaneity so that one incident did not compromise the subsequent. By implication the personnel involved received some degree of training and planned the operation in sufficient secrecy to prevent British security services from getting wind of it.'

So the lesson is that we are still faced by a real danger, as real as war- and the nightmare can come to a town near us, or where we are.

Most seriously of all- this

More seriously still- this is a fascinating take on the new Iranian order from Amir Taheri. I have to say I have a greater expectation of clarity and through clarity, possibly progress, from the new kid on the block.

But seriously, we need to outbid our European rivals in the race that matters- to rescue our continent from the grip of a bureaucratic juggernaut. The trouble is, of course, that as yet there's only one bid on the table and it's the Europroject.

No, I am pleased- despite what the Samizdatas say (caution: the main headline is very short and Anglo-Saxon). The truth is I don't live in London and I won't be likely to pay very much for it in money or infrastructural frustration, so Olympics 2012 should be a lot of fun- probably only on the TV, but with recognisable surroundings and more celeb-watching (ok someone will tell me I'll pay for it through the tax burden and that might be true, but I think actually that if any country's capital city can beat the financial blues of the Olympics it's Britain's... and besides, the deeper side of me says that six years is enough time for anything to happen). Anyway, I watched Daley Thompson from the comfort of our living room in my jim jams in 1984 and it was electrifying, so there's some history to my feelings about the Olympics.

Yes, it will annoy Chirac- and it no doubt already has, though the red glow of embarrassment will linger amusingly. Chirac's response according to the BBC has already given me a couple of chuckles. I suppose the line '"He wishes good luck and full success to the British authorities and people in the organisation of the 30th Olympiad." ' seemed somewhat underwhelming. Maybe the translation 'full success' just sounds a bit odd to Anglo ears- or maybe it's intended to sound off-key (I mean does he mean the best we can do, or actually outright success? I'd have been happier with 'all the best'. Such can be the wily use of the French language I always look for whether the Frenchman bothers to use a phrase that can be unambiguous in the English language as well as the French. He could have said that he hopes we enjoy it- the Games I mean not just the 'organisation'- but then again maybe it's the BBC's selection of quotes. You never can trust them; their idea of patriotism can be indulging in international Punch and Judy).

Barroso's incredible political imitation of constipation in praising 'an EU capital' also made me laugh. (Barroso's and other responses here.)

The funniest part though was undoubtedly Chirac having 'praised the "fair play" shown by the French bid team.' How very British! And not only that: it's what we say when the Aussies beat us, implying that all is not well in the antipodean moral garden. Of course it could be true that the Olympic committee have found comfortable places in Seb Coe's pocket or that the French were only caught out in the slips after some vicious sledging- but er, that's cricket! Yippeddee doo da!

More Chirakian responses, plus other fine French whines, tucked away in BBC Sport, here.

Meanwhile, for any Francophiles out there who need cheering up, you could always try googling 'French Military Victories' and follow the link there for a really encouraging read.

Essential Steyn. Had to link this article, as anything which exposes the hypocrisy of the aristrockrats has to be a positive thing.

The BBC's Simpson says this is becoming quite a week. What's with this 'becoming'? It was scheduled in advance- the news was as planned by the BBC as Live 8 was planned by its organisers. It's a week of organised news, and goodness knows what's actually going on in Africa and who considers that it might be a good week to bury bad neighbours. In the same article George Bush is encaptioned as one who will 'do what is best for the US'. He might be the only sane one among the whole circus.

You can read more thoughts here

Nialling it. I'm not sure about the totality of his argument (especially when he veers off into China-ball gazing), but certainly Ferguson raises some interesting parallels concerning Geldof's mission. Personally I remember finding Mrs Jellyby just uncannily up to date...

Pop Goes Reason

According to the BBC reporting Live 8, 'Almost all of the singers involved took the opportunity to explain their reasons for performing.'

However, I bet none of them made so much sense as John Lennon on the subject of pop's charity bashes.

Meanwhile, this is also worth reading (from the same website). Not that I despise St. Bob- not at all. I think he's doing the best that an ageing, wealthy, secularist 'pop star', who finds himself with a cachet outweighing most politicians, could do. The trouble is that the solutions will not come from those 'within the loop', like Bob. (via Steynonline)

Clive Davis (new link in my sidebar) has an interesting reflection on the inbred world of London journalism (and I don't think the phenomenon confines itself to London- but London revels in it). That aspect of the (London dominated) UK media is one reason I don't buy the idea that it is the world's most competitive. Of course it is, if the adrenalin of competition is anything to go by, but its domination by certain family names- I could add Preston and Reynolds to the few offered as samples by Davis- suggests that the competitiveness exists within a fairly fragile bubble, a carefully tended ecosystem of the logos. Great fun for those who enjoy name-watching, but for those interested in a broad and balanced perpective, as opposed to a bunch of back-scratchers enlivened by the odd token outsider (representative of some undeniable fringe), not.

