Counterculture Con HQ

November 23, 2010

Leading UK Lib Warns of Overpopulation and Muslim Takeover, But Mostly Muslim Takeover

Lord Carey: Favors bias towards christian immigrants

More clarion calls from the good Bishop.


Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has said immigrants to the UK should have an understanding the country’s Christian heritage.

He is among a group of MPs and peers warning that the population should not be allowed to go beyond 70 million.  Lord Carey said immigration angered many people and could lead to violence, and that the system had to focus more on maintaining “values”.

You must understand, gentle reader, everything is cloaked in euphemism because of the harsh PC speech codes of secular progressive Europe.  Notice the scare quotes the reporter places on “values”– a way of casting doubt, and even aspersion, on the very notion.  But why should immigrants understand our christian heritage, when our own secular progressives are making every effort to extinguish it?  Notice Lord Carey says immigrants should “have an understanding” of christian heritage.  That is euphemism also.  What he is really saying is that we should import our immigrants from other parts of christian Europe, not the Muslim world.

Labour says the system works, but the Tories want caps on incoming workers. All the main parties are sceptical about setting population targets which they believe is unrealistic and counter-productive.

Notice the typical Left/Right sanity divide holds true across the Pond as well.  Leftism is a trans-national movement, so a Lefty here and in Europe are pretty much on the same page about everything.  That does not hold nearly as true of American conservatism vs European conservatism.

Last year the Office for National Statistics said, if current trends continued, the UK population would rise by 10 million to more than 71.6 million by 2033 – the fastest rise in a century.  Two-thirds of that increase would be caused, directly or indirectly, by migration to the UK, it suggested.

“What I think I’m concerned about is not saying we must put a limit on people who are non-Christian populations. That’s not the point. We welcome everybody and that’s always been the generous spirit of the United Kingdom.”

Poor guy.  The insincerity oozing through his every pore.

But, he said, immigrants must “understand” the UK’s culture, including parliamentary democracy “which is built upon Christian heritage”, “our commitment to the English language” and an understanding of the country’s history.

There it is.  In a secular progressive utopia such as the UK, telling the truth is as agonizing as having your teeth pulled.

The system should not “give preference to any particular group”, he said, but added that points-based immigration could take these cultural aspects into consideration.

And again.  In Europe, “cultural aspects” = Islam.

Lord Carey added: “If there’s going to be an implementation of that points system, it must focus much more on values rather than religions…

“If there are competing groups wanting to come in, some groups which may have a greater understanding, an espousal to that, may be given preference under a points system, but that’s not what I’m arguing and certainly not what the cross-party group is arguing.”

Lord Carey told BBC Radio 5 live: “We’ve got to be more outspoken. What I’m calling for is a debate, a debate without any rancour.”

Ask yourself, why would this issue cause rancour?  And rancour from whom?  Answer: It is rancorous to the muslim community who wants to see Europe islamized, and the secular progressives who are enabling this cultural genocide in the name of diversity and multiculturalism.

He added that immigration was an issue that mattered to “ordinary working-class people” and that it was important to tackle “that kind of resentment which could build and is building up already”.

Working class people– unlike the “educated class”– will yet be the salvation of the West.

Lord Carey said too much population growth in the UK could foster “dangerous social conditions”, with some minority ethnic groups, such as young Muslim men, suffering “disproportionate” unemployment.

Here he is saying the UK doesn’t need the massive muslim slums found in every city in France that have become no-go zones for cops because they are so violent.  The French call them “quartiers sensibles” — sensitive neighborhoods. Lord Carey is warning against this.

Labour MP Field and Tory MP Nicholas Soames, the co-chairmen of the migration group, said: “Poll after poll shows the public to be deeply concerned about immigration and its impact on our population.

Meanwhile the “educated class” is obsessed with extinguishing every last vestige of christianity from our society.

Net migration – the number of people who come to live in Britain minus those who leave – fell by more than a third in 2008 but critics say this was driven by eastern Europeans returning home and immigration levels must fall to levels of the early 1990s.

Net migration decreasing, but of eastern Europeans, not Muslims.  The rest here.

June 28, 2010

Iran calls off Blockade run to Gaza

Iran blinks.  The cost of saving the pooor Gazans is simply more than Iran is willing to pay.

June 25 (Bloomberg) — Iran said the June 27 departure of a ship carrying aid to the Gaza Strip has been canceled because of Israel’s vow to prevent Iranian and Lebanese vessels from breaching its blockade of the Palestinian enclave.

“The Zionist regime has made sending aid to Gaza a political issue,” [LOL] Hossein Sheikholeslam, head of the Iranian agency to support Palestinians, was cited as saying by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency late yesterday.

He referred to Israel’s warning to the United Nations that it may take military action to prevent ships from reaching Gaza. “In order not to give the Zionist regime an excuse, we will send the aid through other routes and without Iran’s name,” said Sheikholeslam, a former lawmaker and diplomat.

“The costs of sending aid to Gaza has increased,” Sheikholeslam said. [Sheik Hole Slam???] “As Israel has said it will confiscate ships, no company is prepared to rent their vessels.” [Clearly, saving the pooor Gazans from utter starvation and death is not worth the cost of a smallish Class VI bulk freighter] Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor declined to comment on the cancellation of the Iranian voyage when reached by telephone today.

Israel said in letters to the UN June 18 that it may use its military to block ships from Lebanon that plan to sail to Gaza with aid. The organizers of the Lebanese effort may be linked to Hezbollah and some have said they wish to become “martyrs,” according to the letters from Israeli UN Ambassador Gabriela Shalev.  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on June 23 that plans to send ships from Iran and Lebanon were an attempt to “create a provocation.” He said on June 2 that there were no shortages of food or medicine in Gaza.  Israel agreed on June 20 to allow all food items and a wider range of building supplies into Gaza by road, while banning materials that might be used for attacks.

