Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Britain Creeps Towards Tyranny

Britain Creeps Towards Tyranny

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

There's no point in trying to understand the inexplicable popularity of Michael Savage, except to speculate that there is some correlation between raging intolerance and having plenty of free time to listen to the radio. Savage is humorless, bombastic and chock-full of bad ideas, another in the robot army of faux conservatives who mistake intolerance for morality and prejudice for principle. If there is anything to distinguish Savage it is that he's just a little bit more bitter and sarcastic than his competition.

Savage is successful. His show has one of the largest audiences in the U.S., lagging far behind Rush Limbaugh, but ahead of most of his other competitors. And despite his vitriol and harsh rhetoric he's hardly the most offensive or most politically extreme voice on the airways. Yet somehow his combination of popularity and offensiveness came together to bring him to the attention of Jacqui Smith of the British Home Office, which has put him on a list of controversial figures who would be banned from travel to the UK because of their activities.

The list of 16 international figures who have been "named and shamed" and barred from Britain by Home Secretary Smith includes mostly known terrorists and others much more closely associated with violent criminal behavior than Savage. He seems to have been selected primarily because of his high profile and to bring attention to the efforts of the Labour government to promote political correctness. While Savage's statements may be controversial, there is no history of violence from his listeners or associated with his program, and he has never promoted violence or antisocial behavior. Apparently the main problem with Savage is that he's conservative, and that political viewpoint is no longer acceptable in Labour-controlled Britian.

Savage is also not the first public figure to be banned from Britain for exercising free speech. In February Geert Wilders, a Dutch film maker and member of parliament, was banned from the country when invited to introduce a presentation of his controversial film on the Q'ran in the House of Lords. Like Savage, Wilders is extremely conservative and part of the Dutch libertarian movement, and like Savage he has never been known to advocate violence or to be associated with followers who engage in violent activity.

Wilders and Savage are clearly different from most of the others who have been barred from entering Britain. Unlike the muslim radicals, KKK racists and Russian skinhead gangsters who fill the rest of the list, their main transgression seems to be that they hold politically unpopular views and in particular are strongly anti-Islamic and anti-socialist.

This appears to be part of a more general crackdown on free speech in Britain supported by the Home Office as part of its campaign to limit the rights of citizens under the guise of protecting them from terrorism. Smith has also advocated shutting down websites which engage in controversial and politically unpopular speech. She is also promoting a nationwide identity database and a biometric ID card system similar to the controversial REAL ID program in the United States and rather reminiscent of the internal passports used in the Eastern Bloc during the Soviet era.

These extreme measures follow on the passage of Britain's draconian hate speech law in 2006, which makes it a criminal offense to criticize religious practices and beliefs or even to make jokes about minority groups, including homosexuals. This law was passed in the face of massive protest from the public and from entertainers and comedians, and continues to be a source of controversy and contention.

Issues like these, as well as substantial tax increases during a major economic crisis have led to serious problems for Britain's Labour Party, with Prime Minister Gordon Brown falling in popularity faster than any previous Prime Minister. It seems quite likely that the Conservative Party which had been weak and faltering since the departure of Margaret Thatcher, but is now developing a new generation of dynamic young leaders, may take over the government in the next general election.

From an American perspective, the oppressive excess and dramatic failure of the high-tax and anti-liberty policies of left-wing government in Britain may be a sign of things to come here. As often happens we lag a few years behind Britain, but if the Obama administration continues to pursue the same sort of disastrous and oppressive policies which the British Labour government has embraced, they may generate the same sort of conservative backlash.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Dave,

    I see you managed to fail to mention the fact the blonde British bitch pictured in your article also banned Moshe Feiglin from Albion.

    Let’s see, Dave. Geert Wilders is pro-Israel, Little Mikey Wiener (what you call “Savage”) is Jewish, though he doesn’t admit to it on air, and Moshe Feiglin is a Jewish politician pursuing a Jewish vision for Israel.

