BGT Final: Cruel PC joke to play on Susan Boyle ?

Ok, I'm sure I'll get criticised for talking about this, but I just wanted to comment on Britain's Got Talent again. I saw the front pages of the newspapers today and was almost flabbergasted to see that Susan Boyle didn't win it.

I said before I was always wary of Simon Cowell. I don't like the guy. It's more than just his pantomime bad cop part he plays on that show. Cowell's role as both producer and judge reminds me of a politician in government, presiding over something where his control or ability to influence a lot of variables outweighs our ability to give him the benefit of the doubt.

There's something both nauseating and sinister about his almost-camp denigrations of performers, and the way we are supposed to listen to what he's got to say about anything seems to be based around the fact he's simply on the panel.

After watching some of the clips of the Britain's Got Talent final that people have uploaded, there's seems me little question that Cowell knew exactly what was going to happen with Boyle.

Indeed, if we go back, a large part of that earlier show with her was constructed or produced shall we say around her image, and some people I know have said they thought it was incredibly cynical of the producers to do that, knowing this would initially get a certain reaction by the audience. The only I thing I would says is it's not a crime to create or facilitate new, uplifting and phenomenal entertainment that way, but I think it's playing with fire to then to turn the tap off right at last moment.

Obviously, which I didn't know at the time when I first posted about this, this woman has become a phenomenon across the entire internet. Even in the ultra-cynical circles of alternative news, John Stadtmiller of RBN dedicated a radio show to Susan Boyle at the time.

So anyway I had a look at this dance group Diversity's performance who did win. It's very good. And it's great achievement. But there's a lot of dancers who can do that kind of stuff at a very high level, in fact they had another act on the same series called Flawless. It's not that unusual or novel or lends itself that well to concentrated stardom.

I used to dance in an amateur capacity (very amateur) for some years, dance is incredibly tough and a wonderful wonderful thing, and I'm not knocking any of it, but it also somewhat strains reality to see Diversity or frankly any dance act trump Susan Boyle in the kinds of stakes that we would lean towards if this were being run properly.

Again I don't want to take anything away from them and their tremendous abilities and performance, but to me 'Diversity' winning is more about diversity winning, and you can't help but feel there could be a little sinister message being beamed out that it's all about multicultural, multiracial, pro-immigration beats little British quaint white woman Susan Boyle, in her little village which is presumably full of bigots.

That seems to be the message we are supposed to go away with, and which is also a really cruel and utterly inappropriate joke to make at Susan Boyle's expense, and at the expense of her global army of fans.

Also I didn't understand why Boyle was advised to sing that same song again. As good as it was in the final she had already given the performance of a lifetime with it once, no need to repeat it. She should have had a different song for the final, and people have dug up other wonderful things she's sung so it's not like she has to sing that song again.

I'm not too sure as I'm not familiar with these kinds of shows, I've read different things, but people I know who know this show better than I do tell me that the public voted in this final, and that Diversity were therefore the public's choice. Please correct me someone if that's not correct.

Personally, I just find that very difficult to believe. To me it seems to strain reality that she didn't win this show based on the incredible public support she's had. Of course she is a winner anyway with a fantastic career for her, multi-million pound record deal with Simon Cowell and an army of fans around the world so on, but still I just can't see how she didn't win the competion.

But Piers Morgan might have let the cat out of the bag.

People who only appeared on Earth in the last few years might believe that Piers Morgan is just a sort of celebrity socialite and personality in his own right. But of course he does have an impressive track record of being a rightly outspoken critic of the Iraq War, so outspoken he was effectively set up to take him out of being the editor of the Daily Mirror.

Morgan took the Mirror (one imagines kicking and screaming) from being a worthless moron's rag not fit to wipe your ass with, to become perhaps the most outspoken anti-War newspaper in living memory for the time he was editor.


And Morgan seemed to be aware that some sort of tide had been turning against Boyle, and suggested he knew a decision had already been made, and spoke out against that correctly, saying,

"Susan I'm not supposed to favour anyone in this competinon. As a judge I should be impartial. But you know what ? Forget it. That to me was the greatest performance I've seen in Britain's Got Talent history. You should win this competion, I loved it."



Indeed Cowell didn't seem to like it, saying "I don't know who's going to win". I don't believe that.