The Red Crescent Society’s chartered vessel was scheduled to leave the southern Iranian port of Bandar Abbas with 1,100 tons of medicine, food and hygiene goods donated by Iranians, the organization said. Five Red Crescent representatives and five journalists were going to be on board, it said.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, in a June 14 report, called on Israel to end the blockade, saying it subjected Gaza’s civilians to “collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.” [Newspeak.  The bar on “collective penalties” forbids the imposition of criminal or military penalties (imprisonment, death, etc) on some people for crimes committed by other individuals– you know, rounding up and killing 100 villagers for every German soldier killed by partisans.  Blockades or sanctions were never meant to fall under that prohibition. Notice the launching of rockets on innocent Israelis is never referred to as “collective punishment” by these Leftwing types.  Their concern for “human rights” is always a one-way street, and never in a direction that favors Israel.] It also urged those with “an influence on the situation, including Hamas, to do their utmost to help Gaza’s civilian population.” [Doing their “utmost” does not include the possibility of getting your freighter confiscated]

The Hamas government’s economy minister, Ziad Zaza, dismissed Israel’s relaxing of the blockade as “nonsense,” saying Israel was trying to reduce international pressure on it. [Then running the Gaza blockade–instead of delivering supplies through the Israeli port of Ashod– is equally “nonsense,” as this is similarly done for the purpose of increasing international pressure on Israel] Hamas, which won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, ousted forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah group and seized full control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, leaving Abbas in charge of the West Bank. Hamas is considered a terrorist group by Israel, the U.S. and the European Union.


April 20, 2010

Gender, Radical Fems, and the Anti-Science Left

Tabula rasa.

What’s common sense to you and me, gentle readers, is earth-shattering paradigm shifting to the Gramscist Left and the childless Fems of the culture-destroying vanguard party.  Fisk this classic case of nature vs nurture with me, and keep in mind that these are the same people who insist being gay is genetic, but “gender” is merely socialization.  Just keep that in mind.

Even 9-Month-Olds Choose ‘Gender-Specific’ Toys

By Jenifer Goodwin (HealthDay News) — Parents may want their girls to grow up to be astronauts and their boys to one day do their fair share of child care and housework duties, but a new study suggests certain stereotypical gender preferences take root even before most kids can crawl.

When presented with seven different toys, boys as young as 9 months old went for the car, digger and soccer ball, while ignoring the teddy bears, doll and cooking set.  And the girls? You guessed it. At the same age, they were most interested in the doll, teddy bear and miniature pot, spoon and plastic vegetables. “The boys always preferred the toys that go or move, and the girls preferred toys that promote nurturing and facial features,” said study author Sara Amalie O’Toole Thommessen, an undergraduate at City University in London.

So does this mean that boys and girls have an innate preference for certain types of objects?  Or does socialization — that is, the influence of parents and the larger culture — impact children’s choice of toys very early in life?  It’s too soon to rule either out, said Walter Gilliam, director of the Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social Policy at Yale University.  “One of the things we’ve learned about babies over the many years we’ve been studying them is that they are amazing sponges and learn an awful lot in those nine months,” Gilliam said.

The finding raises the possibility of a biological basis for toy choices. A study from 2001 found even 1-day-old boys spent longer looking at moving, mechanical options than 1-day-old girls, who spent more time looking at faces.  Yet the impact of socialization should never be underestimated, Gilliam said.  Studies have shown parents and others interact differently with female and male babies from almost the instant they’re born, Gilliam said.


So even as gender is found at increasingly earlier ages, Dr. Gilliam believes this is merely proof of “socialization” at earlier ages.  She just keeps pushing the window further and further back.  Thus to her, the results of this study prove nothing whatsoever as she attempts to rescue radical Feminism from the bind this study puts them in.  If gender is innate, rather than learned, then radical Feminism fails because one of its pillars– that men and women are the same, and gender roles are a construct–begins to crumble.  But there’s no evidence for Dr. Gilliam’s unfounded assertions in defiance of this study.  It’s just desperately wishful thinking.

Notice also the reporter’s agenda here.  She’s less interested in informing you on the results of this study than she is in trying to debunk it.  That’s why an article that presumably was supposed to be about the latest results on gender turns into a radical Fem apologia with Dr. Gilliam as its star.  Dr. Gilliam– not this study– is who this reporter really wants you to hear from.  So the reporter begins with her own conclusion that gender differences “take root” before they learn to crawl, rather than in the womb.  With that little opening she provides Dr. Gilliam the wiggle room she needs to keep repeating–  despite this study, and with no evidence whatsoever– her radical Fem dogma that gender differences are a “construct”.  A classic case of MSM bias, however subtle.

A final observation, and perhaps the most important one.  Ideologically speaking, the Left is a herd of cats, united only by their hatred of the Mainstream and all things “the Right”.  The disparate ideologies of the Leftwing coalition are often at odds with each other, and that is certainly true of the Gay Agenda and radical Feminism.  While radical Feminism rests on the belief that all gender differences are learned “social constructs”, the Gay Agenda wants you to believe that homosexuality is the exact opposite– that it is genetic and therefore “innate.”  Gender is nurtured, but gay is natured.  Both turn reality on its head.  And both are mutually exclusive positions.  This simple fact is obvious on its face, yet it eludes the pro-science, intellectual powerhouses of the Left (heavy sarcasm there).  They will not be deterred from their never ending quest for the “gay gene”, even as they attempt to sweep male/female genetic, hormonal and physical differences under the rug.  Where science and agenda collide, a good Leftist will usually choose agenda.

March 8, 2010

David Brooks: Tea Party – First Uneducated, Now Barbarians

Country club Republican David Brooks, he of the “educated class”, anointed by the MSM as their designated “rightwinger”, is positively obsessed with the Tea Party and takes yet another stab at them.  It sounds pretty good at first.  I must admit he had me going there for a while.  But then he overreaches in the second half and the spell is broken.  As with most disagreements, it’s not the facts which are in dispute, it’s the conclusions.  Walk with me, David Brooks is always a good fisk.  He begins with the facts in his latest column.