    In my book, that adds up to the standard sheeny-bashing Brits love to indulge in and deny later. We call it Jew-hatred, Dave. Do you wonder where that contemptuous tone of mine comes from?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Interesting, Ruvy. I hadn’t considered that angle. But she did balance it out by banning a bunch of muslims and nazis too, not to mention Fred Phelps.

    Dave

  • jamminsue

    I don’t know much about this, but have found the “PC” people to be as scary as someone like Savage or Limbaugh. This idea of sensitivity has progressed way, way, too much. For instance, today I tried to write mailman in a Word doc, which suggested changing it to Mail Carrier. The person who delivers our mail is of the male gender so why would that be wrong?! The fear mongers of every stripe are out in force, as usual.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Traditionally this kind of travel ban has only been imposed when there are public safety concerns. The Savage one is a bit mystifying, since I suspect 99.9999% of Britons have never heard of the idiot. Likewise with Moshe Feiglin. I don’t see how public safety is being compromised there, unless the Foreign Office knows something about these two that the rest of us don’t.

    Wilders, though I didn’t agree with the ban (and neither apparently did most of the Muslim members of the House of Lords where he’d been invited to show his film), is a bit more of a cut-and-dried case. He may not advocate violence himself but he’s exactly the sort of figure the N3s (Neo-Nazi Neanderthals) love to latch onto as a herald. (They wouldn’t much care about him being pro-Israel as long as he gave them an excuse to give a good kicking to someone.)

    Dave’s right about the Conservatives probably winning the next election. Unfortunately, the wrong person is at the helm. David Davies, a thoroughly principled man whom I like more than any British politician in a long time, ran for the leadership twice on a libertarian platform but lost both times. With Cameron as PM, don’t expect the laws Dave is concerned about to be rolled back, at least not in a hurry.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dr. D. What the UK needs is for Daniel Hannan to run for parliament (British, not EU) so that he’s eligible to be PM. I’m sure there are Tories who are working to make that happen.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I’m sure there are, but Hannan embodies exactly the sort of politics that made the Tories unelectable in the first place.

    I’m rather surprised you’re enamoured of him, since he’s a Paulite and a conspiracy theorist. He also has his rather effusive praise of Iceland’s ‘economic miracle’ to live down.

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    I reckon Savage just can’t understand how those upstart Poms would want to ban a Yank.

    Now he knows …

    Most Yanks are welcome. Those who’ll be stirring up trouble, whether they’re doing it on purpose or not, won’t be.

    Cut the hyperbole, Dave. It’s not tyranny.

    The Home Offuice has a right to ban anyone it wants, just like US immigration.

    I can reel off a list as long as your arm of people who have been banned from the US (on arrival, after paying a small fortune for airfares and holiday accommodation) just for having dodgy (read: non-Anglo) sounding surnames.

    Don’t see you writing about that tyranny, though.

  • M a rk

    Dreadful, you seem to forget Dave’s effusive praise of Ireland’s economic miracle. Aren’t he and Hannan ‘birds of a feather’?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Mark,

    Have you got some response for me? I’d like to get something from you before I submit.

    Roger

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Doc,

    About a year ago, there was a “similar” incident in the UK. One of the most popular radio talk-show hosts – if my recollection serves me, very critical of the Mayor of London – was taken of the air. Do you recall the incident?

    Perhaps they have a different policy in the UK as regards free speech on the public airways.

  • m A Rk

    Rog, probably better to publish, and we can discuss reification on your thread.

    (btw, I’m having a bit of difficulty bracketing your recent aggression toward Cindy’s ‘arsehole’ and maintaining a sympathetic attitude.)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, that how I see it.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Don’t see you writing about that tyranny, though.

    I considered it, Stan. Didn’t want to muddy the waters, however. When I found all the other info on repressive measures from the home office that seemed like a better thread to pursue than the equally stupid US behavior in banning people like Yusef Islam.