No, the EU is not the ugly duckling.

Ok I've let go this post... could be little half-baked but between friends you know...



Compassionate Conservative Melanie Phillips on the British Government's appalling combination of ineptitude and amorality about Zimbabwean refugees in this country- and indeed the whole asylum system.

The problem to me is that the British Government and its agencies apply the same approach to immigration that they apply to areas like law and order. They attack the less sophisticated users of the system because it's easier to demonstrate routine competence that way than by seeking developed policies that actually tackle abusers of the system (who are naturally more sophisticated in their approach). Basically they have no concept of hard work in the service of the real public good, but they certainly know a lot about soft work in pursuit of looking good.

Quote of the day on the immigration subject may have come via the BBC reporting the Home Office on immigration-

'Home Office officials say they have sought to take into account the fact that some illegal immigrants may not have filled in their census forms.'

Not filling them in? You don't say? I don't know where we can fit in the fact that illegals in 2001 would include Poles, Czechs etc. who would now be in the UK legally, but based on several of my direct contacts with these matters, I'd say the UK is really still a destination of choice for the mobile masses of the world. Meanwhile the suffering Zimbabweans fail to get much of a shoulder to cry on to put it mildly.

Apologies for my little absence from posting here. I posted at B-BBC and then collapsed with exhaustion and other commitments.

What could revive me except the fountain of scorn emanating from the EU Referendum blog as it notes another great result for the French from the French-shaped EU?

As Jaques Chirac puts it '"It is a big success for France, for Europe and for all the partners of Iter,"'- with the emphasis firmly on France. The EU Ref. remarks on both the immense blandishments the EU offered to get the the project for France, and the improved conditions France managed to secure for herself in the inducement and subsidy arrangements for a project that will do wonders for France's high-tech industrial base.

Just one more spin-off from Chirac's rebate histrionics- the gallic grandma of Old Europe really knows how to make the rest of the family dance to her tune. Of course as long as our press enjoyed the show, that's what really counts...

Re: Media bias- here's Iraq the model ripping into the Guardian's coverage of one battle in Iraq (maybe you'll have to scroll down as I did). Normally I leave the Guardian alone as it spins off into the outer space of idiocy. There are people who champion lost causes like reforming the Guardian, but not me. The Guardian's a newspaper that gives centre stage to one Eric Hobsbawm, Stalinist apologist of former Soviet power- critique here. (hat-tip RCP)

Meanwhile, for those seeking an antidote to the media doom and gloom, ItM pointed me to this marvelous and elegant piece of writing from Grim at the Fourth Rail, in response to a question. Interestingly, Grim seems to have some some identification with the original hoodies, whose latter-day imitators found Bluewater fame.

We should war, war, war... on hype and the liars who use it.

Highlight of the week, for me, was Don Rumsfeld telling a Senate committee the bottom line about public opinion and Iraq. He was responding to one of the few sane members, Joe Lieberman:

'Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat who has been a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, also questioned whether the US public was tiring of the war. “I feel that American public opinion is tipping away from this effort,” said Mr Lieberman. “[The insurgents] will only defeat us on the field of American public opinion.”

Mr Rumsfeld replied: “You sense the American people are tipping away from support. I have a feeling they're getting pushed.”'

The only thing that I would add to that is that there's no 'feeling' about it. It's the reality.

So, as the Democrats carefully orchestrate their attacks, and the media, in sympathy largely, orchestrate theirs, so the fascist Islamists in Iraq orchestrate theirs. When I talk about 'orchestrate', I mean that the whole tempo and targeting strategy of the fascists is dictated by their awareness that the battle is to be won or lost through the media. Such rhyme or reason as there is in the so-called 'insurgency' can only be gleaned from a careful reading of what the media considers newsworthy in the way of exploring the media-perceived weaknesses of the Bush administration over Iraq. Such a relationship is complex, like an orchestra where musicians and conductor are interchangeable. One moment one person creates an expectation which another fulfils, the next the roles reverse. You could call it symbiosis. I'd prefer to settle on 'pandemonium'- I mean in the original sense. More about that original sense from me here.