About 40 years ago, a social movement arose to destroy the establishment. The people we loosely call the New Left wanted to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.  Today, another social movement has arisen. The people we loosely call the Tea Partiers also want to destroy the establishment. They also want to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.

There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart.

But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left. They go in for street theater, mass rallies, marches and extreme statements that are designed to shock polite society out of its stupor. This mimicry is no accident. Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left.

These days the same people who are buying Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” on are, according to the company’s software, also buying books like “Liberal Fascism,” “Rules for Conservative Radicals,” “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left,” and “The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party.” Those last two books were written by David Horowitz, who was a leading New Left polemicist in the 1960s and is now a leading polemicist on the right.

So far so good.  Now he begins to reach his conclusions, and it all falls apart.

But the core commonality is this: Members of both movements believe in what you might call mass innocence. Both movements are built on the assumption that the people are pure and virtuous and that evil is introduced into society by corrupt elites and rotten authority structures. “Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains,” is how Rousseau put it.

If to Brooks this is their “core commonality”, then how far he misses the mark!  This “mass innocence,” or the innate goodness of humanity, continues to be a Lefty trait, yes.  They must be Rousseauian, or they could not possibly believe Socialism was a viable system if they weren’t.  For only an innately good human being would not become hopelessly corrupted by a system that provided for his every need from cradle to grave.  A Tea Partier believes precisely the opposite.  Though he believes America is basically a good and decent country (something the new Left did not/does not), he also believes in the judeo-christian tradition of original sin and fully acknowledges the American people are far from blameless for our current predicament.  Given this “original sin,” Man will become hopelessly dependent on big government if given the choice by socialism to do so.  The Tea Party therefore rejects this “big government,” this system of government largesse which corrupts–not because he believes in “mass innocence”, as Brooks insists, but precisely because he believes Man is FALLEN.  Men will go on the dole if given the choice, they will let somebody else work and pay while they sit if given the choice, and they will take loans they can’t pay back.  Basic human nature at work here.  Not innocent, but fallen!  A Tea Partier is a conservative, and like all conservatives he understands this human nature.  It’s what makes him seem so hard-hearted to the Rouseauian Left.  So no, Mr. Brooks, the Tea Party rejects big government for entirely different reasons than the 60’s new Left rejected the Establishment.  The Tea Party believes big government gives free reign to a corrupted human nature, the new Left believed the Establishment was corrupt.

Because of this assumption, members of both movements go in big for conspiracy theories. The ’60s left developed elaborate theories of how world history was being manipulated by shadowy corporatist/imperialist networks — theories that live on in the works of Noam Chomsky. In its short life, the Tea Party movement has developed a dizzying array of conspiracy theories involving the Fed, the F.B.I., the big banks and corporations and black helicopters.

I think Brooks has both sides wrong here, revealing more about himself than his subjects.  Notice he equates your beliefs about big banks and corporations with “black helicopters”!  That’s a self-reveal, Mr. Brooks.  Your elitist slip is showing.  Conspiracy theories were never a staple of the new Left, and they aren’t of the Tea Party either.  Their hatred of the Establishment was not the stuff of conspiracies but of reality.  For the most part, the new Left was/is as grounded in reality as is the Right, even if their values and perspective today are off and generally wrong.  With both new Left and Tea Party, the facts are generally not in dispute, only the conclusions.  The conspiracy theorist, on the other hand, occupies a netherworld between the two, neither Left nor Right, in which all facts are questioned and doubted.  That’s precisely what makes him go for that “third way” of conspiracy theories.  But Brooks believes your rejection of him as a member of the elite is based on the stuff of “black helicopters”!?   I suppose that’s what makes him what he is– an elitist!

Because of this assumption, members of the Tea Party right, like the members of the New Left, spend a lot of time worrying about being co-opted. They worry that the corrupt forces of the establishment are perpetually trying to infiltrate the purity of their ranks.

Yes, they do worry about being coopted, but not because of “black helicopters”, Mr. Brooks, but because of YOU!

Because of this assumption, members of both movements have a problem with authority. Both have a mostly negative agenda: destroy the corrupt structures; defeat the establishment. Like the New Left, the Tea Party movement has no clear set of plans for what to do beyond the golden moment of personal liberation, when the federal leviathan is brought low.

Brooks feels that because the Tea Party rejects his “authority” and wants him tossed onto the garbage heap of history that they must therefore have a problem with authority in general, and have a “negative agenda.”  This assumes, of course, that he is the authority he believes himself to be, and that our only choice is between David Brooks/Federal leviathan and, well, nothing.  This is what the world looks like through David Brooks goggles!

Recently a piece in Salon astutely compared Glenn Beck to Abbie Hoffman. In it, Michael Lind pointed out that the conservatives in the 1960s and 1970s built a counter-establishment — a network of think tanks, activist groups, academic associations and political leaders who would form conservative cadres, promoting conservative ideas and policies.

But the Tea Partiers are closer to the New Left. They don’t seek to form a counter-establishment because they don’t believe in establishments or in authority structures. They believe in the spontaneous uprising of participatory democracy. They believe in mass action and the politics of barricades, not in structure and organization. As one activist put it recently on a Tea Party blog: “We reject the idea that the Tea Party Movement is ‘led’ by anyone other than the millions of average citizens who make it up.”

He states facts here, with which I basically agree, but about which he again procedes to reach all the wrong conclusions:

For this reason, both the New Left and the Tea Party movement are radically anticonservative. Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings.

It wouldn’t be enough for Brooks to say simply that the Tea Party aren’t conforming to some commonly understood tenets of conservativism as he, David Brooks, understands them; that wouldn’t do.  No, here he goes for the kill shot as he accuses them of being RADICALLY ANTI-conservative.  The only thing we learn from this statement is how deep is his loathing for the Tea Party, which up till now he’s been pretty good at concealing behind a tone of mere condescension.   As the MSM’s anointed representative of “the Right”, David Brooks gives us the country club Republican version of “Bush is Hitler”, only here his target is the Tea Party.  Here, again, David Brooks assumes rejection of his structures is a rejection of any and all structures, rejection of his authority is a rejection of authority in general.  As if life without a Federal behemoth is tantamount to barbarism, the fall of Rome and the Dark Ages.  Well, Mr. Brooks, it’s one thing to argue the value of big government structures, but quite another to dismiss as “radically anti-conservative” the distrust of those structures.  It’s not a particularly logical argument, and it only reveals how deeply you’ve allowed your distaste for the filthy proles at Wal-Mart to cloud your intellect.

