Just a couple of items.

One- how sad it is that Mark Steyn is 'working out his notice' at the Daily Telegraph. How short-sighted of the Telegraph. This latest article has an air of a valediction about it. He comments on so much it's as if he were trying somewhat sadly to compress three months' commentary into one article. I don't know how long his contract will take to work out, but I'd guess not too long.

Two, a little poetry. One of my favourite poems from one of my faves John Donne. It's a tad risque, which makes the use of one famous line 'Oh my America, my New Found Land' (which, in mho, in context, is a line of pure genius) as the heading for a cruise liner article just extremely funny. The essence of the poem is why one needn't travel at all when one has it all in front of one, so to speak. Good advice really, at bottom.

Fascist/Commie convergence (duh)

Melanie Phillips points out a kind of barometer detail from the news. Perhaps a good reason for feeling that the War on Terror is being won exists in the fact that Zarqawi and his terrorist ilk seem to have such bad taste in supporters.

Rethinking History

There are many ways to look at history, so it's sad that the dominant model the UK follows is one where the British past is something either embarrassing or shameful. There are many other ways of looking at it, and we should explore them. Why? Not only because we can, but because the enemies of the West thrive on our guilt and our ignorance. They care more about history than we do- they believe they're still living it.

That's why I recommend this essay from Dr Andrew G. Bostom on the American Thinker. It's basically an analysis of history focussed on the role of Islamic factions, dominated by the Ottoman Empire. When you read it carefully you can find numerous Islamic apartheids to completely overshadow the South African one. You can find forms of slavery more profound than the Western one (from a cultural origin, I would argue, which set the scene for and was foundational to the modern slave trade we so abhor in our own history), and a pure relish in sadism which rivals Europe's most shameful episodes. This is the history which the Islamic world has to live down- and guess what, they're proud of it!

I wish people could try for a while and reverse their assumptions about the need to apologise for our own history, and get angry about someone else's. It's crucial to get our historical priorities straight, to recognise the truth the enemy is trying to forget (and make us forget) and the outrageous evil he is trying to emulate. Dr Bostom's article is full of fact and detail which we should perhaps try to memorise- it may help keep the BBC-shameful-Britain-bogeyman at bay, scare off the moonbats and even send a shudder of recognition down Islamofascist spines (yes, yes, I know, an oxymoron to have an Islamofascist with a spine, but there we are).

Iran: 'Iranian politics are as complex and sophisticated as any I have observed around the world.' Yeah, right, Mr Simpson.

"Republic of Ireland Prime Minister Bertie Ahern led tributes, describing Best as one of his "one of the best players the world has ever seen". "

Thus does the BBC describe the initial reactions to George Best's death. A question arose for me from this intrusion of politics into someone's passing away: given that Best was Northern Irish, and Protestant, and played his football mainly in England, what on earth has Bertie Aherne got to do with it? Does the world know that Ahern has less cause to be the 'leader' of tributes to George Best than dozens of British people who have been involved in Best's career (eg. Denis Law, Bobby Charlton- even Jack Charton if they wanted an Irish flavour)? It's very doubtful that the world knows that. It's rather more likely that they assume that Best, who played in the green used by Northern Ireland, would be a representative of the green of the Ireland they idealise and think they know.

I had a look on Google to see if Best had shown any sign of being psychologically allied to the country of which Aherne is the leader. I found nothing (scanning some nice articles) except reiteration of his Protestant origins- him frequently referred to as homesick for Belfast and him being a boy from Ulster, as well as being a saviour of British football in his numerous wanderings in Britain, but only once, very briefly, in Southern Ireland- and one reference - reported by the Beeb in terribly emphatic style given the political backdrop- to his desire for a world class all-Ireland team. He even spent time in one of HM's British prisons. As the sum total of my pro-nationalist findings it's hardly a ringing endorsement for his Eireishness. Indeed Best seems to have been determinedly quiet about politics. Why then use essentially a foreign politician -foreign to Best's nationality, foreign to his history- to lead the tributes; especially one with so little to say?

I've no doubt that Tony Blair himself, without justification, would defer to Bertie in this matter. His motive is appeasement of Irish Nationalist aspirations. It would seem this attitude is at best shared by the BBC.

(Sorry for my absence. I had an intensely busy period thrown at me by life)


This had to be linked. First.

I was- I am - a big fan of Lord Black. Well, finally Mark Steyn has played a blinder for his old boss. I suppose because he can.

Wrong Again Mr Simpson

One of the few benefits from the Beeb's large number of journalists is where one produces a report that flatly contradicts another's 'expert' opinion and confirms one's own with fact rather than speculation.

That's how it was for me reading this report from Jordan, where King Abdullah makes absolutely clear who he blames for terrorism and why he thinks they did what they did to his country.

John Simpson couldn't have been more wrong in reading the Royal mind with his absurd thesis that 2 and a half years on from the invasion of Iraq its bitter fruits would be a vindication for Abdullah's pre-war doubts.

Actually Abdullah's just a little more up-to-date that Mr Simpson, calling ' for a relentless war on Muslim extremists in the wake of the suicide bombings in Amman earlier this month.'

He goes on to say that Jordan's modernisation and liberalisation was irreversible (which makes one see that he attributes the terrorism to Islamofascist cultural ludditism, contra Simpson). He mentioned the unfamiliar name of an familiar ideology, calling for "relentless war on all the Takfiri schools, which embrace extremism, backwardness, isolation and darkness and are fed on the ignorance and naivety of simple people."

Tell it as it is, King Abdullah- not as Simpson would like it to be.

Iran: dysfunctional Oligarchy or functioning Democracy.

An interesting question, perhaps.

As is the definition of a 'purge'. This 2002 BBC article about the British Conservatives included the subheading 'Extremism purge' when talking about the 'Monday Club' and Ian Duncan Smith (who they?).

Meanwhile, this article about Iranian President Ahmadinejad
talks of 'a series of purges of officials.' , while the theme of the article is that the President is facing stiff parliamentary opposition. The ideas that he is both all powerful, as the purges are indicating- take a look at this Guardian article- and that he faces a meaningful democratic opposition, are difficult to combine. Needless to say, the BBC take the line of least resistance by emphasising the parliamentary opposition rather than the purges.

It's interesting in the context of John Simpson's avowal that 'Iranian politics are as complex and sophisticated as any I have observed around the world.'

It's also interesting in the light of the numerous efforts the BBC have made to educate me about 'caviar fishermen', 'Iranian basketball', and other rich and strange features that apparently marry with the expectations of the Iranian authorities who let Beeb journalists reside in Iran.

The presumption of such journalism is that in my prejudiced ignorance I need to be informed about the human side of Iran. On the contrary, I suspect the Iranian polity of being only too human, with a political elite corrupt as well and undemocratic and inept. But then, I have no way of knowing.

I honestly don't think it's worth the BBC's being there if all they can do is operate as modified PR agents for the regime.

The Timescale of Pessimism- set by the media

It could be that there are grim times ahead. I mentioned recently the high casualty rates in Iraq- well, they are not so high, but relative to months where perhaps 'only' 40 or so servicemen died, month on month averages of about 90 represents a problem.

Why so? Well, the damage was already being done by talk about quagmires when the casualty rates were significantly lower, when there were many pieces of the jigsaw still falling into place. Now, I notice, the bandagon has moved on: instead of Iraq as a country recovering from a war and dictatorship, more often we find merely a country at war- and this is standard on the right, so the left needn't bother anymore, but instead can play cynical politics, which is what they do best. Not that the casualty rates are so very high, but 'where we go from here' is always the stuff of politics- and increasing death rates never makes for popular politics.

This Weekly Standard article sums up the political situation which has arisen. My anger against the journalists who have cheerled this state of affairs will never abate- one more potential absurd echo of Vietnam, I suppose. In a very real sense these have given the terrorists targets to aim for- both in terms of the actual targets, and the numbers involved. One, two (troops) killed per day has been enough for the press to shriek hysterically and present the events as a failure of the Iraq policy. This has given a kind of breathing space to the terrorists, since they could maintain a low level of carnage and plan bigger things and sustainable increases of destruction in due course, safe in the knowledge that the political process was still heading in a favourable direction where it really counts- in the governments of the coalition, with America's preeminent.