The Balfour column is up- and exceptionally fine it is too. I know you'll want to read his take on the Israel/Palestine issue.

Of course I didn't know whether they did, but I hoped that when United Nations' Inspectors, according to the BBC, said that the US was '"not willing to co-operate with the United Nations human rights machinery"' over Guantanmo Bay, they didn't mean the same 'machinery' of which Koffi Annan said this:

'"Unless we re-make our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United Nations itself,"'

But since the Beeb didn't bother to inform us of the origins of these 'inspectors', how could I know that they weren't the honorable representatives of Sudan or Zimbabwe, China or Saudi Arabia? It seems public confidence isn't part of the BBC's business.

As it happened when I followed up the BBC's reporting I found that the inspectors are from 'Algeria, Canada, New Zealand, Austria, Argentina and Egypt'- so not any of the above that sprang to my mind.

...But hang on, wasn't that a list that included the Egypt that people have complained the US sends alleged terrorists to for extra portions of torture? And why were they accused of that except because of the poor human rights record of Egypt?

That's the rationality of the UN at work, which the BBC just treats as an anti-US merry-go-round. Spin, spin, spin- till we're so dizzy we fall off.

Hitch is great on the Downing Street memos. The BBC isn't.

One of the greats, Paul Johnson, has a marvellous analysis in Commentary Magazine of what he calls the disease of anti-Semitism, and some of the most level-headed understandings of Hitler you'll find anywhere.(via R.C.P)

The axis of unbelievable.
I am hitching a shameless ride in the vehicle of Mark Steyn's website at the moment. No, not his columns, for once- his links.

One thought occurs to me: is the Archbishop of Canterbury the saddest and worst ever? I just want him to get hence to a nunnery and never bother my ears again. This time he's found common cause with the Chinese Communist authorities. How so? Well, he too understands the dangers of unpoliced conversation.

The Archbishop, from all that I have read and heard (and unlike the outputs of many dignitaries I have bothered to listen and read a fair portion) is a staunch defender of the politically correct establishment and the powers of the social welfare state. Never mind rendering unto Cesar- the Arch. Bish. would like us to lick their *****.

That's why it's the commercial media that irks the bearded fool. He accuses them of creating an 'alternative reality' far removed from the lives of ordinary people. Sorry A.B.C.- most people live in the world of money, and buy a newspaper or subscribe to a channel because it appeals to their tastes in information. They are not dupes and Rowan's simplistic argument yet remote language doesn't come close to identifying the problems with today's media.

Of course Rowan Williams is too lost in his own theo-sociological maze to be worth talking to, but nevertheless his folly gives me chance to restate my views.

The problems with today's media are twofold:

There are too many national medias in the world where positions on tv, radio and so on are reserved for people who meet the approval of oppressive political and social powers. China is a classic example. Where politicisation reigns in so much of the globe, it makes western media look good and enables them to luxuriate in politcal choices of their own when it comes to the simple matter of stating the news.

Secondly, among the relatively free western medias they are many examples of voluntary subjection of the media to political patronage, usually in return for status and privileges. The BBC is a classic example of this, but other media that seek to be the organs 'of record' tend to fall into the same traps (CNN Iraq for one notorious instance). The sad fact is that the British people and Government sanction the politicisation of their media through the licence fee and the Foreign Office's links to the BBC.

The danger with media 'of record' (inevitably a matter of the general public interest) is that it trivialises its more commercially dependent competitors (or, occasionally, forces them to suck up even more rigorously to a ruling power than a heritage media 'of record' needs to) . Maybe that's where Rowan Williams needed to begin his critique, rather than with the sub-marxist nonsense with which he turns off the British people.

But the thing that really annoys me about Williams is that he's such an establishment lackey- even though the establishment really rather despises Williams' (alleged- for he doesn't understand a thing about it) church. He reserves his praise for recent MBE Frank Gardner, even though Gardner has nothing much to recommend him apart from the fact that Islamists shot him viciously (why such people get MBEs is another question that could be asked of our 'liberal' establishment). Expert he may be, but he has been a unexceptional appeaser of the Islamofascism that leads to the terrible restrictions suffered by Christians in Islamofascist countries like Saudi Arabia. I've plenty of sympathy for Gardner, and I'd like the heads of those who shot him, but this is really a coda for Williams to endorse statism and the statist BBC especially. Trawling for another Dimbleby lecture perhaps? Or perhaps an entree to China- there are no doubt Buddists and Falun Gong who need his help, let alone Christians.