That idea was rejected in the 1960s by people who put their faith in unrestrained passion and zealotry. The New Left then, like the Tea Partiers now, had a legitimate point about the failure of the ruling class. But they ruined it through their own imprudence, self-righteousness and naïve radicalism. The Tea Partiers will not take over the G.O.P., but it seems as though the ’60s political style will always be with us — first on the left, now the right.

And with this, he bids us goodbye with a final self-reveal.  This is about the country club Republicans trying to stay relevant.  The Tea Party threatens them and their Culture War-denying RINO pals, and Brooks is sticking up for his peeps.  He’s representing!  That’s all this is.  RINOS and country clubbers trying to stay relevant in an age where conservatives have had enough of them.  It’s because of YOU that we’re in this mess anyway.  So goodbye, Mr. Brooks!  We’ve got a culture war to fight and you’re clearly not on our side.

February 18, 2010

Memo: Call it Global “Weirding” Now

First it was “global warming.”  When the Earth stopped warming they switched to “climate change.”  That wasn’t good enough either.  New memo to Libs suggests yet another name change is in the offing.  Now it’s global “weirding.”  To the Left, it’s all just about marketing gimmicks.  It’s all about “framing the argument” and “redefining the terms” with these latent stalinists and deconstructionists.  In a democratic society, they would be dead in the water without this kind of message control.  It’s like we’re always chasing them from one word to the next.  First they were “Liberals”.  When that became a pejorative, they switched to “Progressives.”  Always on the run!  Fisk this one with me.


Of the festivals of nonsense that periodically overtake American politics, surely the silliest is the argument that because Washington is having a particularly snowy winter it proves that climate change is a hoax and, therefore, we need not bother with all this girly-man stuff like renewable energy, solar panels and carbon taxes. Just drill, baby, drill.

The climate-science community is not blameless. It knew it was up against formidable forces — from the oil and coal companies that finance the studies skeptical of climate change to conservatives who hate anything that will lead to more government regulations to the Chamber of Commerce that will resist any energy taxes. Therefore, climate experts can’t leave themselves vulnerable by citing non-peer-reviewed research or failing to respond to legitimate questions, some of which happened with both the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Literally hundreds of millions of dollars are flowing from government and private foundations to fund global warmist research.  I would venture to guess the money from oil and coal companies to global warming skeptics is a fraction of one percent of that.  But Libs push that ridiculous “big oil” meme nonetheless.  Journalism!

Notice also, gentle readers, he’s apparently in the dark about the fact that one of the reasons the global warming industry has suffered such a collapse in confidence is precisely BECAUSE his climate experts have NOT been citing peer-reviewed research, but rather college term papers, popular magazines, anecdotal evidence, and such.  This is the kind of evidence that has shifted hundreds of billions of dollars in funding to the global warming “prevention” efforts. They have even corrupted the oft-touted peer review process itself, threatening to blacklist and isolate any scientific journals that dared publish any dissenting views. Mr. Friedman is oblivious to all this because the U.S. media isn’t reporting it, and he hasn’t been reading the foreign press.  Sadly, if the great Tom Friedman is oblivious, we can assume so are the drones who read him.

Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What’s real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.

Here are the points I like to stress:

1) Avoid the term “global warming.” I prefer the term “global weirding,” because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous.

Except the hots haven’t been getting hotter, at least not since 1995. Nor have hurricanes been getting stronger, as they predicted.  And they also predicted LESS snow, not more.  Notice how they constantly change the goal posts?  That’s because they keep getting it wrong.  He also mentions nothing about  “the colds getting colder” in his “weirding” litany.  You know why?  Because that’s something else they didn’t predict.  They are using models to predict the future, the same models that have been proven unable to “back cast” the climate, certainly not without constant “tweaking” to ensure the proper results.  And if these models can’t even backcast properly, even with all the data that hindsight provides, we’re supposed to believe they can forecast? It’s my opinion their climate models can’t predict Tom Friedman’s next bowel movement, let alone climate 70 years from now.

The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington — while it has rained at the Winter Olympics in Canada, while Australia is having a record 13-year drought — is right in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever.

What makes that so “weird”?  What makes that so exceptional?  Nothing!  For isn’t that their argument against the Medieval Warming Period– that it wasn’t global?  This kind of localized weather is precisely how global warmists have been characterizing the Medieval Warming Period in order to dismiss it as evidence of prior warming. But now, according to Friedman, localized “weirding” is proof of warming.   It seems their standards require more “tweaking” than does their modeling!  Sorry, Tom, we aren’t buying the koolaid you’re selling.

Again, they want it both ways, gentle readers.  Weird localized weather today proves global warming, weird localized weather in Medieval times proves nothing.  See the switcheroo they trying to pull on you?  But we aren’t going to let them have it both ways!  Read the silly rest, here, if you like.

January 12, 2010

Avatar: When Metaphors Attack

Metaphors attacking.

James Cameron’s metaphors coming back to haunt him?  This one’s rich with irony.  Fisk it with me.


Near the end of the hit film “Avatar,” the villain snarls at the hero, “How does it feel to betray your own race?” Both men are white — although the hero is inhabiting a blue-skinned, 9-foot-tall, long-tailed alien.

Strange as it may seem for a film that pits greedy, immoral humans against noble denizens of a faraway moon, “Avatar” is being criticized by a small but vocal group of people who allege it contains racist themes — the white hero once again saving the primitive natives.