    Doc, I’m not entirely opposed to Ron Paul, I just see his feet of clay. From what I’ve read of Hannan’s work he’s not nearly as far out as Paul’s more radical supporters. Apparently he’s much more popular here in the US than he is in the UK.

    And for the record, I’ve been known to praise Ireland and have nothing positive to say about Iceland’s amazing ability to bankrupt themselves.

    Dave

  • STM

    Rog: “About a year ago, there was a “similar” incident in the UK. One of the most popular radio talk-show hosts – if my recollection serves me, very critical of the Mayor of London – was taken of the air”

    Highly unlikely, Rog, just for being critical.

    Besides which, the Lord Mayor of London has no power whatsoever to make such decisions.

    In fact, he virtually has power at all – he/she has more of a ceremonial role that covers the one-square mile of the Corporation of the City of London.

    Perhaps you are thinking of Boris Johnson, the elected Mayor of London. He doesn’t have the power either to take anyone off air.

    Besides, Britain, btw, has a – very – free press. People in high positions – including the Queen, the PM, just about every politician and bureaucrat and functionary who does something stupid or criminal, even other members of the Royal, are constantly criticised in the British media.

    I know, I’ve worked there. They usually use both barrels too, not one.

    If this certain radio talk host has defamed/slandered/libelled someone, however, that’s different matter.

    The British have other rights … one of them is the right not to have your reputation, career, good name or life ruined by claptrap, rumour, innudendo and unfounded nonsense repeated by idiots – unless, of course, it’s done legally in a court of law or Parliament.

    The US has the same (or a very similar) law of course, except that to get around it you only have to say you believed it was true at the time you said (or wrote) it, and you’re a big chance of getting off.

    Not always though.

    In the US, truth is an absolute defence to defamation (as it is in Australia and some other other commonwealth countries).

    In the UK it is a defence, along with fair comment, and privelege (said in Parliament or a court of law or reported in the public interest, for instance in the case of a politician suspected of corruption).

    Defaming people, however, especially where legal action is concerned and it’s considered there are no mitigating factors, can often result in media personalities losing their jobs or being taken off air.

    Maybe your answer lies there, not in different ideas of what constitutes free speech in the public interest.

  • STM

    The British also have a list that’s a bit like the FBI’s mist-wanted list.

    Except it’s called the least-wanted list.

    They are the ones the Home Office doesn’t want in the country.

    I believe at least one US radio talk show host has been on the list … and in the great tradition of American free speech, has indicated (or has actually done so) he will sue the British government, with delicious irony, for … you guessed it: defamation.

  • Clavos

    The British also have a list that’s a bit like the FBI’s mist-wanted list.

    When is the FBI going to quit picking on foggy people?

  • STM

    Typ :) Make that “FBI’s MOST-wanted List”.

    The mist-wanted list is probably still sitting in a locker somewhere, and the only person who had the key was J.Edgar H.

  • STM

    BTW, Dave, I think the whole story is bollocks.

    The US has been flying people around the world, torturing them, holding them captive without resort to habeas corpus, using kangaroo courts instead of the criminal justice process, not adhering to the Geneva convention, banning people on the doorstep because they sound like they have an un-American name, wiretapping people, instutiting laws that allow the authorities to hold terror suspects without trial, and generally embarking on a new era of McCarthyist “un-American” bashing … and the Poms are resorting to tyranny because they ban a “shock” jock.

    Please, Dave, spare us the bollocks.

    Simply, the home office doesn’t want this bloke there because he’s considered by them as undesireable. Considering they decide who’s allowed in the country, it’s their call, don’t you reckon.

    You’ll be on the list next :)

    And it’s not a path Obama’s likely to take you down. Nice work for tacking it on the end, though, of what was an otherwise quite informative piece – even if I don’t agree with your reasoning (nor Ruvy’s paranoid delusions).

    Beides, it’s a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. You’ve been – in the US – one of the most oppressive “free” societies on the planet for at least the last two presidentianl terms, and for many others on occasion before that.