By the way (for any interested) I was christened and confirmed in the Church of England. NIMN, A.B.oC.

Lovely isn't it, how the BBC suddenly get a appetite for reporting allegedly anti-semitic behaviour and intolerance of religious freedom? Can you guess who the accused are?

Now, can you also guess how many words the BBC expend on this example of religious intolerance? (via Steynonline)

Yes, that's right, I couldn't find any. I only found this, which gave the usual impression of the US as a stick-waving patriot gesturing self-interestedly at furriners.

An ironic combination of headlines on the BBC F.P.:

World paedophile register closer

Jackson 'at peace' after verdict

On which subject, as on many others, Steyn talks sense.

'The only sound will be the soft, steady march of integration, unchecked and unheeded.'

Richard North in brilliant form describing The Project.

Tory metaphor misery- first we had the shoes, symbolising the trivial rebranding of the party; now we have the panties. That Duncan certainly has a twisted sense of what 'in touch' means. (nugget noticed via Mark Steyn's selection). They really are a painful bunch. Give me Davis any day.

We heard you, Mr Blair, and if we were listening carefully we heard the authentic voice of Blairism- ordinary people are work-arounds. Watching the Prime Minister's questions for the first time in ages today, I was reminded that Jacques Chirac is not always completely wrong, since Blair has a surefire strategy for often sincere questioners: he simply laughs at them. Seems a bit 'badly brought up' to me.

Extra, Extra. It seems the BBC noticed a nuance about that French kidnappee: she received farewell gifts from her kidnappers. Goodness, those Islamofascists must have got tired of all the bad press, but at least the BBC show some reflex reactions suggesting sentience. When is a hostage not a hostage?- When they're a French guest of Islamofascists.

More interestingly, this reflection (via Roger Simon) on the real feelings of Chinese people, and Mark Steyn's good Sino-sense. Having extensive expatriot experience myself I can really identify with this feeling that the deeper currents of public opinion, hidden from Microsoft scrutiny and BBC polling, are far more positive to the USA, in particular (more so than to dear old Blighty, I'm afraid), than is generally allowed for in western self-analyses.

What we're all about. Richard North has another great post on what the EU is all about.

Meanwhile, I offer a selection of what the BBC is all about:

Anti-Americanism, the promotion of European machination, dhimmitude and the interests of other, hostile countries.

To my mind, in the above articles, and in one case the programme connected, the BBC pursues its post-US election vendetta against Christian red State America, covers for the growing Airbus fiasco, which it terms 'squabbles', (try telling Quantas and co. that- maybe the Beeb can be a witness in court), promotes the Islamic agenda in Britain, and reports the meaningless return of yet another French journalist whose collaboration got a bit out of hand in Iraq and has now become Chirac's latest PR opportunity.

Not only is this journalism by political agenda, it's also sadly lacking in news content. The two go hand in hand it seems.

A Columnist's Progress: Mark Steyn was roundly criticised by some-including Jonathan Mirsky- for an article implying that China was a good place to go to live and work. In fact, to summarise, he said that 'China’s the land of opportunity'. Oh, they said, it was a terrible abuser of human rights and the gist was that he must be ignorant or dishonest to try to argue against the EU, for one, using the example of China.

I wonder what those same people will make of this article, which include the delightfully wide-ranging lines:

'And what is the likelihood of China advancing to a functioning modern stand-alone business culture if it's unable to discuss anything except within its feudal political straitjackets? Its speech code is a sign not of control but of weakness; its internet protective blocks are not the armour but the, er, chink.'

It's another great article, satisfying that golden rule for artists everywhere by including something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue. As usual Steyn does something which virtually no one else does so clearly: he works from a framework of thought. Delightfully surprising though is the way that he breaks new stories at the same time, or rather, he gives current stories eg. internet censorship in China, intellectual piracy in the Far East, new authority. In doing so he confounds his critics. Hurrah.

Can it be true?

The Jerusalem Post reported that Orla Guerin was to receive an MBE, yet I couldn't find her on the BBC's list (btw. I have very limited list-scanning abilities) . The BBC is keeping quiet about it if she did, as I'd have expected a footnote to this article about Frank Gardner's award if she had been honoured.

BTW, I should point out I posted on the honours list just recently, 'inspired' by the alleged Guerin honour. Actually even without her my argument would still be essentially the same. If, however, it really is true that Guering (so easy to misspell, I find) has been honoured, I am intrigued that it's being kept so quiet. If it's the case that she was going to be honoured but somehow this transference of honour was frozen, that's also intriguing.