That, gentle readers, is what falls under the general category “soft racism.”  It’s very common amongst our Lib friends.  In the real world it’s not an avatar-driving Marine, it’s a white Liberal “doing good” by all his little brothers and sister of color.  Don’t be too hard on them, like Jake Sully in Avatar, they mean well.

Since the film opened to widespread critical acclaim three weeks ago, hundreds of blog posts, newspaper articles, tweets and YouTube videos have said things such as the film is “a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people” and that it reinforces “the white Messiah fable.”

The film’s writer and director, James Cameron, says the real theme is about respecting others’ differences.

That curious.  Cameron says the “real” theme is about respecting each other’s differences.  Did we see any respect shown for humanity in Avatar?  What about the Marines?  You’d have to look real hard to find it.  They were hardly even depicted as human, let alone “respected.”  His respect extends only to the little brown people of the forest (or big and blue on Pandora), precisely the kind of soft racism he’s being accused of here.

Adding to the racial dynamic is that the main Na’vi characters are played by actors of color, led by a Dominican, Zoe Saldana, as the princess. The film also is an obvious metaphor for how European settlers in America wiped out the Indians.

Robinne Lee, an actress in such recent films as “Seven Pounds” and “Hotel for Dogs,” said that “Avatar” was “beautiful” and that she understood the economic logic of casting a white lead if most of the audience is white.

But she said the film, which so far has the second-highest worldwide box-office gross ever, still reminded her of Hollywood’s “Pocahontas” story — “the Indian woman leads the white man into the wilderness, and he learns the way of the people and becomes the savior.”

“It’s really upsetting in many ways,” said Lee, who is black with Jamaican and Chinese ancestry. “It would be nice if we could save ourselves.”

Lee, who is not white, thinks it would be nice if “we could save ourselves.”  But she clearly misses the whole point of being a Liberal.  THEY want to save you, Ms. Lee.  If you saved yourselves, Liberalism would lose it’s reason for being.  You wouldn’t want that would you?  It’s a symbiotic relationship– they save you, you give them the credit for saving you.

Annalee Newitz, editor-in-chief of the sci-fi Web site, likened “Avatar” to the recent film “District 9,” in which a white man accidentally becomes an alien and then helps save them, and 1984’s “Dune,” in which a white man becomes an alien Messiah.

“Main white characters realize that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of color … (then) go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed,” she wrote.

“When will whites stop making these movies and start thinking about race in a new way?” wrote Newitz, who is white.

Good question.  Answer:  that will  happen when all whites become conservatives.  That will be the day you begin to be treated as equals.  Until then, you will just have to suffer these Lib messianic wannabes saving you every time you look at them sideways because they think you are savages; albeit “noble”, but savages nonetheless.

Is Cameron actually exposing the historical evils of white colonizers? Does the existence of an alien species expose the reality that all humans are actually one race?

Can’t people just enjoy movies any more?” a person named Michelle posted on the Web site for Essence, the magazine for black women, which had 371 comments on a story debating the issue.

“Can’t we just enjoy movies anymore,” she asks.  I feel your pain, Michelle.  I feel your pain.

More racial handwringing here.

January 6, 2010

Too Much Diversity is not Strength, Say Leading UK Libs

Lord Carey: secret nativist?

Enough is enough with the muslim immigration already say leading Libs in England.  Well, they didn’t actually say that, but I have a sneaking suspicion that’s what they really meant. They just can’t say that kind of thing out loud, someone might get offended.   This is a hugely sensitive subject so they have to couch the issue in other terms.   So let’s wade into this one looking for signs of intelligent life cloaked in PC, shall we?  Fisk it with me.

From the Daily Mail UK:


Immigration must be urgently curbed to stop the population hitting 70million and causing ‘serious harm’ to society, an alliance of leading public figures demanded yesterday.

They begin by trying to make this about overpopulation.  But I think that’s just PC window dressing.  Fertility in England is way down, so demographers know overpopulation isn’t going to be a problem for the UK in the long run.  Perhaps they are telegraphing how the issue can be addressed without it becoming about culture and ethnicity, which is a big no no with these people.

The call to action comes in a report signed by a host of respected names, including former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, ex-Labour speaker Betty Boothroyd and former Tory Party chairman Michael Ancram.

Whenever you see “Canterbury” you know it’s PC approved.  No rightwing xenophobes here.

The cross-party group wants manifesto commitments from Labour and the Conservatives to cut net migration to fewer than 40,000 a year – compared to the current rate of 163,000.

The document pulls no punches in its warning of the consequences for society if the population hits 70million by 2029, as Whitehall statisticians predict.

It says: ‘We are gravely concerned about the rapid increase in the population of England that is now forecast. We believe that immigration on such a scale will have a significant impact on our public services, our quality of life and on the nature of our society.’

The “nature of our society,” they say.  Hmmm.  I wonder what they mean by that.  Could they be any more ambiguous?   This doc is most certainly pulling its punches.

The demand has been issued by the Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration, chaired jointly by Labour MP Frank Field and Tory MP Nicholas Soames.

The group says it recognises a large reduction in net migration will be difficult to achieve but warns of the danger signals of increasing support for ‘extremist’ political parties.

Look what these scumbags just did here.  Uncontrolled immigration is a danger, they claim.  And why?  Because it will fuel “extremist political parties.”  Do you know who they are referring to when they say “extremist political parties”, gentle readers?  They are NOT talking about radical islam, they’re talking about rightwing political parties.  White racists! That’s the threat they’re using in order to justify reducing immigration!   Observe how the only way they can express concern about immigration is by hiding behind those “rightwing racists”!  lol!  What PC cowards these people are.   Do you see how poisonous political correctness is?  These people are wrapped up so tight in their own speech codes they can’t even talk anymore.

Its document continues: ‘Over the last decade or so we have lost control of immigration. It will take several years to put this right.

To put what right exactly?  What do they mean?  Because immigration laws could be changed overnight.  He must be talking about something else.  But notice how vague and ambiguous their motivations have to be, lest they be lumped in with all the rightwing racists.  But to us, gentle readers, these people couldn’t be more transparent if they were made of glass.