Just to clarify why I think the political process is going badly- the two recent votes in the Senate, one about an exit strategy and one about an immediate withdrawal, tell the story. The exit timetable requested by the Senate is supposed to start in 2006. The terrorists must be delighted: just one more year to hold out before they can start to claim some serious victories, or at least have the US Senate seeing to their case in Washington. By contrast the motion- overwhelmingly rejected- concerning immediate pull-out, was merely a patriotic figleaf; hence even Mr Murtha voted against it.

Sorry to be pessimistic, but I have other reasons to worry as well.

Much as I am taken by the idea of the Anglosphere, I am less than convinced that the will exists to make it a real reality. This is a great post from Albion's Seedlings, making many good points- but it's just the outline of a nice idea. Aside from the technology of the internet and telecommunications making it possible, I don't see the momentum- with the exception perhaps of some of our great trans-Atlanticists, such the the Scotts (Ablution and Expat) and Marc of Neverdock (all great sites, all in my blog links for your delectation).

I fear that much more potent in the world, in capturing the imagination of some and the non-cooperation of others which we (the UK and the US- Australia's needs are different) need to have a positive response from, is this kind of thing. The Iranian strategist comments:

"We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization"

(hat-tip, Marc at Neverdock)

This is the country that is currently resisting attempts to thwart its nuclear ambitions, and being appeased.

In the battle between the anti-anglosphere and the anglosphere I think I know which one is more united in a common philosophy. Even Mugabe has tried to get in on the act.

The only bright side, I suppose, is the Iraqis themselves. The Beeb heralded a speech from Iraqi President Talabani indicating a willingness to talk to terrorists- yet this is not really a new thing, and what I love is where he says he will '"listen... even to criminals". I doubt that's quite what the Islamofascists are waiting to hear- God rot them.

Calming Down:

Denis Boyles, now in Texas rather than Chiracian Euroland, made a welcome return to the NRO, shortly before the puff went out of the rioting in France. It's funny, Boyles' opinion seems almost anti-climactic, until you realise that he just couldn't muster any more cynicism or lack of optimism about France than he already had:

'This "serious social crisis" will be solved exactly the same way Chirac solved that far more serious social crisis two years ago: by lying low and waiting it out. The summer of 2003, after all, finally waned. The weather broke and the crisis was solved, by God. Curfews won't cut it now. One of these nights, the rioters will run out of matches and Citroens, the weather will turn cold, and Chirac's France will once again be at peace.'

Well, the weather has turned cold (at least where I am- not my photo, I hasten to add, but a nice one. And not right now, though the weather's not million miles away from that in the photo), and I did run out of matches as it happens- though needed for my gas cooker rather than for any nefarious purposes, and I discovered that in Prague the price of matches is utterly, mind-bogglingly cheap (-but try getting them during the night- not so easy); and no-one burns anything in particular unusual. Of course there are almost zero muslims as well, but I'm sure that's totally unrelated...

Just to add one thought though: I think Boyles is a little too steady-state in his analysis of France. More than any country I know it seems the French are masters at pretending that nothing is really changing, that the heart of France beats strong etc cant etc- when in fact France bottles all its change up for pyrotechnic displays of earth-shattering significance. Fair enough, the recent weeks' events weren't that, but they were a significant tremor which shows where we seismologists of history have been forgetting to put our ears to the ground.

For analysis of the phenomenon of revolutions, one could do worse than go here. The comments are most interesting too. For what it's worth, I'm a 'human agent' man myself.

More news the BBC won't bother too much with.

Well, there's the recurrent one about Iraq's actual WMD programs- yes, I know, yawn (me too). It's not that there isn't a great deal of interesting stuff to understand, just that I'm utterly fed up with it being ignored, soft-pedalled, and fitted into a narrative that's been the same for years. The UN, the BBC, the Franco-Europeans and the US Democrats (plus or minus assorted weasels) in lockstep for so long they could have fitted a random headline generator by now (and maybe they have).

Then there's the one about the Al Qaeda connexions (yawn, again- bored not that the news has been reported, but that it hasn't had any penetrating coverage, creating a kind of news wheel-spin which just digs a rut, since without deep coverage and laurels offered to the newshounds, nothing gets done). I actually read it first at the always interesting WS- but this guy picked it up too, and I've just linked him, along with sundry others. I've also just realised that the Hayes article has gone from the Weekly Standard's frontpage, thereby necessitating the link anyway.

Finally (but, you know, not finally...) there's the old UN-Oil-for-Food thing, which just a few journalists are bothering with- almost in directly inverse proportion to its significance. Just enough to put the historians straight, I feel some what melancholily (a word? Well, good enough I reckon).

The Beeb reports the French end of things, and the Arse of Coarsai says to the effect that

'the allegations concerned only the two men's private activities after their retirement and did not involve the French government.'

And that's the best they can do as one of their own takes a fall! To my mind the UN Oil for Food scandal is the stand out best argument for the war in Iraq- thus I am not surprised that it is largely ignored. One interesting fact the Telegraph point out which is lost to us through the BBC is the relative recentness of the corruption- as late as 2002! This was long after the French Government had dispensed with his frontline services (apparently)- so what in that case was Saddam getting for his money? Answer: the Telegraph may appear a little bumptious in pointing out his 'Ambassador for Life' status, but they're really just being on the money, so to speak.

George Galloway Reveals All.

Yep, it's a sick thought, and a sick reality. In this Memri report you can find out all about George's latest treasonable comments in the Arab media. It seems that George has something in common with the rioters in anti-Gay Paree: they're both big fans of Eurabia.

'"This is not a dream, you know. In the European Union, there is almost 100 languages, there is many religions, there is countries who only 50 years ago were slaughtering each other by the million in war - totally different cultures with nothing in common except living on the mainland of Europe. But we are making a European Union which in 20 years will balance the power of the United States of America, inshallah."'

Maybe I should say Eurabia...

I'm a bit depressed about continuing casualties in Iraq. Yes I know that this website is unreliable and includes accidental deaths, heart attacks and anything else it can find to boost the body count- but still it shouldn't be at the level it is given all the hoped for political improvements and elections etc. The rise seems a little inexorable.

What to say? I don't know- one can point out that the prospects for Iraq are better than the prospects for, say, France, in the medium term. Some have done that- but it seems a rather impractical observation (though I think followed sensibly it's a perfectly helpful one, as I'll point out shortly).

But rather than stew over the fact that GWB is still having to defend his decision to go to war, that the MSM is still harping on about US 'iniquities' in iraq (yes, that'll be the BBC in full warcry), and that Bubba Bill is showing which way his antennae are twitching, I prefer to dwell on the fact that we're engaged in a fight for our lives- which would justify the most radical action, which necessitates action, even though the action may not be well executed. This was brought home to me by a devastating American Thinker article. I live in Europe, or maybe I should say Eurabia- so this much is clear, the inadequacies of the US in Iraq should be the least of our concerns.

Returning to Simpson.

Yesterday my reaction to the BBC's World Affairs Editor's view of the Jordan bombings was swift and visceral. I think that some commenters at Biased BBC were right in saying that it was a piece of propaganda, and I would say that's a tendancy the BBC are showing more and more frequently. Not that I care that much, but it endangers their future in broadcasting.

Trying to drag King Abdullah in as a critic of the US, and effectively blame the US for the bombings in Jordan is really extraordinary. I wonder how such reporting would be viewed by the Jordanian royals, should they encounter it- even though Simpson couched it in diplomatic and ingratiating language.

Simpson claimed that the Al Qaeda bombings represented 'a wave of anger and violence' which had been predicted by Abdullah might be the consequence of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. C'mon Simpson, that's nonsense. Two years have passed since that time, and this is the result, not of the Arab street which was the anti-war argument behind such warnings, but of vicious Islamist terrorism, which was vicious and violent in the region long before 2003.

From Simpson's report you would anticipate that the reaction of the Jordanians would be to blame GWB for Zarkawi's terrorism. In fact it seems rather different to that.

According to NYS's Eli Lake

'Only hours after the suicide bombings Wednesday, citizens marched silently in the streets in solidarity with the victims. Banners damning Mr. al- Zarqawi and his band to hell hang on storefronts and apartment buildings. But the effect of the bombings is perhaps best observed in the hometown of the man who ordered them.