Everything I wanted to say (nearly), from Mark Steyn.

And Wow! Compare and contrast!

The BBC:

Boeing has most to lose at the moment.

It's now being out-sold by Airbus, but it's putting its money on a new mid-sized 250-seat jet: the 787, better-known as the Dreamliner.

Der Spiegel:

'While Boeing is practically fighting off demand for its new 787, which consumes significantly less jet fuel than earlier models, Airbus's managers are seemingly ripping each other apart in internal power struggles and intrigues -- and increasingly neglecting their company's daily business.'

Strikes me Auntie's a little slow on the uptake.

Leapfrogging the electorate. Richard North has a great post about the Euros' pursuance of the aims of the Constitution despite the 'non' vote- in the context of space research and development. He makes the great point that as the EU pursues Britain for its rebate, it could do without that money if it did without its unstoppable grandiose scheming. This also made me think of the Airbus subsidies, alluded to below.

Interesting, most interesting. According to Thomas Lifson the Airbus Euro-flagship enterprise has hit dangerous turbulence. The BBC is considerably more relaxed, even boosterish.

Aunty's Anti-Jewishness

I thought I might write about this because it's a subject that I find most divides my viewpoint from that of the BBC, and via this divides it from that of a considerable portion of people in the UK.

My thoughts arose from reading this article from John Ray- sourced from the Jerusalem Post- about the British elite and anti-semitism.

He quickly introduces the BBC we should all know if we aren't wrapped in maudlin (it was the last item which caught my eye):

'Matters begin with the BBC, the voice of sweet reason to itself and most Britons. On BBC discussion shows, like Question Time, defenders of Israel are inevitably outnumbered three or four to one, if they can be found at all. Even an innocuous observation that Israel is the Middle East's best functioning democracy is guaranteed to set off vicious hissing and jeering from the studio audience.

Prior to the boycott revote, the BBC carried a report on the College of Judea and Samaria, which it matter-of-factly describes as being located in an "illegally occupied settlement on Arab land." Viewers would never have learned that 300 Arabs from neighboring villages study there, or that 20% of the University of Haifa's student body, and many department heads, are Arabs. The BBC's Orla Guerin, who once described the arrest of a retarded teenage Palestinian suicide bomber as an Israeli stunt to gain favorable publicity, was on the Queen's most recent birthday honors list.'

This is just a taster, but I am disgusted by what the Queen's Honours have become under Tony Blair's guidance- routinely embodying for me why Blair is certainly no friend to Britain, and remains emphatically a revisionistic Socialist with all that means. Of course peerages and honours are debased coinage anyway following Blair's evisceration of the Lords, but nevertheless they are still as much, if not more than ever, the coinage of elitism, an expression of establishment admission, and a powerful social force among the UK's leadership tranche.

As for Guerin, I remember early one morning in one tucked-away broadcast, just over a year ago, when Guerin repeatedly described Ariel Sharon as the 'Godfather' of Israeli settlers. She clearly implied some kind of gangster-like qualities, and it was so gratuitous and sneering it took my breath away. This of course at a time when many unnecessary courtesies had already been mooted for Saddam Hussein. Well, more about Guerin's recent activities here, as she lays into Israel's highly successful concrete-aided fence.

What can a British person who is also a sympathiser of Israel say when someone like Guerin is honoured by the Queen. Dude, where's my country?

But Guerin is not alone in her bias; there's Barabara Plett and Lys Doucet and and others who I and others have noticed with anti-Israel bias, not to say occasional anti-semitism. In other words the BBC itself stands accused.

Yet from the journalistic establishment we get things like this:

'What, I sometimes wonder, would life be like without Desert Island Discs, Jim Traynor, Andy Marr, Bryan Burnett’s fab C&W extravaganza, the World At One, the World Service, Radio Three, Radio Five’s football commentator Alan Green (“This will be their 19th consecutive game without a win unless they can get an equaliser”), honey-voiced Nick Clarke, Natasha Kaplinsky, Humphrey Lyttleton, Mark Lamarr, the Round Britain Quiz, the fragrant Orla Guerin, and, of course, not forgetting my dear chum, Andra Neil.'

I mean really all you need is to put 'the Rvd', 'the hon.', and so on, beside these names and you'd have the makings of a speech from one of Jane Austin's Grande Dames.