The group calls for a clear political decision to restore control over UK borders and to break the ‘almost automatic link’ between entering Britain and later being granted citizenship.

It states ‘We are convinced that failure to take action would be seriously damaging to the future harmony of our society. Nearly a million votes by our fellow citizens for an extremist party amount to a danger sign which must not be ignored.

Again, justifying their fears of uncontrolled immigration by hiding behind those rightwing extremists. Well, I would agree that social harmony would definitely be affected.  Their top down social engineering breeds precisely that–support for extremism and backlash, and social disharmony.  Even though diversity is strength and all that jazz.

‘For too long the major political parties have failed to address these issues and the intense, if largely private, concern that they generate throughout our country.

‘If politicians want to rebuild the public’s trust in the political system, they cannot continue to ignore this issue, which matters so much to so many people. The time has come for action.’

Yes, it does matter to so many people, not just rightwing extremists.

In a statement, Mr Field and Mr Soames said: ‘Poll after poll shows the public to be deeply concerned about immigration and its impact on our population.

That’s right, the PUBLIC concern about the impact on the population.  It’s not limited to the seekrit white racists.  It’s mainstream.  This is a start, folks.  Meager and timid, with every effort made to avoid saying what’s really on their mind.  But it shows there are some Libs out there with a pulse yet.  It’s a start.

January 5, 2010

They Think You Are Stupid

Everybody is entitled to the occassional rant.  This is what it looks like when the self-styled “educated class” do it.  Fisk this one with me.  Let’s take a quick peak inside his head

TEA PARTY TEENS – David Brooks

In almost every sphere of public opinion, Americans are moving away from the administration, not toward it. The Ipsos/McClatchy organizations have been asking voters which party can do the best job of handling a range of 13 different issues. During the first year of the Obama administration, the Republicans gained ground on all 13.

The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.

His column, we now know, isn’t going to be about the merits (or lack thereof) of your beliefs and values, it’s about your lack of edumacation.   One thing you need to realize, gentle readers, Liberals think you are stupid.  No, they really do.  I know this because I used to be a Liberal, and self-styled member of that “educated class,” and I remember how self-superior we used to be as we sneered down our noses at you, “the public.”  The fact that most of the American public often disagreed with our positions did not give us pause, as you’d think it should have.  No, it only reinforced our sense of intellectual superiority.  Because you are morons.

The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.

The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.

Notice he offers no substantive argument here.  But more importantly, notice his use of the word “so”.  You disagree with him on every single one of the issues he just mentioned, not because he may be full of crap on most or all of them, but merely to spite the educated class.  He believes one thing, “so” you spitefully believe another.  This is what an intellectual elitist looks like in the throes of a full tilt temper tantrum.  He’s not even trying anymore.

A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones. Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity.

The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation.

He’s not entirely unfair here; and he actually calls them “tea party” instead of the usual epithet they use.  Kudos.  But yes, people out of power–unable to set the agenda–are generally relegated to “what they are against.”

The tea party movement is mostly famous for its flamboyant fringe. But it is now more popular than either major party. According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 41 percent of Americans have a positive view of the tea party movement. Only 35 percent of Americans have a positive view of the Democrats and only 28 percent have a positive view of the Republican Party.

If the Tea Party is mostly famous for its flamboyant  fringe, that’s because the likes of you have made every effort possible to define them that way.  As you can see from those polls, Mr. Brooks, they aren’t that fringe you’ve made every effort to define them as.  They are what a right-of-center country looks like.

The movement is especially popular among independents. The Rasmussen organization asked independent voters whom they would support in a generic election between a Democrat, a Republican and a tea party candidate. The tea party candidate won, with 33 percent of independents. Undecided came in second with 30 percent. The Democrats came in third with 25 percent and the Republicans fourth with 12 percent.

Yes, they are independents, but not necessarily “moderates.”  Ever wondered where all the Republicans went?  That’s where.  They are conservatives who have walked away from a Republican party which they feel no longer represents them.  That’s what sunk the GOP in the last two congressional elections.  The same GOP you made every effort to depict as “far Right” and “extremist,” but which wasn’t.  Well, you had lots of people fooled, but not these people.  That’s why they left.  Now they are independents, and the GOP is going to try and win them back.  The GOP was extremist?  You haven’t seen nothing yet.  They are against statism regardless of party, against globalism, open borders, Free Trade, and big spending.   So when you play your usual gotcha game of–“but you weren’t against spending when the Republicans did it!”– you are entirely mistaken.  They were.

The rest here.

January 3, 2010

I Don’t Think “Warming” Means What You Think it Means

Warm enough for you?

In a sea of stories about how cold it is this winter, a remarkable piece of self-deception here by a global warmist believer, sincerely attempting to sell her warmist faith even as she is forced to report on some Incas freezing their guanacos off in the Andes.  Fisk this one with me.


The few hundred people who live here are hardened to poverty and months of sub-zero temperatures during the long winter. But, for the fourth year running, the cold came early. First their animals and now their children are dying and in such escalating numbers that many fear that life in the village may be rapidly approaching an end.

In a world growing ever hotter, Huancavelica is an anomaly. These communities, living at the edge of what is possible, face extinction because of increasingly cold conditions in their own microclimate, which may have been altered by the rapid melting of the glaciers.

Notice her premise that the world is “growing ever hotter”, when the opposite is true?  That was her “tell.”  Now we know everything in this article will be strained through her warmist filter.  For at least a decade temperatures have been dropping. Trust me, she knows this.  Everybody knows it.  She also calls the cold here an “anomaly”, when the fact is everybody is pretty much freezing their tails off right now. She knows this too.  But facts mustn’t be allowed to interfere with her warmist premise.

There have been warnings from meteorologists in Peru that this month will see the Huancavelica region hit by the worst weather conditions in years with plunging temperatures, floods and high winds. The weather is already claiming lives; last month seven people died and scores were treated in hospital after torrential rain caused flash flooding in Ayacucho, the capital of the neighbouring region.