When asked about Zarqa's most notorious son, Mr. Suleiman's craggy face tightened under his red and white headdress and he pointed holes in the air to emphasize his disdain. "Zarqawi is kufr," Mr. Suleiman said, using the Arabic word for a nonbeliever, the preferred slur of Islamic fundamentalists like Mr. al-Zarqawi who favor it when speaking of infidels.'

In other words, what we are seeing is more of the results of the central front in the War on Terror becoming Iraq: the isolation of the Islamofascists within the Islamic world of their origination, as they are forced to do ever more desperate works of evil to preserve their 'face' in the region.

Simpson though is almost blind to this. His notion of reasoning is to say that 'it was King Abdullah, and not Mr Wolfowitz or Mr Feith, who got it right.'

This is madness- Bush-derangement syndrome- such that Simpson has to use a murderous (but one must say isolated, in the Jordanian context) bombing, twisting it unfairly in with Abdullah's reasoning over two years ago, all to bash a couple of people to whom Simpson feels ideological and maybe personal anatagonism.

But then let's move onto John Simpson's notion of 'investigation'. When he talks about Knight-Ridder's report about one of the terrorists who was allegedly involved he says that this man was radicalised in his hatred of the US by events in Fallujah- he attributes this to Knight-Ridder's 'investigation'. In fact, the information was simply direct from the Mufti who was in charge of Fallujah before the US retook it. A great impartial source no doubt who 'said Ali's anti-American stance was hardened after he was detained by U.S. forces in the same mosque where a Marine shot to death an unarmed Iraqi man in a controversial incident captured on video by an embedded American TV journalist. The military ruled the shooting justified.'
KR go onto say that he was aready fighting the US troops at the time.

And there is of course the little problem that the terror attack was in Jordan, and therefore not where the majority of Americans in the ME are to be found at the moment.

All in all then we can see that Simpson's analysis, such as it is, represents a terribly ingrained kind of spin, and journalism as settling scores. If that's what the BBC calls good journalism- and they certainly tried to adorn his article with unadulterated praise from the lickspittle leftists of the online world- then they're finished.

PS- this is a good article from the Weekly Standard dealing with the issue of terrorism and the Iraq war, and the supposed link between the two in terms of events like Jordan. I shudder to think by now what would have happened in terms of the terrorism threat internationally had the US not invaded Iraq. It's the parallel history Simpson and others can conveniently ignore.

Simpson senility?

That's the only explanation I can think of for John Simpson's inflexible and dogmatic approach to the news at the moment. Everything goes back to the war in Iraq- the source of all evil. Hear this Mr Simpson- you were a friend of Saddam's regime; you assisted its members. You are totally partial where it is concerned, and rabid in your contempt for the US administration. That would be ok were it not that you continually use your pedestal at BBC News online to peddle your politics- but you show contempt for impartiality and a totalitarian concept of what is 'given' in your analyses. I really can't stand it- it's repulsive.

Isn't it disgraceful when a BBC journalist talks about the 'victory' of an anti-Iraq war analysis instead of analysing the aftermath of a terrorist bombing in Jordan?

Mind blowing interpretation

Much as I respect people who actually go into areas and get close to the people who are at the centre of news stories like the French riots (which revived a little last night as upwards of 500 cars were torched)- Patrick Belton of Oxblog's reports are more than a bit surreal. This one, for example- an except from an email to a friend- states that

'There's nothing religious at all to the riots; these aren't kids who reference religion at all, except to claim to you (possibly with some exercise of imagination) that they have friends in Guantanamo, and they might perhaps add Israel, Jews, and Sharon to France, Sarkozy, the police, and other people whose names in their drunken, possibly drugged, and excited invocations follow after the French equivalent of 'Fuck'.'

I mean, really, we can have different interpretations of data, but the prevalence of Israel, Sharon and Guantamo in their imprecations suggests the kind of mental profile which would dovetail perfectly with any Osama Bin laden broadcast! Add in the fact that youths use the slogans they use partly with the listeners in mind (ie. they choose slogans they think have the widest possible resonance, rather than ones reflecting the esoteric preoccupations of their cohorts), and I see absolutely no reason to conclude there is no religious dimension to the riots- the opposite, in fact.

Went looking for a post and found history

Of course there's always a debate about when history becomes history. Traditionalist though I am, I think history's a present perfect subject- therefore history is what brings us up to now. That's what makes the present so interesting; the fact that events now may be as life-shaping, indeed, must be as life shaping, as events 'then'- whenever that was.

That's why the riots in France (which I assume to be waning) have fascinated me. People have said that riots are part of the culture in France, which may be so, but when people draw comparisons with 1968 trying to reassure, what they forget is that those events actually heralded a new political era in France. The events of 1968 were different in that they involved what we would call traditional protest methods which turned ugly (probably designedly so on the part of the rioters). Still, they indicated profound change. Profound. Change.

More pertinent, perhaps, might be a comparison with Kristallnacht- at least in terms of violent destruction. What's missing in the efforts of the banlieues today, of course, is the really personal, racial and murderous dimension. But I remember being taught about Kristallnacht and being shocked, not by the violence, but by the fact that many people appeared not to realise what it portended. I remember thinking that people don't go around wrecking in that way without having some major intentions behind their actions.

Well, as Adloyada pointed out, we've just passed the anniversary of Kristallnacht.

but she also points out something important, an altogether different type of public protest which, almost incredibly, but somehow predictably, seems to be totally absent from the BBC's pages- a reported 150,000 person march against Al Qaeda in Morocco. In other words, muslims against terrorism- a movement for which we've been waiting and waiting. Adloyada also points out the background to this, which makes it seem a well-founded movement. I noted recently that the laws France has recoursed to were introduced to deal with events outside 'mainland France'- a euphemism for their Empire. Well, Morocco, away along the coast from Algeria where the laws had their baptism, has had things a little more peaceful than Paris just recently.

I find this event incredibly hopeful, even if it is a march with narrow self-interest at its heart (since it's a march inspired by Al Qaeda's expressed intention to kill two Moroccan nationals held by them in Iraq); even if it was a Government blessed event. It's my hope that as radical Islam spread its wings and tries to effectively strong-arm its way onto the political high-table, it will attentuate, losing its mass in areas it considers historical strongholds (eg. Iraq) and finally be snuffed out where it tries its hand at some old-fashioned Caliph-style action. Morocco may have tended to be among the more liberal arab nations, but still, the signs of popular anti-terror feelings are the kind of positive signs it's difficult to detect anywhere in western Europe right now. I might be tempted to say 'about time too'- but you can't say that to history.

Just to make a final point- one reason I care about history is that, though I have no kids of my own yet, I have nieces and nephews (two of each- all delightful, all too rarely seen). I will also (God willing- at 29) live a while yet myself. Mark Steyn makes broadly this point in his latest deeply appealing effort for the Spectator- the personal dimension I mean- and so does a new fave of mine, Tom Tyler on his blog (I will link this blog permanently. I will. I will- and half a dozen others I've taken a shine to). Come to think of it, without the family dimension- the future dimension that only a family can secure-, Adloyada wouldn't be writing her thoughtful and historically sensitive posts for me to make use of.

Btw- an aside. Natalie's biographer was right about something in particular re: yours truly. Can you guess what it is? Eh, Mark? No, actually, seriously, I am not worthy. yet.

All it takes is

'a normally intelligent person looking at the facts, and their rather obvious implications, without the blinding effect of a politically correct mentality.'

I also 'hearted' this too.

In search of balance concerning the French riots, I found this excellent analysis/summary from Donald Sensing.

After the voices of reason have spoken...

to tell us that the riots in France (the analysis of Steven Den Beste- the best of an uninspiring bunch) are/were the product of (that ever satisfying) combination of factors- rather than having any obvious source (which might require painful or controversial action) it's useful (as in a chess match when the opponent blocks a sequence of moves) to step back and try a new approach.

Thus I found it a help to be reminded by The Adventuress about the Danish riots which have been occurring at the same time as the French ones. Here, one must agree, Islam is the cause of the unrest (unless one likes blaming innocuous cartoonists. I was, however, reminded of this award winner, and it makes an interesting contrast). I also thoroughly agree with her analysis of the French riots- their essentially psychological intent, or as Irene puts it, 'training for dhimmis'. Listening to some of the 'voices of reason' out there you'd think that such a idea as 'collective consciousness' had never been developed (which is not even to go near the obvious whiff of orchestration in the grubby banlieues)

Naturally I don't wish to stir the pot...