Susan Boyle should have just won plain and simple.

And I'd just like to comment on some of the commentary I've seen on this in the press today, particularly in The Observer, hard copy of which I was reading earlier, the level of which was actually outrageous.

The journalist started by repeatedly asserting Susan had some difficulties during birth, and therefore had learning difficulties. Unfortunately I can't find the article online on The Guardian's site today, it seems to be only in the hard copy of The Observer. But it was just gratuitous and he repeatedly kept referring to this. So what was the point of it ?

I mean is it ok to start by characterizing this Observer writer as middle aged, having a bald spot, a fat gut and small dick, and that everything he's writing about must be seen through that lens ? That's the level of it. Absolutely shocking, and I have no idea why they wrote what they did in the way they did. They should make a public apology.

Media ignores Torture Photos showing Prison Guards Raping Children

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com 21/5/09: "The real reason behind Obama’s reversal of a decision to release the torture photos has been almost completely ignored by the corporate media - the fact that the photos show both US and Iraqi soldiers raping teenage boys in front of their mothers.

The Obama administration originally intended to release photos depicting torture and abuse of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq by the end of May, following a court order arising out of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit first filed by the ACLU in 2004.

However, a reversal of Obama’s decision was announced this week, after he “changed his mind after viewing some of the images and hearing warnings from his generals in Iraq and in Afghanistan that such a move would endanger US troops deployed there,” according to a Washington Post report.

In response, the ACLU charged that Obama “has essentially become complicit with the torture that was rampant during the Bush years by being complicit in its coverup.” The Obama administration has also sought to protect intelligence officials involved in torture from prosecution at every turn.

The primary reason why Obama is now blocking the release of the photos is that some of the pictures, as well as video recordings, show prison guards sodomizing young boys in front of their mothers, both with objects as well as physical rape.

This horrific detail has been almost completely ignored by the establishment media in their coverage of the story this week, despite the fact that it’s been in the public domain for nearly five years, after it was first revealed by investigative [reporter] Seymour Hersh during an ACLU conference in July 2004.

“Some of the worst things that happened you don’t know about, okay?” said Hersh. “Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib … The women were passing messages out saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened’ and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It’s going to come out.”

Hersh’s contention that minors were raped by prison guards while others filmed the vulgar spectacle is backed up by a leaked Abu Ghraib memorandum highlighted in a 2004 London Guardian report, in which detainees Kasim Hilas describes “the rape of an Iraqi boy by a man in uniform”. The testimony was also part of the military’s official Taguba Report into the torture at Abu Ghraib.

“I saw [name blacked out] fucking a kid, his age would be about 15-18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard the screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [blacked out], who was wearing the military uniform putting his dick in the little kid’s ass,” Mr Hilas told military investigators. “I couldn’t see the face of the kid because his face wasn’t in front of the door. And the female soldier was taking pictures.”

Another inmate, Thaar Dawod, described more abuse of teenage boys.

“They came with two boys naked and they were cuffed together face to face and Grainer [Corporal Charles Graner, one of the military policemen facing court martial] was beating them and a group of guards were watching and taking pictures from top and bottom and there was three female soldiers laughing at the prisoners,” he said.

A 2004 London Telegraph report also described photos which showed “US soldiers beating an Iraqi prisoner nearly to death and having sex with a female PoW,” as well as a videotape, apparently made by US personnel, which shows “Iraqi guards raping young boys”

Project Camelot

Anyone remember WING TV ^(site) ? A guy in a hat who called himself Victor Thorn and his girlfriend Lisa Guliani. This was for a while a not terrible grass roots alternative media program which at times had some interesting guests and interviews, and some reasonable review sections of other alternative media, and reflections and had some energy.

Unfortunately at some point, it started to go badly wrong, becoming one of a small collection of shit-stirring potty troll sites in the truth/patriot/alternative news movement, regularly attacking others, as well as getting involved in various troll wars with other fringe sites and dubious individuals when it couldn't get attention.

In the end it collapsed in the aftermath of the controversy surrounding the arrest of then American Free Press's Christopher Bollyn.

I just came across a newish alternative news site with a woman and guy (also in a hat) who I presume are partners, in front of the camera it reminded me about that.

This site is called Project Camelot, and it presents itself as a site for government whistle blowers. One can't help noticing it also happens to be a kind of Who's Who of more out there guests from alternative talk radio.

