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.

The pornography of distraction ?

Isn't it funny that Home Secretary Jaqui Smith's husband apparently a Mr Richard Timney, was paying for porno films and at the expense of the tax payer to boot. A funny and small comeuppance for this ridiculous cloth-headed gorgon at the Home Office, and fittingly ironic for these anti-privacy ghouls in the tinpot regime; just a tiny hint of what the kinds of retained records they want everyone else to be chained to as a 'privilege of living in a modern society' can dig up. Smith is one of several New Labour gorgons, which all blend one into another as far as I'm concerned, I can barely even tell them apart.

Certainly there's a lot of media interest in MP's spending at the moment, and there is something seemingly of insanity about some of the things MPs can claim in their expenses, and for sure there are some grotesque examples of this that the press and other politicians will dig up.

Other than it underlines the particularly dismal and inevitable Animal Farm scenario for Labour, I don't believe it's a particular 'problem' though, and typically all this general talk of sleaze and abusing expenses and so on has a very corrosive and distraction-inducing effect.

Instead of talking about the horrendous, vile and very real policies of this government, including the burgeoning police state apparatus and policies being feverishly assembled, with the Home Office at the forefront of, we end up talking about their expenses and making that the 'bad' thing that they are doing. And this just totally trivializes the real issues of the day.

Unless we are to treat this case as some kind of serious warning shot at those Labour politicians hysterically trying to dismantle privacy and liberty in the UK, which include but are no means limited to mass internet data storage, driving surveillance, the National ID Register, the uploading of medical records and so on.

Great if that's the case, I certainly hope it is, and frankly it should be seen like that anyway despite the general focus on politicians' expenses at the moment.

But it would also be appropriate if this media, rather than solely trying to catch a politician out over some minor rule, or find some embarrassing expense just tell the truth about what's going on and what the government is trying to do to the population.