But while we're talking about Islamist violence, this is a great article by Christopher Hitchens about Darfur. I've kept my trap shut about this for many months, fearing I had overinterpreted the role of Islamists. It seemed and seems clear to me that blacks in Africa were used by Islam as slaves, and that unlike in the West such activities have never really been recanted. In this context, 'ethnic cleansing' has a different context to the generally imagined one here in the West (which is only suggesting the legacy of the slaver mentality- not ignoring, of course, the reality of slavery's existence to this day). Reading Hitchens' I was ashamed to have been ashamed- despite the fact that my post well over a year ago is a fave from the Google archive which often brings web surfers here.

Blog overdrive: Sure, if you want to get reasonable...

Then let's talk about the thesis that there's no real link to Islamism in the Paris riots.

First of all, I've noted analyses like that of J.S. at the Beeb, which essentially blame racism and the Right for the Paris riots. The trouble is that Simpson said, tellingly, that if Chirac had been pro the Iraq war he'd be in even worse trouble now. Sounds suspiciously like when the Left are on the offensive on this they are prepared to admit there's a link to Islamic concerns.

Adloyada has a clever and personal take on this idea. Of course I see her point, just as I would acknowledge that the poisonous and anti-intellectual environment typical of many British schools may have grounded the London bombers in their sense of grievance (been there, didn't get no t-shirt). One would, however, hope that the guys she dated in the sixties are grown up enough now not to let their children's generation, ahem, run riot.

I also take the point that we have overblown our responses to the Paris events, somewhat- a thesis advanced by Clive Watkins and Patrick Belton, among others.

Yet I have some serious issues with an analysis which sees the riots as without an Islamic foundation. Yes, that seems strong, but I think reasonable.

One reason is that when people call the riots the 'intifada', the comparison is not so silly. When the BBC and others interview Palestinians what they get is not Islamist rhetoric but basically social sob stories. Thus what the kids on the street say and what they mean by what they are doing may- indeed must- be quite different, just as many Palestinians say publicly they are humiliated and privately that Israel has no right to exist and should be wiped off the map (not tring to say that what they say doesn't matter, just that the great rush to believe simple motives underlie violent acts is highly suspect).

Another is the extent of the riots, and their targeting of a great media-attention grabbing tactic- that of burning cars (more of them, progressively, every night, thereby getting the best dissemination in the media). One can't help noticing how good these look on tv or in photos, or that so few people have actually died in the rioting (one, I believe so far). The media, as it is for the palestinians and for the Iraqi terror groups, is the chief target- but horses for courses, here it's cars and not people that are gone for. It's noticeable how they've found a statistically impressive yet accessible target- so we can do the 'car bodywork count' in Paris as we have in Iraq.

Returning to the extent of the riots, it's difficult to believe that there is no coordination in such a wildfire spread of disorder. For one thing there have been reports of at least one cocktail bomb factory being found. Was there no coordination in 1968, I wonder? There may be mullahs on the streets preaching calm, but that only shows that they have some influence, or that they have an audience, thus disproving the non-islamic thesis. If the riots are only half muslim, then presumably we could send a liberal priest out preaching in the same areas with similar security? Furthermore, what we are hearing then is the official muslim response- whereas we know that was is significant is the grassroots muslim one. The recent history of these areas suggests, that with anti-Jewish behaviour and Islamofascist comedians, the youth are highly politicised and savvy.

Finally, there is the political nature of what is going on, and the targeting of the only effective right-winger, Sarkozy, which uncle Tom Cobbly has even reported. Such reports often emphasise that Sarkozy is to blame for his 'rhetoric' and heavy handedness- but that is to agree with the pre-existing grievances of the rioters. These are political, and we know that Islam is a very political religion. It may not be about to try a takeover in France, but it is certainly manoeuvering for more power and influence, and one can see these riots very much as part of that process (putting the iron glove over the demographic fist). To suggest that they are really about the kids is nonsense, I believe.

Enough- all I will say in conclusion is that the anti-hype dismissals of some of the blogosphere's loftier voices strike me as mere cant, whereas those who identify the Islamic fundamentals as present in this situation really seem to cover all the angles (not dissavowing social context, but including it as part of something wider). Thus it is they who really seem to be calling un chat un chat.

Irony-eating surrender monkeys

Let me begin by bashing the liberal media, the US one, at that. But, ok, let me back up for a moment: I was stood-up recently by an American lady journalist(very pretty and very liberal, a radio journalist perhaps because she was't, quite, that pretty). We met on a train and she promised to visit me, took my address etc after we'd had a long conversation over the noise of the rickety train we were on, and then failed completely to get in touch, even to say she'd changed her mind about coming.

But anyway, I'm not bitter. It's just that reading this article (Via Tim Blair , with reg. required but v., v. easy) made me think again about my observations about er, 'my' young lady- that beneath the superficial worldiness there may have been a lack of confidence about the world around her. The writer of the article in question was writing 'from London about Paris', and said confidently- among other observations such as “The Paris riots are actually a splendid demonstration of the successful integration of immigrants into French culture ...” - that 'About half the kids burning cars and buildings are white, working-class, post-Christian French, and they get along with the black and Muslim kids just fine.'

The first line I could accept- in a satire; I'd call it classic British irony. The second really smacks of having been written (no, not 'on smack'), but in London- and a nice part, at that. Some of the banlieues worst affected don't have many white kids in to riot. Even if the riots happened in Finsbury Park, London, I wouldn't be caught saying the racial ratios are fairly reassuring, because there too white faces are more notable by their absence than their presence. 'Half-white riots' in such an area would be almost impossible from any point of view. Whatever- if I were to make a suggestion to the US media to improve their worldwide credibility it would be not to pretend that London is like Paris, or that you can call an eyewitness account credible when it is from another country, even one not so many miles away. It's a bit like the 'eyewitness accounts' from the Baghdad hotel bar which have been misinforming us so regularly for the last several years.

Meanwhile, also in the news but belonging to the Private Eye end of the news, the zeropeans are sending a probe to Venus (no, not 'into', thankfully). Having found Mars all too hard and masculine, they've apparently decided that Venus is a much more soft and consensual target. They probably expect to find more zeropeans there, too- which could come in handy to reverse the arabisation of Europe.

Meanwhile, John Simpson makes understanding the BBC's position (which has been mixed enough to create confusion) nice and clear. The BBC's World Affairs editor says

'Nicolas Sarkozy, the Interior Minister, now seems to be playing politics with the situation by appealing to the most basic and resentful attitudes of conservative France.'

Simpson also blames the French system for its neglect of the immigrant 'burbs, yet for most of the period he cites (30 years) it had leftist politicians like Mitterand in charge, and Chirac is hardly of the robust right. Now suddenly Sarkozy's at fault (not a mention of France's generous social welfare system, the French model etc), when he hasn't even had a serious bite at the governing cherry. Just who is playing politics, mr Simpson? France, if it is a failure, is a leftist failure- the leftists who triumphed in 1968. Simpson is not trying to explain history but to cover it up, to whitewash. Nice Snow job, mr Simpson.

(of course, that's not to mention the sly and unreasonable introduction of the Iraq conflict, trying to head off the critique that Chirac's Iraq policy has brought no domestic dividends- a very workable proposition, unlike the one that his criticisms of the US and UK have been 'thoroughly borne out')

When Algeria comes to France (1,117- not bad for a monday night):

According to the Beeb:

'Mr de Villepin said the curfews would be imposed under a 1955 law which allows a state of emergency to be declared in all or parts of France.

The law was originally passed to combat violence in Algeria in its war of independence against France from 1954-1962.'

When one feels like pillaging the Guardian...

This Viking does, anyway. He points out one of the most awful misuses of inverted commas seen anywhere, and much else which merits the thorough utilisation of his email links to the Guardian editorial team.

Needless to say, I don't read the Guardian, or I wouldn't have any blood left to boil. I remember years ago my Dad bought it for a month or two, 'as an experiment'- and even then I wondered why he had a newspaper that evaded commonsense and distorted the relatively simple into some hodge-podge of sentimental pink-tinged porridge.