Its slant is decidedly not realpolitick, more UFOs/Aliens/Roswell/New age/Aquarian that kind of thing. If I recall WING TV incorporated some of that stuff to some small degree too.

And Project Camelot have done some quite long and detailed interviews with different guests, and it's a nice new change for the alternative media to have almost a chat show format; face to face with guests on the couch, and the presentation works very well. And Project Camelot could be the Richard and Judy of alternative media.

Personally some of the guests which include names familiar to alternative talk radio listeners such Dr Bill Deagle and Leo Zagami, I've never been fully persuaded are bona fide whistle blowers as such, whether Project Camelot genuinely believe differently I don't know, and you're never sure if this couple know what they have walked into with this.

The famous David Icke makes an appearance on Camelot as well (in a very slightly over-talked interview by the couple interviewing - remember it's the guest people are primarily going to want to listen to, although it's by no means the worse example of this), as does Jim Marrs who's a well known figure in the American patriot movement for his work on the JFK Assassination.

I very much enjoyed their short video about the Crystal Skull, which I was always intrigued by as a child.

Project Camelot certainly seem a nice couple of people, who are interested in what they are doing, and they look like they enjoy making these productions, and I certainly think people interested in this kind of material would want to check out what they've put together and what they offer.

Their content thus far is a long way away from hard nosed political understanding, more a concentrated dose of the Rense/Icke/global consciousness type stuff, which while will appeal to fans of that genre, will be seen as a bogging down distraction to many others, kind of like dropping pornography on Iraq.

I wish them well with their area and goals, remembering there's plenty of real world whistle blowers who are not claiming to be members of the Illuminati, or claiming there are civilizations on the Moon. Even Wing TV interviewed one of them: Mordechai Vanunu* (>>>>>).

(* Edit: looking for that, a huge alternative news resource has gone down. Really important and significant shows from tons of different alt media, all annotated, including a lot of hard to find stuff has gone offline , which was at http://www.911verses.com/underground/. Real shame -j, but they have maintained their WING TV archive here).

Swords drawn for Speaker Michael Martin ???

Maybe I've missed something. I've read what I can about this, and frankly I'm just struggling to see any significant case against House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin at all. There's a lot of hot air that's made to look like some case, but the substance of it just seems to be missing.

Part of the problem here, seems to be there's been something of a long term campaign against him anyway from the Daily Mail, and separating that out from what's going now seems very difficult to be honest.

If Michael Martin should resign over whatever (almost impossible to deduce it's so empty) he's accused of doing or not doing, then the entire government should resign. Note I'm not seriously suggesting that he should resign.

This just seems like hollow moronic scapegoating by newspapers and MPs about an issue of total nothingness (MP's expenses) that's been elevated by the media and that politicians have to be seen to be dancing to.

It's just garbage.

Another study pours cold water on CCTV

Daily Mail: "The millions of CCTV cameras on Britain's streets have done virtually nothing to cut crime, Home Office-funded research found today. It said that cameras placed in town centres, housing estates and public transport 'did not have a significant effect on crime'.

The only crime that was heavily reduced by the presence of spy cameras was stealing from cars in car parks, the study said"

Which seems to be a repeat of an earlier conclusion to a Home Office study circulated back in 2005, (difficult to get hold the original source of this article by the way which was an Associated Press report in securityinfowatch.com).

But I think everyone knows this anyway. And we don't need studies to justify the notion that blanket CCTV is an absolutely vile, dehumanizing and stupid practice that's now gone totally out of control.

And why these studies should be a surprise to anyone I have no idea. The point is the cameras are not a failure as they are not about crime to begin with. They are about surveillance of the general population, and to make the idea of being watched and logged seem normal so that can be further escalated, and as well so people modify their own behavior in line with knowing they are being watched.

If anything I believe crime, the threat of violent crime is actually a highly favourable state of a social-centrist government to help keep the middle class in check.

CCTV's role in that sense is to remind people there is a threat of violent crime not to prevent it.