The cold is tipping Pichccahuasi into a spiralling decline brought on by pneumonia, bronchitis and hunger.

His family, including four young children, sleep on wet ground night after night. His children have not yet recovered from illnesses from this year’s winter and he is terrified that they won’t be resilient enough to endure further freezing weather.

“All the children here are sick, they all have breathing problems,” he says. “The problem is there is too much cold, too much rain. We have had no time to recover from last winter before it has begun again. There is nothing I can do.”

Climate change campaigners and development NGOs say that the failure of Copenhagen has signed the death warrant for hundreds of thousands of the world’s poorest and that a quarter of a million children will die before world leaders meet again to try to thrash out another deal at the United Nations next climate change conference in Mexico in December. Among them may be these children of the high mountains.

A seamless segue into Copenhagen and how these children of high mountains will die because no agreement was reached on CO2 which supposedly causes the Earth to warm, except these children will freeze.  LOL.   Obviously we are missing something very obvious here because she doesn’t even bother to try making the connection between rising CO2–which supposedly causes warming–and these freezing kids.  I guess there’s no need to make the connection when the debate is over, right?

Rojas Huanqui says the regional government is working hard to strengthen health systems with more doctors and nurses in “most” of the villages, but admits that the state has been unable to deliver the basic services required.

So the problem on those mountains, according to this Civil Defense worker, appears to be basic services, not global warming.  Except she isn’t the one writing this article, an environmental reporter is.  A reporter whose problem happens to be global warming.

“I’m not going to deny that it’s really hard to supply the great amount of villages there are, and they are used to getting everything for free, so the progress that the government makes is limited, but we do need to implement stronger medicines up in the villages that need it most,” he says.

Clearly this Civil Defense worker and our warmist reporter are not on the same page.

“We can only put ourselves in God’s hands, because nobody else is helping us,” says Carolina Flores, a mother of six whose six-month-old daughter is dangerously ill with pneumonia. “Our men have gone and talked to people in the government and told them what is happening to us, but they do nothing. We are not important to them, so we die up here and nobody helps us.”

So according to our warmist reporter, centuries of government neglect would have been erased by some signatures in Copenhagen.  CO2 cuts, yeah, that’s the ticket.

For how long the mountain people are prepared to wait for action remains to be seen. After hundreds of years of systematic discrimination, there are signs that indigenous people across Peru are prepared to fight what they consider to be threats to their survival.

“The conduct of the authorities in relation to Peru’s Quechua mountain communities is similar to the one they take to indigenous communities throughout the country, which is to ignore their problems because they don’t believe that they are a priority,” says Dr Enrique Moya, the former dean of Huamanga University, who now works with local NGOs which are running support programmes in the region.

It’s obvious these people need help. That much is clear.  What I find despicable however is the warmist’s obsession with shoehorning everything, and I mean EVERYTHING into their wackjob cult of warming.  This is a story about poverty and neglected communities, not global warming.  So give it a rest already, clowns.   Money that you’d have us throw down the drain in your anti-capitalist, anti-West, crusade could be used to help people like this, and for REAL environmental causes.  Money should go to these Andean communities for food, medicine and shelter, not to Al Gore and his carbon credit brokers.

December 30, 2009

White Guilt Meets the Chinese Century

Just Words. Woman at Obama's Copenhagen speech.

It’s no secret the global warming conference in Copenhagen was a failure.  When historians look back for the beginning of the end of the global warmist movement, they’ll look here first.   But the failure in Copenhagen is also a marker of other things to come. Fisk this one with me.


Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

While Hugo Chavez is still blaming Copenhagen’s failure on Barack Obama, this courageous environmental reporter dares to step outside the same tired blame-the-West box.

China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.

This environmental reporter, who I have no doubt whatsoever is a secular progressive, calls out the reflexive, anti-West and blame-America-first mantras spouted here by global warmist in chief, George Monbiot.  He even calls these mantras “predictable.”

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

This is the kind of language the secular progressives have always reserved for the U.S., and maybe Israel; now being applied to a “developing countries,” China and Sudan.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.

President Obama, “the Won”, punked by a lowly Chinese bureaucrat.  Clearly a “come to Jesus” moment for this secular progressive journalist.  But wait, it gets better.

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.

Yes, China “bet correctly,” because China knows us better than we know ourselves.  They know how thoroughly reporters like this have poisoned the well against the U.S. and the West around the world, and how reflexive the anti-U.S., anti-West blame will be.  The secular progressives here finally reaping what they have sown.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn’t need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.” On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

In other words, the end of the American Century the secular progressives have so craved for isn’t quite living up to its billing.  Leftist utopia not yet ready to spring up from the ashes of American decline.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China’s negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity (“equal rights to the atmosphere”) in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

The folly of White Guilt on full display.  What to do!  The Leftist morality by skin color and anti-Westernism rendered a 20th century anachronism.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

All this raises the question: what is China’s game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, “not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?” The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now “in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years’ time”.

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

White Guilt meets the Chinese Century, with Copenhagen the first casualty.  The anti-American, anti-West, anti-white far Left caught completely flatfooted in Copenhagen by their fossilized worldview; still spouting their tired tropes and memes, unable even to grasp who has just laid the pipe on them.

The American Century is over.  The obits are gleefully being written as we speak.  It’s what they wanted, right?  The Left has been yearning for this day for the last 60 years, convinced that the U.S. was the locus of evil on Earth, the last obstacle to whirled peas.  But be careful what you wish for, gentle readers, because as the U.S. exits the scene stage left, another player will step in to fill its shoes.  They thought unchecked U.S. power was bad?  Now contemplate a global hegemon without the judeochristian moral checks and five times the population, and acting in its own unenlightened self-interests the way the U.S. was accused of doing.  You haven’t seen nothing yet.  Tibet, Taiwan, the Uighurs, non-existent human rights, and general totalitarian control over everything they touch; that is just a hint of how the chicoms will manage their century.  That’s how they do business.