The viking also notes that Sarkozy is the target of the Left. Some coincidence there, since he's also the target of the intifadists- yes, it's probably time the word was 'bandied round' after the authorities came across an unusual cocktail factory. In fact, as one of the 'boys' and 'girls' the BBC highlights says,


'We want Mr Sarkozy to resign, or the violence will continue. He is too scared to come here and talk to us himself. We don't think we'll ever get jobs'

So, the rioters want Sarkozy to resign, as do his rivals Chirac and Vilepin, as do the Guardian (clearly)- and the BBC weren't too shy about booting it to Sarko (a bit) at the beginning of events:

'Nicolas Sarkozy - the straight-talking right-winger who is France's interior minister - normally thrives on the kind of acute law-and-order crisis that the country is currently going through.'

Which leaves me thinking that for perhaps the first time in my life I have come across a French politician I have some admiration for. I think that there is strategy to these revolts in Paris, and that they represent the conviction among the Islamic underground of French society (which must almost certainly be huge) that Sarkozy is the kind of man who could prevent their plans from unfolding, and must be removed. I think they're right: he seems to have the vigour and grit of a man who will stay on top unless treachery brings him down.

I know I often bash France, but I wish them well on this- and, especially, I wish Sarkozy well, and I note that France does too. I know that Britain is far from robust and invulnerable to Islamic pressure. Far, far from it. If France is spineless now and over the ensuing years, I must say I have little confidence that Britain's won't buckle in some terrible way.

Refreshingly Rumsfeld. Not only refreshing, but apparently refreshed: Don Rumsfeld has some classic things to say to Europeans via a Spiegel interview-

''You've got the lead. Well, lead!
SPIEGEL: You mean the Europeans.
Rumsfeld: Sure. My Goodness, Iran is your neighbour. We don't have to do everything!
SPIEGEL: We are in the middle of regime change in Germany...
Rumsfeld: ... that's hardly the phrase I would have selected.'

Back into the blog-breach, dear friends, once more,

because there's so much to say about the French conflict; or rather, so many are saying things I can't ignore (please, do take advantage of the links in this post and in the two below). (As ever, Instapundit has proved his invaluability in opening the horizons.)

First, to the Beeb- where I found them doing the serious work of journalism: namely helping faceless old Europe to bash America and kick Bush where it could just please please please God hurt him.

Relatedly, a blog I've always liked has been commenting on BBC double standards and an alarming convergence.

And finally, a retrospective at the French cant which has passed for commentary for so many years, and the European suicidal tendancy to believe that 'the things which happen' in the US (that, is, after they've been magnified and intensified by press bias) could never happen here:

'As the Chicago Sun-Times reported in 1992: "the consensus of French pundits is that something on the scale of the Los Angeles riots could not happen here, mainly because France is a more humane, less racist place with a much stronger commitment to social welfare programs."'

This makes the prescriptions of many for the alienated Islamic youth, to increase social welfare programmes, look just a tad unhelpful.

Deserving of a separate link, Melanie Phillips' post about the violence surfs the web, the press, and the context of it all quite brilliantly.

French Round-Up

Some debate was occasioned at B-BBC by this article from Hugh Schofield. Biased or not, was the question. Francis at the Olive Tree thought it quite good, though demonstrating trademark bias. I think that's close to the mark- what could be more a BBC trademark than saying, for instance, by way of an introduction, that Sarkozy

'normally thrives on the kind of acute law-and-order crisis that the country is currently going through.'

What kind of a ghoul do the BBC think he is? What kind of starting point is it for any sort of impartial and insightful reporting? Answer: no kind, and therefore like so many BBC forays into the real world it's scuppered before launch.

Such things aside, I suppose the analysis that Vilepin and Chirac are manoeuvering to edge Sarkozy into the line of fire is about right- but blindingly obvious to any that has even seen these three men's faces on the TV or internet.

But in any case it could be much more serious than business as usual emanating from the continent's cultural centre. Mark Steyn thinks so. And Helen Samuelzy at the ever informative and stimulating EU Referendum blog, talks a bit about the rottenness that appears to have ignited in the state of Denmark- but only a bit, because the main point is that we're kept in ignorance of it.

This kind of thing illustrates what I mean when I say (as, like a broken record I do say) that the British media, amongst which the BBC is preeminent and draws upon itself maximal responsibility, has utterly failed to carry out its function to inform us about the news that matters to us. That is the great fault which lies in the largely ignorant and visceral coverage of matters American. It's as if the BBC hasn't noticed that Europe is really far more important to us, with regards to social trends and economic and demographic pressures. The US couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't save us from the consequences of our own fatuity. So busy have the British media (amongst which the BBC claims top dog status) always been in saying how important Europe is to us- in order to defend the grande projet of the EU- they have failed to pick up on the fault lines which run through the EU, which threaten us: namely, corruption, massive immigration, demographic decline and spiritual vacuity (to name but four: I could add assimilation of Eastern Europe, reduction of agricultural subsidy and deindustrialisation to the list of Europes's massive problems).

On a wild Blunkett-

Natalie says it all really, but linking to Stephen Pollard was a smart move too. The only thing I'd add is that in reality all Blunkett is guilty of (compared with other ministers in Tony Blair's Government) is getting a little carried away. The modus operandi (please forgive any latin infelicity, I was educated a little late and too cheaply for that stuff) are the same for all Blair's men (and women). What was it Scott was saying? 'Deny, Obfuscate, attack'- and do it together, which may have been Blunkett's biggest error as he'd separated himself from the pack.

People don't talk like this- like this- unless they're at war.

What seems to have passed people by concerning the speech of Amadenajd (whatever), is this comment:


'... They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved… '

I'm betting Prince Charles didn't notice and if he did, he'd think it was a kind of posturing, unrepresentative of the faith he admires.

Sadly he's wrong. The Iranian president was laying out very clearly and, I might say, honestly, the analysis which any genuine muslim must respect if not agree with. prince Charles is heading for America wilfully in ignorance of that reality, hoping(if it crosses his mind) that the Americans won't get an inkling of that reality either. But it is attitudes like that (and if you read the rest, philosophies) which, being held by powerful men with powerful arsenals and terrorist friends, are the reason for the War on Terror. No-one will ever be able to look history in the eye and blame Bush Jnr for the global struggle which Amednejdad is pursuing and facilitating as before him Saddam facilitated it.

It's a tragic resting place of mindless antagonism for failed cultures- but as dangerous as it needs to be to justify all of America's fears and suspicions, and then some.

You have to laugh at this article by A.A. Gill about Englishness. (thx ATW)

It's the way he blends the subtle with the surreal, so that we get juxtapositions like 'The monkey noises at black players, the bellows of abuse at anyone who’s admitted in passing that they read The Guardian; the relentless nailing of ugliness, of weakness, of foreignness'.

You've got to laugh. One wonders just how well he holds in focus the fact that people only do that to Guardian readers to reinforce their ridiculous prejudices about the world, to confirm them in the ever-so-lofty notions of superiority and superior judgement about the world which they so often hold (or, how can they ever read their exactingly stupid doyen Gill from beginning to end without feeling like class snitches?).

I might add that I look English (well, sort of), sound English etc etc... (while being somewhat of a mixture and not even a clearly defined one at that) yet I find that I have no problem with identifying myself as English. Gill has no appreciation that anger and humour are the scylla and charybdis of human emotion. Only the English seem to have grasped this effectively. You might not like the exact synthesis involved, but it seems just about the only practical model out there which, as they say, 'keeps it real' and effective.

Sorry for lack of posts- but this might continue over the weekend as I have a nephew's christening and family engagements, plus many practical things to do.

Anyway, I am minded to compare the relatively trivial (important more for what it says about US conservatism than for its potential to change history) and the historic. In the latter case we see how the 'decadent' liberal West (and its desperate eastern neighbours) could develop a suicidal fifth column dedicated to enriching themselves by collaborating with one of the last century's monsters. In the former case we have a less-than-exciting moderately conservative career woman.

Can you guess which one has the BBC salivating at the moment? Yup, they're missing history, folks- and so, vicariously, do the Brits (and others) who lend them their interest.

Hell hath no fury, or Why's it taken so long? or the last laugh

It would be too poetic, too delicious, to find that George Galloway had been betrayed by the deliberate carelessness of his own wife in failing to cover Georgeous' paper trail to her own bank account in Jordan. It is interesting however to find George bleating 'I am not responsible for my wife'. Good point George. A real crowd pleaser.

But anyway, I hope, it would seem, the game's up for Georgeous this time around, whether the result of his estranged wife's leaving present or not. And really, given the bluster and the repeated links between George and the oil, and the unanswered questions about his relationship with one of Saddam's oil traders, about time too.