John Mearsheimer: Saving Israel From Itself

May 15, 2009 The American Conservative:

"The United States and Israel fundamentally disagree about the need to establish a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. President Obama is committed to a two-state solution, while Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu is opposed and has been for many years. To avoid a direct confrontation with Washington, Netanyahu will probably change his rhetoric and talk favorably about two states. But that will not affect Israel’s actions. The never-ending peace process will go on, Israel will continue building settlements, and the Palestinians will remain locked up in a handful of impoverished enclaves in the West Bank and Gaza. Anticipating this outcome, Obama has told Congress to expect a clash with Israel.

This is not a fight Obama is likely to win, even though the United States is more powerful than Israel and most Americans favor creating a Palestinian state and bringing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a close.

Look at the historical record. Since 1967, every American president has opposed settlement-building in the Occupied Territories. Yet no president has been able to put meaningful pressure on Israel to stop building settlements, much less dismantle them. Perhaps the best evidence of American impotence is what happened during the Oslo peace process in the 1990s. Israel confiscated 40,000 acres of Palestinian land, constructed 250 miles of connector and bypass roads, doubled the number of settlers, and built 30 new settlements. President Clinton did hardly anything to halt this expansion.

The main reason no president has been able to stop Israel from colonizing the Occupied Territories is the Israel lobby. It is an especially powerful interest group that has pushed the American government to establish a “special relationship” with Israel, which is, as Yitzhak Rabin once said, “beyond compare in modern history.”

The special relationship means Washington gives Israel consistent, almost unconditional diplomatic backing and more foreign aid than any other country. In other words, Israel gets this aid even when it does things that the United States opposes, like building settlements. Furthermore, Israel is rarely criticized by American officials and certainly not by anyone who aspires to high office. Recall what happened earlier this year to Charles Freeman, who was forced to withdraw as head of the National Intelligence Council because he had criticized certain Israeli policies and questioned the merits of the special relationship.

Many hope that Obama will be different from his predecessors and stand up to the lobby. The indications thus far are not encouraging. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama responded to charges that he was “soft” on Israel by pandering to the lobby and publicly praising the special relationship. He was silent during the recent Gaza War—when Israel was being criticized around the world for its brutal assault on that densely populated enclave—and he said nothing when Freeman was forced to quit his administration. Like his predecessors, Obama appears to be no match for the lobby."

Rest of article...

European elections: Labour in trouble

Mail on Sunday: "Gordon Brown is heading for humiliation in the European elections as voters desert his party in droves in protest over the expenses scandal, a BPIX poll for The Mail on Sunday has found.

Labour's predicted share of the vote in the June 4 elections has fallen to just 17 per cent - neck and neck with the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which advocates Britain's complete withdrawal from the EU.

Over the past tumultuous week in Westminster, Labour's expected Brussels vote has crashed by six points from 23 per cent, while UKIP's has surged by seven points.

This leaves the Prime Minister facing the politically catastrophic prospect of being pushed into third place: Labour has never polled lower than UKIP"

Paul Craig Roberts: Who rules America ?

14/5/09 Information Clearing House:

"What do you suppose it is like to be elected president of the United States only to find that your power is restricted to the service of powerful interest groups?

A president who does a good job for the ruling interest groups is paid off with remunerative corporate directorships, outrageous speaking fees, and a lucrative book contract. If he is young when he assumes office, like Bill Clinton and Obama, it means a long life of luxurious leisure.

Fighting the special interests doesn’t pay and doesn’t succeed. On April 30 the primacy of special over public interests was demonstrated yet again. The Democrats’ bill to prevent 1.7 million mortgage foreclosures and, thus, preserve $300 billion in home equity by permitting homeowners to renegotiate their mortgages, was defeated in the Senate, despite the 60-vote majority of the Democrats. The banksters were able to defeat the bill 51 to 45.

These are the same financial gangsters whose unbridled greed and utter irresponsibility have wiped out half of Americans’ retirement savings, sent the economy into a deep hole, and threatened the US dollar’s reserve currency role. It is difficult to imagine an interest group with a more damaged reputation. Yet, a majority of “the people’s representatives” voted as the discredited banksters instructed.

Hundreds of billions of public dollars have gone to bail out the banksters, but when some Democrats tried to get the Senate to do a mite for homeowners, the US Senate stuck with the banks. The Senate’s motto is: “Hundreds of billions for the banksters, not a dime for homeowners.”

If Obama was naive about well-intentioned change before the vote, he no longer has this political handicap.