    Oppression can take different forms, too, can’t it?

    Lucky a few people here – well, most, actually – can see past your bollocks, Dave, when it comes to this kind of claptrap.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Yes, STM. It was Boris Johnson.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I can’t think, however, of the name of the radio talk-show host, very popular one, BTW, whose show was canceled.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The US has been flying people around the world, torturing them, holding them captive without resort to habeas corpus, using kangaroo courts instead of the criminal justice process, not adhering to the Geneva convention, banning people on the doorstep because they sound like they have an un-American name, wiretapping people, instutiting laws that allow the authorities to hold terror suspects without trial, and generally embarking on a new era of McCarthyist “un-American” bashing … and the Poms are resorting to tyranny because they ban a “shock” jock.

    Sheesh, Stan. Hard day? You usually manage to read past the first two stories of an article before commenting on it. If you had read on, you’d have seen that the focus of the article is not the banning of Savage, but the overall draconian and anti-liberty policies of the Labour government in Britain, of which the Savage ban is just one of many symptoms.

    As for all the evils you ascribe to the US, some are true and as you damned well should know, some are false, but none are relevant. The misdeeds of one country do not excuse the misdeeds of another.

    Simply, the home office doesn’t want this bloke there because he’s considered by them as undesireable. Considering they decide who’s allowed in the country, it’s their call, don’t you reckon.

    Actually, I’m about 101% sure that they put him on the list because they knew it would stir up controversy, raise the profile of this program and win them votes with intolerant and sanctimonious voters.

    You’ll be on the list next :)

    I’ve been on lists before.

    The point is that I don’t see why we have to tolerate this kind of behavior from our governments, either in the US or in Britain or in Europe or anywhere else.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Roger,

    The radio host in question was James Whale, a wannabe American-style shock jock. He was fired for telling his listeners to vote for Boris Johnson as Mayor of London. In doing so he violated the Broadcasting Code, which prohibits broadcasters from endorsing political candidates.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Yes, it’s a daft rule, especially since the national newspapers are, with one arguable exception, blatantly partial. Then again, newspapers aren’t using the public airwaves to broadcast their opinions.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Thanks, Doc.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave continues to see evil fellow travelers behind every tree and believes that the bad liberals are wearing sheep’s clothing, lying in wait to devour all the good, unsuspecting America loving conservatives.

    It’s good that Stan called Dave out on this “bollocks” article. The US has banned many people for no substantial reason.

    Dave’s stearing all this baloney toward Obama’s administration is more wishful thinking on “The Nall’s” part.

    Gosh and golly forbid that what the current administration is doing with the economy might actually work. What then?

    Meanwhile, Dave keeps sending up these supposed “red flags” (pun intended,) which are really nothing more than red herrings, about how all of our rights are going down the tube. Believe me, comrades, when I say, nothing could be further from the truth.

    B

  • Ruvy

    Stan,

    Don’t you find it somewhat ironic that your role here seems more often than not to defend the perfidious Poms you’d rather laugh at?

    The interesting thing about the letters from the British Home Secretary are that they are sent to people who have no plans to go to the UK. While the US has banned many people for no good reason at all, the ban usually (but not always) occurs because the bannee wants in. Moshe Feiglin is a book seller in Israel with no desire to visit the UK. But he was banned from her soil.

    Stan, if I got such a letter, I call a press conference to announce it, and frame the damned thing. It’s be an honor to be banned from the UK, considering what it has done to us in the past, and considering how Jews are treated there these days.

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    I just find it bizarre that the UK government is accused by Dave of tyranny for banning a couple of people it obviously thinks are troublemakers, but there’s no mention anywhere of a government that now stands accused of real tyranny – some of which at a pinch might be seen to be justified considering the people it’s had to deal with – in regard to its recent conduct all around the world.