The Left has always had a say so in the U.S. and the Western democracies because of our democratic process and liberal (small “l”) ideals.  Because of their lock on the media, entertainment and academia, they have always had a captive audience.  In the New Century, the Chinese will not be so forthcoming.  Nor does the Western Left have anything to say that the Chinese are interested in hearing.  In the Chinese Century the Left will be an anachronism of the past.

December 14, 2009

An Unlikely Champion

Archbishop of the Anglicans

Has the leader of our most insipid of christian denominations, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, finally thrown his hat in the ring?  The Anglicans have become all but cultural dinosaurs in the formerly great Britain over which they once held stewardship, but which has now irreversibly descended into the neo-paganism and multiculturalism of the secular progressives.  The Anglicans such as Rowan Williams have watched it happen for decades, with nary a word of protest, so great is their desire to be accepted in the “polite company” of the rabidly anti-christian secular intelligentsia.  So great is their desire to be regarded as their intellectual equals.  Christianity’s twilight in the West was to be accepted as a foregone conclusion; the “post-christian” era no more than some intellectual abstraction we must all simply resign ourselves to; an almost pre-ordained outcome, the result of a natural social progression to which we were simply to adapt, not resist.

And by “adapting” the Anglicans have become irrelevant.  Their leadership little more than secular humanists themselves, with only a patina of religion to tell them apart.  Only now are they finally realizing that the rabidly anti-christian secular progressives never had a place for them at the table after all.  At best they were regarded as a trifling nuisance to be ignored until a later date.  Silly priests.  They have never been able to recognize their true enemy, nor the real nature of the threat.

Until now?  God willing it’s not too late.  From Melanie Phillip’s column:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, comes in for a lot of stick – not least from columnists like me.

But in the past few days, he has said something important. He has criticised Government ministers for thinking that Christian beliefs are no longer relevant in modern Britain, and for looking at religion as a ‘problem’.

Many Government faith initiatives, he observed, assumed that religion was an eccentricity practised by oddballs, foreigners and minorities.

In recent times, there has been a string of cases in which it is no exaggeration to say that British Christians have been persecuted for expressing their faith.

The article then goes down the laundry list of how the secular multiculturalists of the Labor government have acted with open hostility towards christians and christianity, singling them out for treatment not shown to other religions, like say, Islam.  And then she calls out these secular progressives of Labor as the anti-christian bigots and soft racists they really are:

The curious fact is that Labour’s hostility to faith is highly selective. It does everything it can to protect and support minority creeds while appearing to do everything it can to attack Christianity.

The root of this double standard is the unpleasant prejudice that minority faiths hail from cultures where people are less well-educated and so cannot be blamed for their beliefs. This, of course, is a deeply racist attitude, and is commonly found on the Left.

And then,

As Dr Williams observed, one of the effects of the modern hostility to religion is to give the impression that faith is not really very British. But on the contrary, it is part of the national psyche – even among people who don’t go to church.

Wow.  Strong words because they are coming from Rowan Williams himself, not Melanie Phillips or this humble writer.

To stop the denigration of religion, the Archbishop has called on government ministers to be more willing to talk about their own faith. But since this is seen as the province of cranks, politicians are reluctant to do so because of the risk of public ridicule.

This is because among the intelligentsia, the animosity to religion runs even deeper than the upside-down value system of the multicultural agenda. It springs from the fixed view that reason and religion are in diametrically opposite camps.

Notably, however, this is not the case in the U.S., which remains overwhelmingly an upfront Christian society. Its politicians are neither ashamed nor embarrassed to call upon God to bless America at every opportunity.


Unlike U.S. mainstream Churches which, as descendants from the English Puritans, remain deeply wedded to the Biblical tradition, the Church of England has always looked down on true Scriptural believers as half-wits.

With such a half-hearted foundation of religious belief, it has been more vulnerable than other Churches to the secular onslaught against religion.

Dr Williams exemplifies this weakness by trying to go with the flow of social change and is for ever apologising for Christianity.


Rather than complaining about politicians, Dr Williams should use his office to teach the nation about the seminal importance of Christianity to this society. But to do that, he has to have faith in his own Church – a faith that too often appears to be lacking.

So true.

The key point about the U.S. is that it still believes in itself as a nation and in its values, which are rooted in religion. Loyalty to their churches follows from loyalty to the nation in a kind of benign cycle.

In Britain, however, religion and nation have formed a vicious cycle in which hostility to the country’s identity and values reflects and feeds into hostility to the religion upon which they are based.

The Archbishop’s anguish at the onslaught upon Christian faith is very real. But unless he starts promoting the Church as the transcendental custodian of a civilisation rather than the Guardian newspaper at prayer, the society to which it gave rise will continue to sleepwalk off the edge of a religious and cultural cliff.

If you love the smell of napalm in the morning…

We at CCHQ only despise the likes of Rowan and his ilk because they do nothing.  They are little better than collaborators by their inaction, unwilling to admit our Western culture, nay our civilization, is under assault by the secular progressives and their multicultural insanity.  They say and do nothing that could paint them in a bad light with the secular progressives whose love they so dearly crave.  So much easier instead for them to join in on the secular and neopagan pile-on of those kooky christian fundamentalists whose approval nobody cares for.  Those kooks who truly are modern secular society’s “other, ” yet who are the only ones who unapologetically dare to hold out against The Inevitable.

Rowan Williams has acknowledged the threat.  But if this is the beginning of a trend for Archbishop Williams and his priests, I’m yet to be convinced.  The desire by the likes of Williams to be accepted by the modern ruling elites in academia, media and government are too great.  The pressure to conform coming from the secularized neopagan society too strong.  The self-loathing too deep.  The politically correct groupthink too entrenched.  I do not believe the likes of Rowan Williams have the spine.  But if these are more than just the pathetic last bleatings of a lamb on his way to slaughter, he will have many among us, gentle readers, who will raise up our voices on his behalf, will he not? Because the insurgency is looking for leaders.  We need a champion.  Though he makes an unlikely one to be sure.

More at the Blogmocracy.