Democratic Majority Whip Dick Durbin acknowledged the voters’ defeat by the discredited banksters. The banks, Durbin said, “frankly own the place.”

It is not difficult to understand why. Among those who defeated the homeowners bill are senators Jon Tester (Mont), Max Baucus (Mont), Blanche Lincoln (Ark), Ben Nelson (Neb), Many Landrieu (La), Tim Johnson (SD), and Arlan Specter (Pa). According to reports, the banksters have poured a half million dollars into Tester’s campaign funds. Baucus has received $3.5 million; Lincoln $1.3 million; Nelson $1.4 million; Landrieu $2 million; Johnson $2.5 million; Specter $4.5 million.

The same Congress that can’t find a dime for homeowners or health care appropriates hundreds of billions of dollars for the military/security complex. The week after the Senate foreclosed on American homeowners, the Obama “change” administration asked Congress for an additional $61 billion dollars for the neoconservatives’ war in Iraq and $65 billion more for the neoconservatives’ war in Afghanistan. Congress greeted this request with a rousing “Yes we can!”

The additional $126 billion comes on top of the $533.7 billion “defense” budget for this year. The $660 billion--probably a low-ball number--is ten times the military spending of China, the second most powerful country in the world.

How is it possible that “the world’s only superpower” is threatened by the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan? How can the US be a superpower if it is threatened by countries that have no military capability other than a guerilla capability to resist invaders?

These “wars” are a hoax designed to enrich the US armaments industry and to infuse the “security forces” with police powers over American citizenry.

Not a dime to prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes, but hundreds of billions of dollars to murder Muslim women and children and to create millions of refugees, many of whom will either sign up with insurgents or end up as the next wave of immigrants into America.

This is the way the American government works. And it thinks it is a “city on the hill, a light unto the world.”

Americans elected Obama because he said he would end the gratuitous criminal wars of the Bush brownshirts, wars that have destroyed America’s reputation and financial solvency and serve no public interest. But once in office Obama found that he was ruled by the military/security complex. War is not being ended, merely transferred from the unpopular war in Iraq to the more popular war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Obama, in violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, continues to attack “targets” in Pakistan. In place of a war in Iraq, the military/security complex now has two wars going in much more difficult circumstances.

Viewing the promotion gravy train that results from decades of warfare, the US officer corps has responded to the “challenge to American security” from the Taliban. “We have to kill them over there before they come over here.” No member of the US government or its numerous well-paid agents has ever explained how the Taliban, which is focused on Afghanistan, could ever get to America. Yet this hyped fear is sufficient for the public to support the continuing enrichment of the military/security complex, while American homes are foreclosed by the banksters who have destroyed the retirement prospects of the US population..

According to Pentagon budget documents, by next year the cost of the war against Afghanistan will exceed the cost of the war against Iraq. According to a Nobel prize-winning economist and a budget expert at Harvard University, the war against Iraq has cost the American taxpayers $3 trillion, that is, $3,000 billion in out-of-pocket and already incurred future costs, such as caring for veterans.

If the Pentagon is correct, then by next year the US government will have squandered $6 trillion dollars on two wars, the only purpose of which is to enrich the munitions manufacturers and the “security” bureaucracy.

The human and social costs are dramatic as well and not only for the Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani populations ravaged by American bombs. Dahr Jamail reports that US Army psychiatrists have concluded that by their third deployment, 30 percent of American troops are mental wrecks. Among the costs that reverberate across generations of Americans are elevated rates of suicide, unemployment, divorce, child and spousal abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, homelessness and incarceration. http://www.truthout.org/051209J?n

In the Afghan “desert of death” the Obama administration is constructing a giant military base. Why? What does the internal politics of Afghanistan have to do with the US?

What is this enormous waste of resources that America does not have accomplishing besides enriching the American munitions industry?

China and to some extent India are the rising powers in the world. Russia, the largest country on earth, is armed with a nuclear arsenal as terrifying as the American one. The US dollar’s role as reserve currency, the most important source of American power, is undermined by the budget deficits that result from the munition corporations’ wars and the bankster bailouts.

Why is the US making itself impotent fighting wars that have nothing whatsoever to do with is security, wars that are, in fact, threatening its security?

The answer is that the military/security lobby, the financial gangsters, and AIPAC rule. The American people be damned."