To an extent that's absurd. No, of course the BBC and chums (and there are a lot of people involved) are not the new aristocracy, at least not as we knew it. What they are though is a highly self-satisfied and self-interested body of folks who are evolving their own definition of class and how to enforce it. Different classes than the old sort perhaps; more broad-based in some ways, yet in other ways actually narrower (the highest echelons being less soundly educated, for instance, than the Arnoldian upper classes).

The way that anti Semitism and elitism ties together is this: elites like to consider themselves the best that is present in society, and the more prestigious they find their society to be the more they can enjoy their position. Britain really knows far too much about this phenomenon, though you'd never guess it from the faux-egalitarianism of the Beeb (faux-egalitarianism is part of the fun). Society elites therefore spend their time comparing themselves to other countries' elites, and this is where the Jews come in for their stick. Forget American exceptionalism- the real exceptionalism of history, an exceptionalism unchosen and unsought, belongs to the Jews. So whatever the pretensions of the British successors to the Empire (ie. the cool Britons), there is always one cachet which eludes them- they are not different in the way that the Jewish nation is.

As the British elite becomes ever more rapaciously absorbative of all manner of problems that befuddled their ancestors (Ireland, Palestine, racism, Africa), and pretends to know all the answers to these questions (ever more ludicrously and damagingly in real historical terms), so they get more and more unhinged by Israeli exceptionalism.

But what does this mean? Not I think, that Britain is about to round up the relatively small populations of its own Jews- that would only happen over heaps of non-elite British corpses (as the elite get more rotten so in some respects the ordinary British people get more like tarts with hearts). And anyway, the elite is too lazy and too stupid either to bother rounding them up or to organise the operation. True, there are many sycophants of the elite, but they simply have very loud voices rather than overwhelming numbers.

Of course Israel-in-the-world suffers, but I still believe that modern Israel can and will hold its own.

No, the real loss is that when the world needs leadership what it gets is Tony Blair.

And it's people like Blair that render me sympathetic to people writing like this. (no, I don't agree, only sympathise- if that's not a cop out. I am certain that Blair will do no real good to Africa; the reverse in fact.)

Thanks, by the way, to A Tangled Web for much food for thought and valuable linkaging.

All that's bad about BBC reporting can be found in this article at BBConline. Well, perhaps not all- but much.

What is news anyway? Is it what happens, or what you would like to happen, or what you think could happen, given enough publicity?

I give you the BBC's idea of news:

'Four US soldiers have been killed in insurgent attacks since late Tuesday.

The American deaths on Tuesday brought the toll from the day's violence to at least 36 people, making it one of the deadliest days since May.

According to a US opinion poll, for the first time a majority of Americans believe that the war in Iraq has not made the US safer.

The nationwide poll of 1,002 selected adults taken by the Washington Post and ABC News shows 52% believe the war has not contributed to America's long-term security with 47% believing it has.

Inferno

"We found three civilians' bodies torn completely apart," said Lt Col Thair al-Izzi in Baquba.'

Note the linkage here: the deaths, the polls in the US, The Horror.

Of course taken separately each item may have some newsworthiness of some sort. Taken together they're just propaganda for the so-called insurgents, whose aims we all understand, though their tactics seem bizarrely to smack of a desire to be on the losing side of history.

One could understand it if there was anything in the current attacks which showed a step change in Iraq, but there isn't. The Coalition casualties go through their ups and downs as they always have. Judging from the entrenchment near Falluja the evil men of Iraq always bargained on a war of attrition. Judging from the continuing revelations of terrorist intent, Iraq is the flypaper it was always said to be.

All the BBC can hope is that the fabled religious divides of Iraq will come to life in time to impersonate some horrible, borrible place from which nightmarish, nightmarish reality US troops can only hope to emerge intact, if they're lucky. Sigh...- it's all been said before, yet the Beeb, with its unexcelled egotism, thinks it's very clever, still:

'The violence continued as a senior Shia figure demanded a greater security role for the Badr Brigades militia, accused by its critics of vigilante attacks on Sunni Arabs...

Before the US-led invasion in Spring 2003 the brigades waged a guerrilla war in southern Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein's government.'

See, civil war etc etc etc blah, 'right all the long' utter bullshit.

Meanwhile, an attempt at perspective, here.

Following up yesterday's post, here's John Hinderaker on Guantamo 'Koran abuse' and fair headlines.

A bit pissed off.

Looking through the news stories about the Guantamo bay "desecration" incident(s), I could see that confusion reigned. How to present 5 whole incidents separately or together in some summary phrase seemed to be beyond the powers of the media.

