MichaelCD - The Blog.

The thoughts of Michael Cadwallader. Coffee loving, history book reading, Cheshire man.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Laban V Guardianistas

I tip my hat to Laban Tall. He’s entered into the dragon’s den of Liberalism, the Guardian online, to try to convince them that stopping the, can be achieved only by the acceptance of liberal mistakes. Sadly, most didn’t listen, but I suppose it was worth the effort.

What can be gleaned from both The Guardian's comment, and their exposé, however, is that liberals cannot understand the motivations of those who vote for the BNP. And, therefore, will
never solve the problems which feed its support. ‘Forceful campaigning’ may sound good, but in actual fact it is tripe. Without acknowledgement of the failure of multiculturalism, the result will be more and more success for the BNP.

The Guardian, like an early twentieth century general, is fighting the last war. Seemingly, they believe that people will be ‘shocked’, by these revelations.
Some members use racial epithets? As shocks go that’s not quite up there with Foinavon. And, the racialism of some members doesn’t change the fact that a large amount of people who are not racialists, now support the BNP. These people have legitimate concerns, and these concerns cannot and will not be tackled by attempting to side-track the BNP.

They also managed to find out that the BNP operate in secrecy? Well, it is obvious that they do so because in oh so democratic Britain, these people would be persecuted for their political beliefs. Indeed, it is difficult not to feel sympathy for Simone Clarke, she seems to have sensible immigration concerns and, in light of her domestic arrangements, can hardly be called a racial nationalist. I can only hope that the decision to 'out her' will backfire on the Guardian, as The House of Dumb
puts it:
Back in the day, the Guardian waxed lyrical about how digusterated they were by the News of the World publishing the names of convicted paedophiles. So, let’s check the scores on the doors here: outing perverts who prey on kids: bad, outing people who support a party the Left disapproves of: good.
If the true goals here are the retreat of the BNP, and the achievement of a cohesive British community, then what is needed is not Guardian exposés, but a political party not beholden to the current mode of thinking. Put simply, the best way to attack is from the right. And at the moment this is not happening.

The policies needed are not rocket science. All we are looking for is a party that doesn’t think of anything as ‘beyond the pale’; a party that will have the guts to say that the current immigration policies are a deliberate attempt to weaken the nation state, and highly desired by ‘world-governmenters’; a party that will maintain British independence; a party that shows that the logical conclusion of The BNP‘s policies are racial balkanisation, and the disastrous consequences of that for this country; and finally, a promise to destroy multiculturalism, period.

Laban thinks this gap on the right will be filled, soon. The question is: by whom?

Labels: ,

Sunday, December 24, 2006

A Christmas Carol........

There is no more perfect day for bad economic data to come out, than this. It gives us the opportunity to paint Gordon Brown as a latter-day Ebenezer Scrooge. No bad thing in my mind!

The BBC may call the economy 'impressive', due to hardly sparkling GDP growth, but who has benefited from this impressive economy? Young people who have entered into the much vaunted 'New Deal', clearly haven't. Perhaps that's why Tony fails to mention it now, when talking about New Labour's 'achievments'. And then there is your average worker, facing inflation creeping ever higher. Add in Gordon's obsession with taxing things like petrol, and council tax rises, and you find the poor now pay a higher share of taxes.

The link to today's news? I think that there is a direct link between this impoverishing tax burden and crime. And that this has been starkly illustrated in a leaked report:

MINISTERS have been warned that crime is to rise for the first time in 12 years, according to a leaked Downing Street report.

A newspaper reported last night that the document, drawn up by the No 10 strategy unit, warned that a slowdown in economic growth was threatening to reverse recent falls in crime levels. Also, the report was said to predict that the prison population would rise by 25% over the next five years, from 80,000 to more than 100,000 - outstripping the planned rate of growth in prison places.

It suggested that the government consider other remedies, such as rationing the amount of alcohol people can buy, prescribing heroin instead of methadone to addicts, and "chemical castration" for sex offenders.

The report said that 80% of the recent decrease in crime was due to economic factors, but that improvement was now in jeopardy.

"Unless action is taken, economic and social pressures are expected to put recent falls in crime under threat," it said.