    I think I would have let Dave’s premise go and put it down to Americans getting their priorities wrong once again, except for the bit thrown in at the end about how Obama is going to take you down this route because that’s what the Poms have done.

    Also, I don’t see anything wrong with banning certain types of hate speech, or banning people who are going to stir up trouble that might result in others breaking the law as a result of it (indeed, the US Supreme Court has done just that in a de facto way in the past in a number of its rulings, particularly in regard to what might and might not constitute the limits of free speech as likely intended by the framers of the US Constitution).

    Rightly or wrongly, that is also the thinking of the British Home Office. They’ve also included a number of fundamentalist muslims on their list of the 16-least wanted.

    Christians don’t escape, either … If I understand correctly, Fred Phelps gets a guernsey too.

    Which kind of knocks Ruvy’s ridiculous argument about the British being jew-haters on the head as well.

    If they were, we’d likely be down here too … and we’re not.

    In regard to “hate-speech” … people have other rights that might mitigate this right in some cases – and that is the case in the US too. And Ruvy, of all people on here, should understand that.

    One of those is the right not to be the victim of people who break the law as a result of that hate speech. You know, we’re trying to stop a repeat of the kind of madness that erupted in Nazi Germany as a result of the free-speech right to vilify an entire community.

    The poms have taken thoat protection one step further: the right NOT to become a victim of prejudice and hysteria and NOT to be vilified, harassed, bullied or worse in your own country on the basis of sex, age, religion, lifestyle, etc.

    IMO this is also a basic, fundamental human right.

    B/tone’s right. Dave’s red flags are herrings and they’re are rotting, and are now a bit on the nostril.

    It’s also plainly obvious to me that in the US, where contrary to popular belief the right to free speech is not absolute, it’s OK in the public arena to have an opinion, provided it’s not different to the one your critic opposes.

    That is the bizarre thing about the US in regard to this. Prior to commenting on the internet on a range of issues and encountering many people from the US, I’d never experienced so many people spewing so much bile and spurious opinion.

    And Dave, I DID read the whole of your story before I commented.

    I know exactly why they do it, too: they’ve deported and silenced a number of fundamentalist, extremist muslims, some of whom believe in the veracity of jihad, and barred others from entering.

    The London public transport bombings are a classic example of why theyb do this.

    However, given Britain’s large muslim population, they must be seen to be fair on this so they’ve made their decisions to apply that thinking across the board.

    Make sense? It does to me.

    Your tying this in with Obama doesn’t.

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Ruvy: “Don’t you find it somewhat ironic that your role here seems more often than not to defend the perfidious Poms you’d rather laugh at?”

    I also stick up for Americans when they are copping unwarranted sprays from people who are making judgments based on personal but not very well thought out prejudice, rather than on experience and reality.

    On the Poms: I admire them from afar (from 13,000 miles afar), often begrudgingly I’ll admit. I lived there too as a boy for a few years remember, so I have some fond memories. Half my family is from the north of England, the other half from Ireland.

    I also have dual citizenship, which means I can visit the EU and stay anytime I want (unless I get on that Home Secretary’s list).

    Doesn’t mean I want to take up the mantle, but I do find this kind of stuff annoying.

    Really, they can ban who they want. I’d ban most of the people on that list of 16 too. At the very least, I’d hate to be sitting next some of them at a dinner party.

    I believe there about four others on it too whose names haven’t been released because the British government doesn’t want anyone to know what kind of intelligence it has on their activities.

    Remember Ruvy, the Poms are past masters at the spying game and intelligence gathering and if they don’t want someone on their soil, they’ll have a perfectly good reason for it.

    In some of these cases, their fear is incitement (directly or indirectly) to “inter-community” violence.

    Mr Savage may not fall into that category, or anywhere near it, but if they decide he can’t enter after some thought about the issue, they’ll have a reason that they consider is legit.

    Savage has redress through the courts if he’s worried about it.

    That might be the answer. Then we can all find out what the British government is up to.