Well done to the Beeb for reporting this promptly. However, the fact that they only concentrate on the claims of perjury made in the US, and not on the money trail linking Saddam with George, is disgraceful. As a last huzzah they mention the virtually meaningless libel victory George won against the Telegraph in December. All I can say is that I hope George hasn't spent the money, as he might need to give it back.

Congrats too though to Sen. Coleman, who was a little bit blown away by the Glaswegian's bombast at the Senate Hearing in May. However, I hope (though I'm never sure of anything with regards to Galloway) that we can laugh a little now at Galloway's expense. And he who laughs last tends to be able to decide the terms. Much like George's wife.

(cross-posted at B-BBC)

Was Granddad in Iraq on his own?

Well, the though crossed my mind when I read John Simpson's apologia for Saddam, in which he maintained that the British in Iraq during the 1920's and the reign of Saddam were comparable.

To quote Simpson:

'Saddam Hussein's notion of governing a restless, difficult country like Iraq was that it could only be done with ferocity.

In that he was no different from the presidents and kings before him; no different either from the British, who had the mandate from the League of Nations to run Iraq after 1920, and who used some ferocious tactics to try to protect their rule.'

There are a number of sleights of hand in this article, but I want to concentrate on a matter of fact. Simpson avers of the British that

'They took over, full of the conviction that as the most powerful military nation on earth, with the best political system in human history, the Iraqis would be delighted to be ruled by them.

Within six months the British were negotiating a way out, and after twelve years (imperial powers hate to seem to be cutting and running) they gave up the mandate and left.'

Of course there is the obvious attempt to humorously parallel the US notion of not cutting and running from Iraq, but notice that Simpson said 'they left' (in 1932).

Because I happened to know that the British did not in fact leave in 1932. They gave up the Mandate offered them by the League of Nations then. In fact throughout the 30's they maintained a military presence, and my Grandfather was part of it, being a navigator in the RAF. I have photos of 1930's Mosul that I'm longing to get online and will one day.

So Simpson is simply wrong to say the British left. In fact, as was their wont, they signed a treaty:

'It provided for the establishment of a "close alliance" between Britain and Iraq with "full and frank consultation between them in all matters of foreign policy which may affect their common interests." Iraq would maintain internal order and defend itself against foreign aggression, supported by Britain. Any dispute between Iraq and a third state involving the risk of war was to be discussed with Britain in the hope of a settlement in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations. In the event of an imminent threat of war, the two parties would take a common defense position. Iraq recognized that the maintenance and protection of essential British communications was in the interest of both parties. Air-base sites for British troops were therefore granted near Basra and west of the Euphrates (where my Grandfather was), but these forces "shall not constitute in any manner an occupation, and will in no way prejudice the sovereign rights of Iraq." This treaty, valid for 25 years, was to come into effect after Iraq joined the League of Nations. On Oct. 3, 1932, Iraq was admitted to the League of Nations as an independent state.'

As for the British being as bad as Saddam, I don't see the Iraqi government offering Saddam's henchmen any airbases just now, do you?

(nb. The following post was originally destined for B-BBC. For some reason it failed to post. Then I thought it might have been too long anyway for the B-BBC blog, and it reiterated anyway feelings I had made clear there in posts like this one. Rather than waste the efforts I'd spent though, I thought I'd paste it here.)


The BBC's appalling anti-Americanism

No, I am not about to give some startling example of BBC ignorance or callous misrepresentation of the US- holding as I do no brief whatsoever for going into bat for the US of A- as though we need it spelled out in lurid language just how anti-American the BBC is.

But, I just can't get over the BBC's coverage of the Pakistan earthquake, and how they have neglected quite wilfully to report the US' response to it.

I noticed today the BBC reporting that one of three British chinook helicopters destined for Pakistan had left the UK, on board a transport plane. I'd have thought there might have been a case for saying this is a little bit late in the day and that the BBC might have been justified in saying it- but that, I think, would be to misconceive the BBC's political role. Its considerations include not offending one of its paymasters, the Foreign Office. They also include winning the favour of millions of totally biased muslims and others by acting as a sceptical (not to say completely jaundiced) eye on the US. In this case it was a blind eye.

Because just look at what the US has been doing. The US has devoted no fewer than 17 helicopters, with 20 more en route to the region. Furthermore,

'Television news broadcasts have been filled in recent days with images of U.S. Navy cargo ships offloading relief supplies in Karachi, olive-drab Chinook helicopters disgorging bundles of tents and blankets in isolated mountain villages, and American soldiers -- some diverted from military operations in Afghanistan -- working with their Pakistani counterparts to evacuate the injured.'

nb.- those would be domestic Pakistani news broadcasts. I'm not sure what other channels have reported, but I think the BBC (at least through its website) has been bending over backwards to avoid it (even in its overview of the disaster- where we hear from the oh-so-important Mr Egeland of the United Nations and of the role of Pakistani military helicopters. Please feel free to join me in an in depth search of the BBC site to see if the US efforts have warranted a serious mention; and of course report any good- which is to say, corrective- TV or radio broadcasting. I don't think we need to bother ourselves with the highminded idea that the BBC is concerned just to report the needs and the human stories out in the Kashmir instead of naming political names. After all not only did the egregious Egeland get a starring role- who is this unelected turnip anyway?- the UN got its own article, where we heard about the poor old thing's 'worst nightmare'.)

Why is this important?

Well, with the BBC regularly playing up the world's (and especially muslim) hostility to the global superpower, now comes a time when the US has a chance of refuting its unfairest critics and the BBC sits on its hands and bleats about the UN while other media can report testimonies like this:

'Obviously, this is the other side of the United States," said Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Shujabadi, a prominent religious scholar in the port city of Karachi. "For the first time in so many years I have seen the American planes dropping relief and not bombs on the Muslim population."

In fairness to Mr Shujabadi its possible he could have sought out the the BBC for his international news during the tsunami last year, which might help explain his ignorance of US aid efforts to muslims. Of course as the WaPo says 'It is too early to say whether the aid operation will have any lasting effect on public attitudes'(in Pakistan), but that doesn't mean we can ignore a global media empire which shows its ill-will by studiously ignoring concrete and positive images of the US when at their most newsworthy. The BBC, having been heavily criticised for allowing political considerations to dominate its handling of the Kelly affair in 2003 (and this was a unique application of the magnifying glass to BBC business as it usually unfolds), is still playing politics. It doesn't understand its responsibilities.

As Laban Tall's post at B-BBC indicates, muslim attitudes to us infidels can cost lives. Is it too much to ask the BBC to forget the political agendarising, to ignore their hatred of George Bush and to damn well do the job they're paid to do by reporting the major events and contributions, by telling us what is happening when it is happening rather than playing for their Islamic viewing figures and the approval of FO mandarins (or any other of their priority audiences)?

Just some great reading.

Mark Steyn has another insightful article in the Spectator, which rounds up my current interest in Russia and the Islamic threat there by addressing the timebomb that is Russian decline. Talking it over with someone, they argued that Russia was 'different', and one couldn't judge it the same way as other countries. Plus, he didn't trust demographic studies. 'Russian exceptionalism, eh?' I responded. 'I thought that wasn't allowed'. I also said that if there was an exceptional country in the region, it would be China, not Russia.

Anyhow, analysing another country which thinks itself different- France- David Pryce-Jones really caught my attention this time with his devastating history of Franco-Islamic closeness. I know he always does a great job, but this time I read a great chunk of it, and it was, well, great- so I'm sharing what was shared with me.

I'm a Foxie, probably always would have been had it not been for his percieved no-hoper status in the race to reach the position of top-Tory; but Melanie Phillips really made me smile. Said it all really:

'he has never quite shaken off the impression that he remains a junior doctor in rag week'

Update: (and this gives me an opportunity to say that blogger, according to its deep mysteries, is posting my posts quite some hours after they are written, making some of them out of date when they are posted. Aaagrh!)

Doctor Fox has sadly been hounded out of the race. This is a disappointment for me, but not really a surprise. Davis lost votes to Fox, clearly, and probably lost more (especially among the unalligned) to Cameron. Will all the Fox votes go to Davis, and will Davis maintain his current base? Difficult to say. I think it could be tight but from the fact that people have little tangible against Cameron I expect that it won't be and that Cameron will canter home. Fox vs Cameron, as Mel says, would have been a different matter and one which I was hoping to see.