Now, I am not a marxist (obviously!) , so I do not believe in a solely 'homo-economicus' explanation for crime. A large percentage of the decrease in crime figures has been automotive and, in my opinion, more than likely due to increasingly sophisticated alarms. That said, economic reasons are a factor that will motivate many opportunist crimes. A snatched handbag, a mobile phone swiped (happened to me) and an unlocked car, all provide an opportunity to the desperate and capricious. The capriciousness and feeble mindedness of petty criminals will remain locked in their personality; it's more than likely they would commit crimes whatever the circumstances. But when desperation, caused by the economic policies pursued by the government, is factored in, the mix becomes particualry toxic. So, to see an increase in this sort of crime would be quite simply the most damming indictment of Gordon Brown's Chancellorship, yet.

Finally, I would like to wish everybody a merry Christmas, yes, even dear old Gordon, and a happy new year. I would also like to thank those bloggers who who have been kind enough to link to me, God bless you and your families.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

The Benefits of Diversity............Asian Gangs

The following article is taken from the BBC's website. Surprisingly, for such a big story, it's hardly in a prominent position, simply tucked away under the BBC Manchester section:
Five men have been charged as part of a major investigation into the sexual abuse of girls in Oldham.

More than 20 men were arrested and three were charged with rape and two with abduction offences.

Shahzad Masood, and Suleman Mohammed, both 32, were charged with abduction and Sarwar Ali, 31, was charged with rape. All have been released on bail.

Kadir Hussain, 23, and Shakil Chowdhury, 39, were charged with rape and remanded in custody.

The arrests were made as part of a joint inquiry carried out by police, Oldham council, Oldham Primary Care Trust and the charity Barnardos.

Mr Masood, of Melford Avenue in New Moston and Mr Mohammed, of Derby Court in Werneth, were charged on 23 August.

Mr Hussain, of Princess Street, Ashton-under-Lyne, was charged on 12 November.

Mr Chowdhury, of Attock Close, Chadderton was charged on 2 November.

Mr Ali, of Chester Street, Werneth, was charged on 2 November.

The men appeared before Oldham Magistrates in October and November.

It's strange that this news has only just come out now. Especially as this is one of the busiest times of the year, in which most people have little time to follow the news.

It's even more strange that the article is so reticent to give out the full story. The fact that most of the girls are underage, one only twelve years old, is not mentioned at all.

Perhaps if this was an isolated incident it would not warrant generalisations. But Asian - meaning Pakistani Muslims - gangs have form:

The shocking revelation came as one Rotherham mother told the Yorkshire Post that her 13-year-old daughter was repeatedly raped by a gang of Asian men who befriended her.
It follows reports that police in Keighley are reopening investigations into alleged attacks on 33 teenage girls, whose mothers claim have been targeted by Asian men cruising the streets of the West Yorkshire town.
Many of the girls – who are all white – are reluctant to give evidence against their attackers, whom they see as their "boyfriends", and are seduced by presents and flattery before being assaulted.
Police and community leaders have discounted race as an issue but there are claims that the cultural background of arranged marriages is the key to understanding the problem.
The Rotherham woman branded her daughter's attackers "untouchable" amid a climate of fear and violence created by the gangs.
The girl fell victim to the men after they befriended her in Dinnington town centre, showered her with gifts and treated her to trips to a pub in their high-performance cars.
The teenager eventually reported the attacks to police but was too terrified to take her case to court for fear of abduction, her mother said.
The similarities are amazing. In the Oldham case, the gang befriended the girls by using the gift of a mobile phone, enabling them to keep in constant contact with them. And one can only presume from the Rotherham case that the presents mentioned are also mobile phones.

The Rotherham-gang article may state that this is a cultural and not a racial thing, as if this makes everything all right. In fact, it shows that there is a rotten culture that exists within the muslim community of misogyny, honour killings, rape gangs and suicide bombings. And, if this is 'vibrancy' and 'diversity', Tony Blair can keep it.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Talking of Christmas

Is my belief that religious Christmas is a thing of the past, and that this fact doesn't particulary bother the British people, an over-exaggeration? Perhaps:
The vast majority of Britons oppose moves to secularise Christmas, according to a new poll.

The survey found that 80% believe celebrating the birth of Christ remains an important part of the festival.

The study follows a string of high-profile media reports of apparent attempts to rebrand Christmas on secular lines as a "winter" celebration.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, is among those who have attacked what he called "Wintervalitis" - a reference to the decision eight years ago by Birmingham City Council to rename Christmas "Winterval".