Particularly egregious was this Times of India report, which said that 'US military personnel once kicked a copy of the Quran, and subsequently a guard accidentally urinated on it'.

Er, I don't think it was the same Koran, bub, or the fellow it belonged to was having one very bad hair day. And I always thought the educated classes in India were pretty hot with their English.

Continuing the subcontinental theme, this from the Indian Express (sounds kind of fine, don't it?) was far better. You'd expect that all in the country would understand the kind of thing that makes the Muslim masses restive, and would hold back from Imran Khaning the issue.

But yes, I'm coming round to the BBC on this subject, as might be anticipated.

While they are reporting that Sen Biden wants to close Guantanamo down, and Amnesty think it's the gulag of our time (they really ought to get out more- to a psychiatrist's perhaps), they also say 'The comments came two days after the Pentagon admitted that guards at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated the Koran.'

This is an absurd way to describe the findings of the report in question. The first thing you have to question is the precise meaning of this word 'desecration'. If some similar standard were applied for the Christian church in Britain then shops open on Sunday would be 'desecrating' the Sabbath and shopkeepers would be trembling at the thought of a call being paid by the men from the International Courts. Similarly if the fine spray of inadvertent urination were a 'desecration', then someone ought to stop the vandalism of toilet spaces that is engaged in hourly by men around the globe. If only the Yank had gone 'sitting down' there would have been no problem.

But secondly there was no admission of guilt involved. In fact the opposite. They admitted, to a question that was not asked, that they held the Koran in great respect in all their practises. I am not sure about the notion of desecration in Islam, though I don't know if I care much either, but I know that in Judeo-Christianity a fundamental distinction is made between advertent and inadvertent behaviour. Not to make it here seems either wilful manipulation, or rank dhimmitude.

Of course I'm well-aware that Muslims think the Koran was dictated straight from Heaven, and everything about its treatment needs to be rinky-dinky, but the fact is that (I've a confession to make, I've read the Bible cover to cover three times or more) to read a book like the Koran (which I've also done, though not completely through) requires that it's a bit dog-eared. Not sure about pissing on it, but it slips down the back of the bed, is good for resting hot coffee on, gets a bit damp in the bathroom and is the all time best, guaranteed-death, fly swatter (in this the religious texts are united and inseparable).

Quite frankly I'm amazed how good the US army is, and how utterly respectful of their protocols- and I can't think why our press has seen the need to spoil their knickers over it. Except that, of course, the press (especially the British one) always feels like they're part of some low-grade Hollywood film where the US Government agencies and minions are always the bad guys)

And this Euro analysis, from the Weekly Standard, really cuts to the quick on occasion:

'had the constitutional thingy, whatever you choose to call it, passed, the ability to paint it as a constitution would have been crucial to increasing Brussels' power and prestige.'

This vital point, it seems to me, illustrates how much the old 'tidying up' canard was just a clay pigeon for sceptics to shoot at. Christopher Caldwell makes other telling points too.

Back to Euroland, and it's been pleasing to find a lot of people mulling over the possibility of radical deconstruction. Charles Moore, one of the cleverest journalists around, takes a typically insightful look at the fine cracks appearing in the mighty Eurodam.

Oh yes, and, while talking about media misrepresentation, the Newsweek story about toilet-flushing (the Koran) is interestingly exposed by the official report into such incidents, as noted by CNN .

Of course they presented it like a 'Bad News' story (especially on the TV version), yet in reality it exonerates the US of any serious misdemeanour, as Austin Bay says, and really turns the heat onto Newsweek. They got the story the wrong way round, completely. They ignored the real explanation- that an inmate flushed the Koran in the toilet himself- and went for the join the dots version that they were anticipating instead. (AB via Instapundit). Oh yes, and Michelle Malkin makes the issue very clear, too.

Numbers Count: that's what I said to a friend just as the 2nd Iraq war kicked off. I meant that our discussions about numbers of dead under Saddam, and those who would undoubtedly die in fighting during and subsequent to an invasion, were important in analysing the rightness of the cause. Of course not the only thing at all, but important.

So there is little wonder that various groups have tried to use numbers to disqualify the humanitarian aspect of the Iraq invasion and reconstruction from weighing in their precious scales of justice. We've endured the likes of Galloway picking up these figures and running with them- as per the intentions of the anti-war groups concerned (yes, I do mean The Lancet and various supranationals).It's abundantly clear that boosting the numbers of dead has been a prime objective for the terrorists in Iraq, too- though naturally they don't use respectable journals but rather bomb belts to achieve this boosting.