Then again, I would say that Little Lord Fauntleroy won't be as liberal as some people think. He's a public schoolboy- a little reminiscent of my brother-in-law, actually- and they can be good at appearing all soft when thy actually have a good deal of toughness within.

I commented recently on the BBC's avoidance of calling an Islamist an Islamist in Chechnya.

The reason seems to be the oft-observed piety that Islam had nothing to do with the Chechen conflict until recent years, and that (natch) this outgrowth is the consequence of the hard line taken by the Kremlin.

Oh well, yes, (or maybe NO!) but... is it really necessary to go to this extent:

'In his statement on the Kavkaz Center website, which was couched in Islamic terms, Shamil Basayev said that 217 "mujahideen" had attacked Nalchik, targeting police stations and military installations as well as the airport.'

Er, duh! When is a mujahideen not a mujahideen?

No, it's not when he's a mujahasbeen! It's when he's a "mujahideen".

What? Is there some special Islamist NVQ (National Vocation Qualification, in UKtopian terms) they should have to have the scare-quotes withdrawn? Or would we need it from the horse's mouth rather than his commander's, that he was indeed a fully paid up and equivalent to our worst Power of Nightmares fantasy a MU-JA-HI-DEEN.

And do we assume that the term 'infidel' (see later in the article) was reserved only for the media statement rather than forming part of the movement's terminology?

But most silly of all is the 'couched in Islamic terms' thing. How couched, I wonder? Just seated primly or totally sunk in? The point is, since the man responsible for Beslan is back in the news with the Nalchik raid, who can have any compunction in using the term Islamist save the most reality-cringing and distorting kind of journalist- found, it would seem, in limitless, overwhelming supply at the BBC.

The Washington Times managed to be direct and accurate, and with the Beslan massacre behind us, and the Chechens' own websites proclaiming their Islamism, why can't/won't the Beeb now bow to reality? What holds them back? The only satisfactory response would be a detailed analysis showing how the Chechens' websites and contents were fakes, or unrepresentative of the rebel forces- in fact in all likelihood propaganda spread by Russia to get the West to help them out. I look forward to hearing that argument from someone.

ah, but did she have in mind me? Or you?

The quest for Karadzic: a true sense of comedy from the Beeb.

Naturally I'd like him caught- though not to spare the EU's blushes (if, that is, the EU ever blush about anything)- but the somehow pertinent observation of the BBC that the fugitive's poems 'describe mountains, thick green forests, rivers and wild animals.' , as though he were dropping some kind of locational clue here, is quite funny indeed.

Not exactly quiet on the Eastern Front

The War on Terror reminds me of the Cold War: the same sense of a hidden enemy, or at least an enemy whose schemes were difficult to fathom and geopolitically wideranging. Every time you heard about some conflict in a strange part of the world it gradually emerged that the commies had something to do with it. The tragedy for me is that the WoT is in some ways a continuation- different name (Islam), same relentless ideology pushing millions down hopeless paths of antagonism to countries that mean them no harm.

There are other points of similarity too. Just as in times past the various Soviet- inspired rebellions and coups were always styled some kind of popular revolt, so today no-one wants to call a spade a spade. Mark Steyn has an article on this very 'unnaming' menace. I think he should have added the BBC to his list rather than going after the better-than-average Scotsman.

While the bombs and bullets were just about subsiding in Nalchik, the BBC were busy trying to show 'the other side' of Islam in Russia.

The problem is that it's not news- it's anti-news-, as if the story of a white man minding his own business in East Anglia were a necessary antidote to a racist attack.

By contrast with the BBC's upfront reporting of Islam's moderate (and distinctly quiet) Russian muslim mainstream (and note how the main dynamic, that of radical Islamic agitation from the geographical fringe against the centralised Russian system is sidestepped here), their coverage of the Nalchik violence is determined to place Islam somewhere down the line in the roll call of rootcauses:

'Citizens of the Russian region of Kabardino-Balkaria have held a day of mourning in memory of the 36 killed in an attack by Chechen-backed militants.
Flags on government buildings were flown at half-mast, as police checked vehicles and the area returned to calm.

Twelve civilians and 24 members of the security forces died in the violence in Nalchik, with 91 attackers reported to have been killed and some 36 captured.

The rebels are thought to be a mix of local Islamic militants and extremists.

Their aim was to demand independence for Chechnya.'

I like the way they are described as 'a mix of local Islamic militants and extremists' . That way, we know they are local, not international, Islamists, and that the extremists appear to be something different ie. not Islamists (it is clear in context we are being invited to see a strand of nationalist extremism at work here).

In the end the BBC do allow some notion of Islamic extremism to enter, but they tether the loathsome beast firmly to the solid trunk of 'rootcauses':

The BBC's Steve Rosenberg in Moscow says a combination of poverty and iron rule have created a fertile soil for Islamic extremism in the region, exacerbated by an unemployment rate of up to 90%.

Going back to my starting point, isn't that exactly the sort of thing we heard during Cold War coups: mustn't blame the people, they're poor and oppressed.

Newsweek is significantly more effective than the Beeb in pointing out the salient news trends.

The problem is that denial means that we are unprepared for the next big shock. Much as I am enthusiastic about progress in Iraq, and rejoice in the exercise of freedom, it seems that the media is failing to give us the global perspective we require. It's interesting, for instance, that the EU and Blair have been sucking up to Putin, and giving him what he wants, but one wonders if that's missing the point with Russia in the parlous state it's in now, or likely to be in soon.

The BBC has a future?

Here's the text of the BBC's chums' notion of market research. I think it's nonsense, since the question of what to pay for and how to value the BBC is being asked within a completely skewed context- where we have a monolithic organisation bound up with the history of Britain going right back, and a market that's been shaped by their existence from its beginning. However, I have several good acquaintances who know high level market research in theory and in practise- and I plan to glean some observations from them.

Stop the press: Mark Steyn likes a film. As an addicted reader of Steyn, and especially of his film reviews- where his aim is surefire and precise- I have to restrain myself from linking him; but now I feel it could be a public service announcement to say this: Serenity appears to be good.

I might be tempted to say we should all go Dutch- and ban the burqa, but then again what if going Dutch means talking to Al Qaeda? (hat tip ATW)

A Nobel Assault?

I doubt I am the only one unsurprised at Harold Pinter's success in winning the Nobel Prize for Literature- but it's strange.

Until a couple of years ago I'd all but forgotten Pinter- he was one of those irrelevant and inferior representatives of modern patriotic/socialist British literature (think Hughes, Bennett, Loach etc.) I'd had foisted on me at school and university and had just about managed to vomit out of my memory. Then came the Iraq war and suddenly Pinter was hip and relevant. He produced some 'ravishing' poetry which can be read here.

What I couldn't believe was how the BBC managed to mention the prize he's won without pointing out that Pinter and Al Baradei (the peace prize winner) shared the same anti-Iraq war viewpoint. They mention that Pinter is controversial and was a fierce critic of Reagan and Thatcher, but they don't mention his most obvious claim to recent fame- which, it appears, is generally the main consideration for the publicity conscious Nobellers. To me it's almost indisputable that Pinter would have failed to win the Nobel Prize were it not for his anti-Iraq war stance (not that I give a monkey's about the Nobel Prize, but people do).

An aside- I find it particularly obnoxious that the nobel panel chose to say (and were quoted by the Beeb saying) that Pinter '"uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms".'

This is absolutely what he has not done. He has been the metaphorical aider and abettor of the literal oppressor in the literal closed room, with a literal victim- in Iraq.

Update!!!- major stealth edit alert!!! Now they tell us 'The playwright is known for speaking out on issues like the war on Iraq'. And then they eulogise. (+ I edited my own post- I meant to say unsurprised earlier.)

Also noteworthy, also from an EU-watching blog- this post about the remarkable steps being taken, and contested by the French, to massively reduce agricultural subsidies.

Random piece of British poltics: here is an insight I really hope is correct (nice site, too).

I couldn't help being slightly amused at the thought of a Cameron / Clarke ticket (though definitely more a nightmare than a dream ticket for me), because I used to know someone whose surname was Cameron-Clarke. It must be one thing to share the name of a party leader, another to find oneself bearing the names of both of them.