Recent controversies include a school which took turkey off its festive menu in favour of halal chicken and a council which chose not to use the word Christmas on its cards, opting for "Season's Greetings".

But, I wouldn't get too excited yet, the generation to come are the the real worry.


Thursday, December 14, 2006

Yet another poser

I have a very large problem with our modern Christmas tradition. We all know that since Victorian times Christmas cards have been exchanged between family and friends. That's fine, I have no problem whatsoever with it. Although having to send cards to people you haven't spoken to for twenty years merely because they send you one, seems like a bit of a tyranny. But, hey, I suppose that there's nothing wrong with a bit of courtesy.

The problem I have is with the cards themselves. Firstly, there is nowhere near the same amount of cards bearing any religious scene. In the modern secular world I suppose that's to be expected. But would it really be such a stretch to endow the card's scene with the star of Bethlehem? A small gesture, true, but one that would at least retain some sense of the religious aspect of Christmas in the minds of the people who receive the cards.

Of course, when entering into a discussion on the nature of Christmas cards, it's easy to forget that even the Victorians would have sent cards with traditional scenes, rather than religious ones. Father Christmas with his reindeer, children bedecking Christmas trees, a family gathered around a log fire or a chocolate box village decorated for festivities. All conjure up the ideal of Christmas, and are a wonderful addition to the main room over the Christmas period. Without them, Christmas is all the poorer. So, I can't grumble about them.

What's annoyed me is an addition to the pantheon of cards sent over the Christmas period, in the last decade. The 'seasons greetings' card. Ninety per cent of these cards have some sort of link to Christmas, either on the outside, or inside within the message. But there are some which have a silly decoration type of display, and these don't even mention the word Christmas in them. You could even say they daren't mention the word.

The motives of the card companies who produce this guff is something I have been pondering. I suppose card companies are trying to be 'trendy' or 'inclusive', imbecility is a more appropriate word. If somebody, heaven forbid, sends me one of these type of cards, what I am I supposed to do? Are they trying to celebrate the winter season? If so, perhaps I should send them a 'spring greetings' card on the Ides of March. Surely, if people have actually bothered to send out cards at this time of year, they must have some sort of feelings towards Christmas. If that is the case, then they must realise that their cards are part of a cultural shift away from the traditions and Christian links of Christmas.

Looking at it perspectively, at the moment this is only relevant to a small minority of cards. Most of the ones recieved by our family have the words Merry Christmas emblazoned in the middle. Some even have the nativity scene. the rest have some sort of a recognisable Christmas scene. But, lest we forget, the decline of religious Christmas was quick, and now it plays a small part in the festival. The decline of cultural Christmas, the one involving family and community, is now going on around us. And the best way to defend the traditional Christmas is a card. A card which says Merry Christmas, and shows a happy family in all its glory. Let's keep the tradition alive.

Over the weekend, I'll be in the south-west, for a family wedding. So no more postings for a bit.

Labels: ,

Monday, December 11, 2006

Minding the gap

It does feel rather churlish to have a moan about something as good as the Royal Society’s online webcast service. I mean here’s an opportunity to listen to world class scientists debating some interesting and cutting-edge scientific subjects, all from the comfort of your computer chair. An opportunity that many people must have craved, since the inception of the society under Charles the 2nd. But, alas, I do have a major problem with their last presentation. So, moan I must.

The title of this discussion was ‘Mind – The Gap’. The gap in question is the one between the minds of humans and animals. Or, if you prefer the vacous politically-correct term 'non-human animals'. In its own words the presentation asks:
How have human attitudes to animals changed over recent decades? Our panel of experts will discuss what, if anything, really distinguishes human beings from their fellow creatures presentations.
This is an area that I find fascinating, and so I was looking forward immensely to listening to it. My hope was that cognitive fluidity, the lingustical theory of human intelligence, would receive an airing. And, with Nicky Clayton, a biologist who focuses on the mind of crows and Andrew Whiten, an evolutionary psychologist, the panel contained a couple of top-class experts. An intelligent discussion seemed on the cards. But, then I noticed the name of Will Self. The same one who makes Have I Got News For You and Question Time unwatchable (for myself) when he guests on them. What on earth was he doing there, I thought.

Luckily enough, Mr 'I don't regard myself as British' was first up, and his qualification for being on the panel was explained. Self apparently wrote a novel entitled Great Apes, in which his lead character Simon Dykes engages in a night of heavy alcohol and drug use and wakes up as a chimpanzee, in a world where chimps are humanity's superiors. An idea which has more than a whiff of misanthropy to it.