I do hope then that some people will listen to the figures published by the Iraqi Government, horrific though they are. After all, this is the Sovereign Iraqi Government we're talking about- men you can do business with.

12,000 is a lot of bodies, even over an 18 month period. But one thing I always notice about the media coverage of Iraq- we never get any retractions of numbers of dead cited in incidents. A little suggestive of a mindset, I feel, where 'worse' is the only story the reporters can understand. (Via Chrenkoff)

I was prompted to think about Iraq a bit more by this precise and incisive article from Amir Taheri

Taheri makes the telling point that 'The insurgents know how to kill, but no longer know who to kill. Nor do they seem to know why they are killing.'

Which is a bit of a problem for the anti-Bush leftist media, who can't help their allies in Iraq unless they know what they're trying to do with their spirited tactics.

Of course, were it not for MR Galloway I'd be warier about making such a direct association between the ostensibly law-abiding left and the totally lawless Islamofascists, but Galloway's made it all too clear we can't flatter them with that distinction anymore:

'the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries.'

I suppose it's only the logic of language to associate Galloway and friends with, er, Galloway and friends: all "militants" together. (and thus the whirligig of time brings in its revenges)

But the telling feature of Taheri's argument is that the very things which most antagonise us about the "insurgents", ie. the indiscriminacy, the bloodthirstiness, are resulting in the defeat of the political aims of those people.

It strikes me the same is true of the leftist media, whose grasping indiscriminately and vociferously at every opportunity to megaphone their opposition to GWB's progress is just bewildering rather than impressive. I read this hotchpotch round up of violence in Iraq today. What was (is) clear is that the BBC haven't a clue, beyond a few snippy, cut n'paste remarks, how to undermine US confidence or how to generate a defeatist narrative. That's in part a reflection of the utterly chaotic nature of the so-called insurgency- without reason, without rhyme- and partly a reflection of their (own) utter barrenness of real ideas.

So even if Galloway is right that his 'progressive' chums and himself are on the side of those who oppose US so-called occupation of Iraq, it means nothing practically apart from cameramen who will chase ambulances and news anchors who will raise eyebrows. Sickening and alienating, yes- and that's the point.

As can be seen from then amazing maturation of BBC theorising, they are all at sea- just like their 'progressive', sorry, er, 'militant' friends.

One final point about Taheri's article. Probably consciously he drops into it the idea that 'The insurgency may continue for many more months, if not years, in the area known as Jazirah (island), which accounts for about 10 per cent of the Iraqi territory, plus parts of Baghdad. It may continue killing large numbers of people but will not be able to stop the political process. Its history is one of a string of political failures.'

I'm willing to bet a fair bit that this term 'Jazirah' has a more familiar incarnation to us Westerners in 'Al Jazeera'- a fitting testimony to an alliance in failure.

And lo! I googled.

Ideology and Fresh Air Thinking.

Remembering a time when, in the absence of anything much to do before Sunday lunch (spoilt kid that I was), I used to sit down with half an eye on a glass of sherry, half an eye on the Sunday newspaper, half an eye staring into space, and half an eye on some old bloke on the TV warbling on in measured yet somehow, strangely, breathless tones about politics, I was interested to see the Rottwieller Puppy lay into Brian Walden.

You could trace one line of my BBC-scepticism from that time, as it dawned dully on me that Brian was in fact a former Labour MP, yet was supposed to be some god of neutrality. It didn't add up, given that to be a Labour MP in the days when Walden had been one meant that you were waiting for the revolution, either patiently or impatiently.

So, I recommend you read Walden on the BBC commenting on the European dream (trying at present to replace the rather more balanced Alistair Cooke and his American Letter), and then read the Rottweiler Puppy's take (set aside some time for these readings). I guarantee by turns an illuminating and refeshing experience as the R.P. blows Walden inside out. If I had foreseen back then the 'Fisking' of Walden no doubt I'd have choked on my sherry and volunteered to peel the carrots.

When you're taking hits like there's no missing, is it sensible to make the target bigger?

Maybe someone should ask that question of Jacques Chirac, whose sacking of sacrificial lamb, sorry, Prime Minister Raffarin, and replacement with De Vilepin, is surely an attempt to increase my merriment at his own expense.

Eursoc rounds up the rounds nicely, while speculating about Sarkozy, who either let Chriac know he didn't want the poisoned chalice, or actually managed to convince Chirac he would be doing him down by overlooking him for poisoned chalice service.