Alex Jones banned from YouTube

Another story I couldn't believe:

Apparently Alex Jones has been banned from YouTube.

Infowars says: "...the video networking website suspended the Infowarrior Channel, which was the replacement for the previously censored Alex Jones Channel.

When attempting to visit the Infowarrior Channel this morning, one is met with the message, “This account is suspended.”

Just as before, no credible reason has been provided for the suspension of channel. The original Alex Jones Channel was suspended because You Tube claimed that showing a computer print out of a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette news article on camera constituted “copyright violation,” despite the fact that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette denied ever making a copyright complaint"

Not for a second that I would compare Michael Savage to the great Alex Jones but I was kinda thinking about Alex when I was writing about the Michael Savage affair, in the sense of conservative talk show hosts, and it's probably not really Michael Savage that they are interested in.

But here you have it again; 'we just gotta get rid of this annoying thing called conservatism', it can't be a legitimate part of public discourse, it absolutely cannot have a place on mainstream popular sites like YouTube, that's just an outrage, and those with the biggest followings, if they put even a foot out of line have to be punished.

Of course there really is some unpleasant shit, snuff effectively, that appears on YouTube that I imagine its directors are quite happy about.

Paul Watson of Prisonplanet, one of Alex's sites, suggests that YouTube has thrown itself over to big studio corporate interests. We also know that YouTube is working hand in hand with the Anti-Defamation League, who as I understand it, despite what some people in the US patriot movement suggest, has always been antagonistic towards Alex Jones, and generally has been at the forefront of trying to shut down discourse that it doesn't like the look of.

And we don't know for sure what happened here, but we do know that the ADL is part of a trend of organizations, movements and so on, that as a core part of their activities seek to delegitimize and pathologize any kind of conservative aspirations at all.

As for YouTube generally, they have damaged themselves enormously with this incident, and it's an absolute outrage.

Perhaps it's time the intelligent public stopped using them.

MP's Expenses scandal

Sorry guys, I just don't buy this stuff about MPs' expenses. One can only guess what it may really be hiding, but this (aka sleaze) appears to be the way of getting rid of a weak government that's no longer able to inflict some of the most extreme policies and as well punishing a few individuals who have stepped out of line along the way.

As someone said to me recently, why didn't all this happen during the lead up to the Iraq War ? Well there's your answer in the question. Because the Iraq War was good, why on Earth would you want to punish a government that's doing what it's supposed to.

And of course, it's not just the Telegraph. Just to illustrate, astonishing as it is, the New York Times was effectively calling for regime change in the UK, no ambiguity about it.

This is the level of it. No disguise anymore.

The media, the concentrations of power that own that media want to just get rid of this government now. And I have to say I do feel somewhat sorry for Gordon Brown, who's just under extreme political pressure and attacks from everyone from the Daily Telegraph to the New York Times, some of which are frankly ludicrous and puerile.

Gordon Brown's mistake was trying to a cut deal with the devil (Blair) early on, you just can't do that. What should have happened, after the second term, Brown should have stepped up, declared the Iraq War and the police state an outrage, profusely apologized for his role in supporting those things, and stepped aside as a leader in waiting. Effectively started Labour again overtly rather than trying to play the political game and not rocking the boat. Big mistake.

I should say I don't believe for a second Gordon Brown was ever close to that, but it should have happened. Now the Labour government is effectively disintegrating before our eyes, for all the wrong reasons.

I said it before, and boring as it is I'll say it again: don't try to think for a second, as the media want you to, that the real crime of Labour or MP's in general is this expense stuff. Yes there are some grotesque examples and some silly stuff but it's just in reality nothing to what they have created, presided over and voted for.

Michael Savage banned from UK

I just caught a bit of Newsnight, and I couldn't believe this story that conservative US radio host and writer Michael Savage has actually been banned by the Labour government from entering the UK.

Apparently, according to the BBC it's so morally uncertain a topic it actually deserved a debate on Newsnight, where one side likened to the notion of someone like Chris Moyles being banned from entering the US.

CNN: "Radio talk show host Michael Savage and the anti-gay Rev. Fred Phelps were listed Tuesday among white supremacists and radical Islamic clerics who will not be allowed into the country.