After the debate chair, novelist Maggie Gee, started proceedings, Self started with his rhetoric. The only thing of any substance he said was that humanity is currently wiping out ‘our closest living relative’. Incidentally, the phrase ‘our closest living relative’ he uttered repeatedly. It's as if we somehow needed the point ramming home. Yes Will, that truly would be a tragedy, and I would urge everyone to donate to the WWF, but, frankly, what has that got to do with the gap between the minds of human and animals? Then we have another Self gem. Whilst he's talking he remarks:
So-called western civilisation, although that statement seems like a bit of an oxymoron, to me.
It took all my will not to switch the presentation off after that remark, but I persevered. Self finished with some egalitarianism when he states that we are finally realising what tribal people have known forever, that animals are 'different, but not inferior'. The irony of Self's comments wasn’t able to grasp, is that the reason Chimps are being hunted out of existence is because of a demand for ‘bush meat’. And that this demand comes not from ‘so-called western civilisation', but from those ‘enlightened’ tribal people, that Self is so fond of.

Nicky Clayton was next up, talking about intelligence and brains. So, we finally entered 'proper science' territory. Clayton began by skipping over the religious and historical views of animal intelligence, and then quickly reached humanity's evolution. The puzzle, for her, was that language and culture had only really developed in the last 40,000 years. For 80,000 years before that, we seemed to be in an intellectual stasis. Her question was why? At this stage I was just waiting for 'cognitive fluidity', to be mentioned. But, her view is that biology doesn't seem to point to differences between human and animal intelligence.

Andrew Whiten, takes a slightly different approach. He does mention the 'gap' between humans and chimpanzees. Nonetheless, he states that the gap has 'narrowed', and he talks about the similarities between humans and chimps. He mentions the chimp tool sets showing up at the moment, mentions the warlike instincts of chimps and talks about the culture of chimpanzees. Cultural transmission is also touched on, as this is spread in a similar way to human culture. Whiten ends with the statement that similarities of cultural transmission is one thing, but the difference between human culture and chimp culture is obviously massive. Some sanity had, therefore, been restored to proceedings.

After the cat-loving novelist Doris Lessing's speech, we reach the questions and debating section. First up is the subject of animal emotions. The conclusion for this line of thought is that it's not a very well researched' area. Then Maggie Gee asked the question: are humans animals? And misanthropic Self is on again. His view was that Doris Lessing takes the view that animals need to be elevated to the level of humanity, he thinks that humans need to be lowered to the level of animals. Given his past history, perhaps he has a point about the level of behaviour of some human beings.

The debate was then opened to the audience. The first contributor expressed surprise that no one had picked up on the fact that human beings understand the concept of cause and effect, and the fact that this is missing from all animals, even chimpanzees. Another contributor asks Nicky Clayton whether intelligence and ingenuity are, in fact, the same thing.

Andrew Whiten responds to the first question, stating that there is a large difference between our own, and a chimps concept of cause and effect. Although, he does provide an example of an experiment pitting chimpanzee v human child. In this experiment the chimpanzee varies its approach to a specific problem, whilst the human child does no, the reason for this being our childhood culture of conformity. We then have some animal rights type of questions. A man who quotes Peter Singer, talks about the need to avoid 'generalisations' because we could do 'the same thing with racism and sexism.' Perish the thought.

And then, at last, we get to linguistics. A man says that feral children over the age of seven have the ability to recognise themselves in the mirror, but cannot reach the same level of cognitive fluidity, as normal humans. Sadly, this question got buried under another debate on the validity of anecdotal evidence, and was not satisfactorialy answered

All in all, I was a little under whelmed. There should have been an expert in the brain's architecture, on the panel. The facets of intelligence which are unique to our species were only discussed after contributors from the audience mentioned them. And whilst cognitive differences between our ‘closest living relative’ and ourselves should not be overestimated, they should definitely not be underestimated, either.

It was a shame that this important and interesting subject was sometimes reduced to the rhetoric of the lunatic-fringe of the animal rights movement. There was an admittance of ‘differences’ between humans and animals, but they couldn’t conclude that these differences render humanities minds superior to those of animals. It would offend their sense of egalitarianism to say that only mankind can achieve the highest form of thought. But this is the truth, and science must yield to truth however uncomfortable to the political beliefs of the scientists involved.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Christmas Message

Channel Four, purveyor of smut and reality TV garbage like Big Brother, has excelled itself again in the moronic stakes. It will broadcast a message by a Muslim woman, in full niqab, as its 'alternative Christmas message'.