Miers: the debate. I'm posting this before I've read it, but it should be more than interesting when I get the time.

I would just add that for those who wonder why Miers is important- if you've ever wondered if Bush has judgement or just gets lucky sometimes, you'll have an interest in this. In that sense it's a potentially defining dilemma, however trivial it may seem (it's not trivial, when you consider some of the society-forming decisions which the US Supreme Court is entrusted with).

Interesting Flap in the States

I continue to be fascinated by the Harriet Miers case. 'Harriet who?' I hear you say. Well, quite- that's what all the problems are about.

Although I talked about the Miers nomination previously, the scale of the controversy, at least as it appears in the US conservative part of the blogosphere, demands some kind of introduction. Maybe Richard North's analysis of another UK conservative's green eyed observations about the US' conservative 'establishment' (kind of an alternative and not yet reigning version of the deeply entrenched US Liberal establishment) will do.

And now, according to conservative luminaries like David Frum, all the conservative success is jeopardised by a President who, when he has a free hand, chooses his chum for a crucial life-long legal position. Thus Bush (it would seem) betrays those who have supported him through situations where they disagreed with him on the grounds that a) they hated his opponents on the left, and b) they were hoping that when the flak calmed down he'd reward their loyalty by offering plums like a place on the Supreme Court to someone who they could see as a representative of their own political idealism.

But, as a conservative, albeit of a British sort, I have a different point of view. I believe conservatism naturally rebels against any kind of social establishment of the kind that many conservatives in the US would like to construct. It despises the way that many would like to place themselves in some pantheon of 'greatest conservatives', thereby feeling snubbed when a significant position is filled in government by one from beyond the pantheon. My kind of conservatism believes that small is beautiful and that a closely argued thought process is better than a thousand endorsements from unconnected eminences. My kind of conservatism doesn't believe in massive tides of revolutionaries, but slow accretions of good judgement- which others value and imitate. My kind of conservatism believes in minimalism- that you can't know everything or hold a schema perfectly, but you can perfectly well know the little that is given to you and can extrapolate that knowledge to great affairs.

Thus I support the nomination of Harriet Miers and recommend you read what a crusty and longwinded lawyer has to say about the matter.

Don't know why the post I just posted hasn't been posted.

However, what is remarkable is that the BBC's Don't Have Your Say may be becoming Have Your Say (after all). More credit to the Biased BBC blog I'd say.

Coo, isn't he lovely?

That's right, transnationalism has once more given birth- and it's the delightful progeny of the 'international community' (maiden name, UN), and the guilt ridden corpse of masculinity entombed in the Nobel peace prize. They're calling the fresh arrival Mohammed, apparently.

I watched a little bit of Sky and a little bit of the Beeb, and while Aunty Beeb was wreathed in smiles at the way the little chap had emerged from his Iraqi weapons crisis, Uncle Sky was grimacing wryly and saying good humouredly, 'bit ugly, isn't he?' Got to say I absolutely preferred the company of Uncle Sky.

Paul Reynolds, the godfather, was all serious when it came to a formal address. He seemed to think that Mohammed's arrival was a sign that he was a mighty achiever, rather than simply reflecting the fact that Alfie had got cosy amidst the warm embrace of the UN and it's anti-US obstructionism.

This gives an idea what the Nobels think about Iraq.

Cameron's mish-mash

I 've read David Cameron's much-heralded speech- and it doesn't amount to much. I notice how he avoids all the difficult issues, such as Europe, Ireland and Iraq, and goes for all the simple ones, like offering 'choice' and 'setting' and so on, in education (things which Tony Blair can claim for himself, and which the public believes are already happening).

But I found the emptiness summarised by a comment he makes about foreign policy:

'And when we talk about foreign affairs, we don't just stand up for Gibraltar and Zimbabwe, but for the people of Darfur and sub-Saharan Africa who are living on less than a dollar a day and getting poorer while we are getting richer.'

Another difficult and vital issue (aside from the War on Terror- and national security, and the London bombings-, which he doesn't mention) is the UN's role in our diplomatic life. Blair, just today, condemned Iran's violent toying with Soutern Iraq by referring to his 'UN mandate'. Politics it may be (though I think Blair does have a high regard for the UN), but it comes with a price- and the price is inertia ove issues of national interest.

Cameron's statement about Zimbabwe shows that he doesn't recognise historical responsibility or national interest and give it any priority over the UN's shapeless moralising. I don't believe that the Conservatives as a party have really stood up for Zimbabwe as Mugabe tightens his rigor mortis-like grip. The idea of watering down still further is amost unthinkable.

What we need is a leader who has some sense of the difficult issues, and can stand up for conservative policies in them. It's by adopting the right principled positions based on our national interest that would differentiate Conservatives from Labour, and give some substance to his idea of renewal. I found Claudia Rosett's analysis of a dynamic national spirit versus a moribund transnational one interesting- no country could be more clearly politically defined than her subject, Taiwan.

Almost right about Blair- Danny Finkelstein getting closer than most.

+

A solid comment on David Davis . One has to conclude there is no apparent serious candidate for leader. If pushed I would lean towards Fox, rather than stumble towards one of the others.

A little more on the subjects I talked about in the post below- the Miers and Delay situations, which I, perhaps somewhat impetuously (but I think constructively), tied in together.

The Delay 'second indictment' which the press greedily gobbled up, is nicely explained here.

The Miers situation, which I felt had some symbolic connection with the Delay one, is being vigorously pursued by Hugh Hewitt in posts like this and this.

I think that choosing Miers is another sign that Bush has a philosophy something like the following: He doesn't trust establishments. He does trust providence- providence which has brought him into contact with a wide, but not exhaustive, range of the interesting and talented. It doesn't matter if you agree with the idea of providence or not- it's the only summary word we have to express the specific journey a person takes which differentiates them from others (nb- you could make a case for 'fate', but the Greek tragic associations don't really work too well). What this means is that he makes his choices based at least partly on his own personal journey through life. He believes in making selections in a team context, and in the wider one of society and the world.

I don't know what to think of Harriet Miers- and I do care, since in many ways we need the USA to be strong for the safety of civilisation- largely because I don't know her. But I like Bush's balanced approach- rarely picking the biggest name, and never taking the genuinely easy option. I like the way he seems to have the attitude that you've got to displease all of the people some of the time. I've never really been pleased by GWB, and never felt betrayed by him- but I find him very reassuring.

The dumb and the less so

No, this is not a plug for honest Jon. Well, not really.

Actually it is to make a point about US politics at the moment.

I notice that the media have managed to avoid mentioning the idiocy of the Texan legal eagles who indicted Rep Congressman Tom Delay on charges which relied on legislation which postdated his alleged offence. Instead the Beeb and others race straight ahead to the 'new indictment'. If that had been US legal authorities versus the Islamofascist I doubt the utter stupidity of the first indictment would have been missed so glaringly.

In the light of this conspiracy of dumb, is it really so stupid of Bush to choose a new member of the Supreme Court from outside the loop- but of course part of Bush's, someone whose abilities he has seen close at hand? Unless you just distrust and hate Bush per se, that is. Furthermore, if Ms Miers had been educated in the real Texan jurisprudence of dumb, it is doubtful if she could ever have headed a successful law firm. I suppose I have the right to be suspicious of people like the aforelinked Sullivan who buy into the idea that the second Delay indictment is actually an additional one, and not a replacement for the abortive initial one (designed of course, for the very media misrepresentation which is ongoing).

I got into this issue via the slightly personal exchanges of sorts between Sullivan (the aforelinked) and Hugh Hewitt, whom Sullivan accuses of basically being a fawning sycophant of the President. I have to say that Sullivan is an idiot. He seems uncontent while anyone else is on the other side of a debate. He whines like a child in personal and emotive language, being totally prone to psycholanalysis of the president. You could almost guess he'd just come from the shrink's couch to his computer. Meanwhile, if Hewitt is guilty of anything, it's of praising his own profession too much, thereby making it look like Bush's choice within that profession was really straighforward, when in the current global situation (which is what America and its legal framework will have to face up to) it was anything but.

When you look into the likes of Sullivan, the dumbness of the media generally, and the dumbness of much of the oft-praised legal eagles- and the way that they'd all like to huddle together in one self-righteous lump screaming at big bad Bush- you have to say that Bush may at least be slightly less dumb than his opponents, and thus well placed to make history happen the way he'd prefer.