Savage, whose conservative daily show can be heard on radio stations across America, lashed out in an audio clip on his Web site and devoted seven stories on his main page to the ban. He is listed under his real name, Michael Alan Wiener.

Britain's Home Office said it decided to exclude the 22 people on the list after measures by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith last year targeting people "who have engaged in spreading hate"

There is a sinister message that we do need to address, yet at first it's kind of difficult to know where to start with this really, it's so extraordinarily dumb. And when you're dealing with things that are very very dumb attempts to say something we all have to waste our time unraveling the dumbness for the dummies and kinda going backwards.

The lead dummy in this case being the tragic 'Home Secretary' Jaqui Smith.

I think we've said this before, it's just not enough to just have a job unfortunately, or be a women doing a job. That's not enough or any kind of standard or qualification.

And Labour does have this rather deep pool of women who kinda look and act like social workers who unfortunately, very very sadly just simply don't have a lot of ability, or qualities perhaps apart from loyalty and that's why they have been placed in the jobs they have. And it is a sadness, but there we are.

Unfortunately Jaqui Smith simply can't even fake any semblance of a grain of competence or judgment. There's no question at all she's been advised to do this and I very much doubt she even knows why she is doing it, other there seems to be some sort of leftist zeitgeist around her which she thinks is some sort of evolutionary step in civilization.

If you listen to this poor woman on Newsnight it's just staggering ineptitude and obedience (which again makes her more than qualified for the job), with phrases like 'the privilege of entering the UK' and stuff like that.

Oh dear.

That's one part of this. The next part is what message does it send ? As I understand it Michael Savage, who I was already aware of, is a pretty mainstream conservative talk show host. People like Rush Limbaugh would be others.

For sure a lot of Patriots and activists in America, almost certainly would say that Savage doesn't even go anywhere near far enough.

However context can be a big issue and Savage's 'mistake' if you like (and I don't mean that of course, I'm being sarcastic) is that he's not afraid of making relatively (and I stress relatively) controversial (i.e according the highest doctrinal prescriptions of the media) comments.

The Daily Telegraph suggest that Savage was banned for his opinions about homosexuality, and indeed the gay thing is a special protected proxy and symbolic object, almost certainly for it's unique ability to add a dose of up is down, black is white.

Also I would say things like immigration (which is a massive taboo) and I suspect this in particular and of course his general tone (rather humorous like Anne Coulter etc) about different groups (i.e the ability to loosely even speak about groups), along with his probably otherwise rather unchallenging conservative light issues (low taxes etc) and the fact he has quite an audience makes him something of a problem potentially, because some of those issues are just too hot to be acceptable as mainstream, and the media goes to great lengths to set very sharp boundaries of acceptable debate.

So the message seems to be this: talking about groups is totally unacceptable. It just cannot be done.

Immigration is socially sacrosanct, morally immutable and cannot be discussed.

If you have some following doing that then watch out, someone will at some time try to make an example of you to send a message to others.

And of course it's utterly revolting that Savage and some others have been banned in this way, it's absolutely vile. It's also highly conspicuous that everyone in the media from the BBC to the Telegraph feel the need to corroborate that Savage is saying morally archaic or even wicked things when he's just being himself and that we still need to be 'broad minded' enough to allow these people to speak.

The whole thing is just a complete farce.

As the Telegraph shockingly incorrectly moralise, "We seem to allow plenty of preachers of hate into the country, with vile views about women, homosexuals and blowing up tube trains full of Britons. Either ban both, or neither."

As if banning both makes everything right. Good Lord.

So what would this world look like with no conservative thought or actions ? Well that's the idea, and I'm only sorry some people out there just don't seem to get this.

There has been, and which this incident is just another example of in a lingering list, a long standing trend, to delegitimize any kind of conservative inclinations or displays of genuine conservatism or anything that even looks like it might be genuine conservatism and that's been going on for some time.

Frankly, I wouldn't even use the term conservatism, but apparently what is normal to a lot of people now needs some political annotation.

But it's palpable and repeated throughout the media and government policy; the idea is get rid of conservatism, to make it totally a moral dinosaur, and hold up a fanatical, militant, highly autistic leftist pool of cretinous card-swiping plebs (believing there is modern morality therein) with government commissars handing out privileges as the norm.

And I'm afraid it's got to the point, that I think now we're going to have a very very serious and honest look at this.