Channel 4 is to reignite controversy over the wearing of the veil - by featuring a Muslim woman in full niqab giving the broadcaster's alternative Christmas message.

The woman, today named only as Khadija and said to be a lecturer in Islamic studies, will go head-to-head with the Queen when she gives her annual speech to the nation on 25 December.

Producers are said to have "discovered" her after a month-long search for a suitable candidate.

I have so many questions arising just from reading this article, my head is almost throbbing. The obvious one is why are Channel Four doing such a crass thing? Well, any channel who has a plan for something called 'masturbation week', is obviously a lover of cheap publicity and controversy - with little regard for quality progamming. And, insulting Christianity is par for the course for our public broadcasters.

But there are also some questions about the mysterious Khadija. Where did they 'discover' her? And, why have they only given her forename (if that is even her real name) to the public? Without this knoweledge I am left to ponder whether 'Khadija', has any links to extremists. It wouldn't surprise me if she is simply a mouthpiece for an extremist Islamic organisation like Hizb-ut-tahir, or The Respect Party. If that turns out to be the truth, then make no mistake about it, the insult will be magnified many, many times.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Blame it on the Pope.............

As we all know, Pope John Paul the 2nd was responsible for 'millions of deaths'. This was because of his non-belief in the usage of condoms, and its contribution to the spread of AIDS in Africa.

This is modern doctrine. A doctrine that was originally propogated by 'progressives', and then by their media mouthpieces, Peter Thatchell and Polly Toynbee. Toynbee even criticised Tony Blair for paying his respects to Pope John Paul the 2nd, at his funeral, on account of him 'killing millions of Africans'. So works the strange mind of Ms Toynbee. And yet, it seems that in almost every aspect of modern politics in Britain, the mainstream eventually dances to the tune of these 'progressives'. And now this theory, formally belonging to the left, is the official doctrine of our glorious leader:

Tony Blair has told religious leaders to "face up to reality" and drop their opposition to condoms to help the fight against Aids.

In a pointed criticism of the Vatican's stance on contraception, Mr Blair used a television interview on World Aids Day to insist that preaching abstinence was not enough. Speaking to MTV, Mr Blair said: "The danger is if we have a sort of blanket ban from religious hierarchy saying it's wrong to do it, then you discourage people from doing it in circumstances where they need to protect their lives."[...]

The Vatican says abstinence is the best way to tackle HIV/Aids, but in April, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former Archbishop of Milan, said the use of condoms was "a lesser evil" in relationships where one partner had HIV/Aids, prompting speculation that the Vatican was preparing to relax its position.

With attacks like this from world leaders, Pope Benedict will almost certainly have to change the official Vatican policy. And that victory for 'progress', will be another wound in the belly of common sense. Because, this is quite simply the most nonsensical and ludicrous theory, ever expounded by a human being. In fact, it makes some of these look positively sane.

The theory rests on the belief that inter-sex relations in a tribal village in Africa are hugely affected by Papal teaching and doctrine. This belief is simply laughable. It's obvious to me - perhaps not to the left- that if you are basing your sexual behaviour on what the Pope says, adultery, multiple-sexual partners and extra-marital sex (especially with prostitutes) are sins. And, as they seem to be the main ways in which African HIV is spread, they are obviously widely practiced. So a large number of people are directly contradicting the teachings of the Pope. That, of course is their choice. But why would such a person, who obviously doesn't believe in Papal doctrine, then start wearing condoms specifically because Pope Bendict has said so?

Furthermore, would remote African villagers even know what the Pope thinks about condom usage? I'd say that it's highly unlikely. As unlikely as an adulterer suddenly deciding to used condoms on the Pope's demand. And, therefore, any change of policy from the Vatican, will have absolutely no afffect on AIDS cases in Africa. Niente, nada, zero, not one life will be saved. And this is the point. This isn't about helping Africans but about western self-hatred. A hatred which is embodied perfectly by people like Toynbee and Thatchell. Now, their views are mainstream, and the hallowed 'centre-ground'.

As the Pope would probably say, God help us all.

Labels: , , ,