Friday, December 14, 2012
What Will the Islamo-Fascists Use for a Ladder if they Realise Their Dream
Interesting isn't it how the Islamo-Fascists find it essential to use Western democratic freedoms as a stepping stone to pursue their dream of re-building the Caliphate and - ultimately - destroying Western democracy. What will they use for a ladder if they ever achieve their dreams? Or do they seriously believe that the world will then be so perfect that they will then never need to fight for or run from anything again? Do they seriously believe that the non-Islamo-Fascist part of the world is just too dim to see what they can see - that life can be made just perfect by killing anyone who can't see it?
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
It's Not as Simple as That Vincent
Vincent Cooper writes today for The Commentator asking, essentially, whether Enoch Powell was right, and whether we should be outraged that a European bien pensant elite is showing contempt for democracy by inflicting mass immigration on national electorates who do not want it. This is a bit too simplistic for two reasons.
The first is that electorates are free to vote for parties that promise to stop immigration, but consistently fail to do so, presumably because they sense either that the ones who do offer it are dangerous people or that they lack the ability to govern well across the spectrum.
The second reason is related to the first one. One European electorate once did vote in a party that promised to protect the national ethnic culture from alien incursions - Hitler's Nazis - and look what that resulted in. If Vincent Cooper is right that the policies of Europe's political elite reflect distrust of national democracies, they might well say that it is not without good reason.
Vincent is also wrong in his assumption that there is anything new in the distrust of electorates by political elites. It is surely precisely because unrestrained democracy can be extremely dangerous that it is accepted throughout the western world that the will of the majority has to be subject to constitutional restraints. The US founding fathers recognised that and went to great lengths to build the necessary checks and balances into their constitution. The really tough questions therefore are not whether the democratic national will should be constrained, but exactly how, in what way, and by whom should it be constrained.
It's not just about immigration - massive though I agree that issue is and urgent thought the need to address it is; it's just as important, surely, to find some way of forcing politicians to stop shamelessly buying votes by handing out cash not on the basis of need or of objective justification but on the basis of voting power - e.g. Cameron's refusal to stop giving handouts to people just because they are old regardless of how wealthy they are. I agree with Vincent that democracy is in grave danger, but not only because voters are often ignored; it's just as often because they are too much pandered to against the national interest.
Working out a system which gets only the juice out of the democratic orange without squeezing out the blood too is the greatest challenge of our age.
I do agree with Vincent though that handing the power over to the tossers in Europe is not the answer.
The first is that electorates are free to vote for parties that promise to stop immigration, but consistently fail to do so, presumably because they sense either that the ones who do offer it are dangerous people or that they lack the ability to govern well across the spectrum.
The second reason is related to the first one. One European electorate once did vote in a party that promised to protect the national ethnic culture from alien incursions - Hitler's Nazis - and look what that resulted in. If Vincent Cooper is right that the policies of Europe's political elite reflect distrust of national democracies, they might well say that it is not without good reason.
Vincent is also wrong in his assumption that there is anything new in the distrust of electorates by political elites. It is surely precisely because unrestrained democracy can be extremely dangerous that it is accepted throughout the western world that the will of the majority has to be subject to constitutional restraints. The US founding fathers recognised that and went to great lengths to build the necessary checks and balances into their constitution. The really tough questions therefore are not whether the democratic national will should be constrained, but exactly how, in what way, and by whom should it be constrained.
It's not just about immigration - massive though I agree that issue is and urgent thought the need to address it is; it's just as important, surely, to find some way of forcing politicians to stop shamelessly buying votes by handing out cash not on the basis of need or of objective justification but on the basis of voting power - e.g. Cameron's refusal to stop giving handouts to people just because they are old regardless of how wealthy they are. I agree with Vincent that democracy is in grave danger, but not only because voters are often ignored; it's just as often because they are too much pandered to against the national interest.
Working out a system which gets only the juice out of the democratic orange without squeezing out the blood too is the greatest challenge of our age.
I do agree with Vincent though that handing the power over to the tossers in Europe is not the answer.
Friday, December 7, 2012
2DayFM: Morons Broadcasting to Morons
When radio stations target morons as their audience and employ morons to provide them with the kind of moronic crap that appeals to morons, sooner or later intelligent, sensitive people get destroyed by it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)