  • Clavos

    Gosh and golly forbid that what the current administration is doing with the economy might actually work.

    Dream on.

    Are you living with Alice — through the looking glass?

    Have you not been paying attention to the stumbling around (and fruitless wasting of enormous quantities of our money) that the administration’s meddling in the auto business has accomplished?

    Sheesh.

    They can’t pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel!

    The auto companies are (were) just a tad more complicated than community outreach programs, but hey — he “won.”

    And the country lost.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I happen to agree. It seems nothing was accomplished except for the impression that “we’ve done all we could.”

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    It’s good that Stan called Dave out on this “bollocks” article. The US has banned many people for no substantial reason.

    I agree. And that supports my argument that the same thing is happening here, we just aren’t as conscious of it.

    Dave’s stearing all this baloney toward Obama’s administration is more wishful thinking on “The Nall’s” part.

    You really do live in a world of wishful delusion. Go out and READ some of the things Eric Holder has said. If you’re not concerned you’re not paying attention.

    Gosh and golly forbid that what the current administration is doing with the economy might actually work. What then?

    If the current economic programs work then I guess we should welcome an oppressive and monolithic state and be happy with it, right?

    Dave

  • Franco

    27 – STM

    “I know exactly why they do it, too: they’ve deported and silenced a number of fundamentalist, extremist muslims, some of whom believe in the veracity of jihad, and barred others from entering.

    The London public transport bombings are a classic example of why theyb do this.

    However, given Britain’s large muslim population, they must be seen to be fair on this so they’ve made their decisions to apply that thinking across the board.

    Make sense? It does to me.”

    No STM, it not only dose not make sense, it’s everything Dave said is was, and more.

    Do to some extremist Muslims in Britain whom believe in and practice the veracity of jihad, who rightfully must be banned (and I agree), how is it (1) not tyranny then when non-Muslims who are non-jihadists (being selected across the board) when they are put in the same terrorist classification as extremist Muslim Jihadist and them also banned for it. And (2) how is it justifiable for any reason, least of all so Britain will be seen as fair on this to Britain’s large muslim population, when in fact it only shows how unfair Britain is willing to be against freedom, all for the sake of appeasement to Muslims.

    The only thing this tells British Muslims is Britain is so intimidated by them that British offices are willing to go to the extreme of depriving freedom to law abiding people who are non-Muslim and who are non-jihadist all to keep Muslims happy because some of their brethren are insane.

    That’s about as tyrannical and fucked up as it gets STM, and the fact that you can not recognize it is disturbing to say the least.

  • Franco

    Prove it mate! Or except the fact and take it on the chin that liberals like you can’t get into the ring of ideas and debate and win.

  • STM

    You can only judge whether someone’s a “liberal” if they’re American and holding certain political views within the American experience.

    The label doesn’t apply elsewhere. I’m so far from being a liberal it’s not funny … but as usual, you’re so fixated on it you’re too thick to work it out.

    Like I say Franco, you’re full of the brown stuff.

  • Franco

    If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck I choose to call it a duck. However STM, you are free to call it what ever you choose and to even claime there are no ducks down under.

    Now if you what to continue to insist your not a duck, then prove it by dropping your unwillingness to get in the ring and prove I’m full of it, by defending your crack pot comments I highlighted and refuted in post #32.

    Otherwise, like I say STM, take it all on the chin mate!

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Franco, I can’t be bothered wasting my time, to tell you the truth.

    It’s you who is the crackpot old boy.

    I get the feeling that you’d be dangerous if you had half a brain.

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Seriously, Franco, I’m not here to “refute” every half-arsed, spurious and ill-thought-out comment posted in reply to comments I might happen to make.

    I have a view, and you’re welcome to yours. I don’t agree with it, but it’s yours and you own it, not me.

    It’s not up to me to prove or refute anything.

    In the meantime, try to take on board that the American experience of politics isn’t everyone’s.

    True, I might be what you’d consider “left” if you were to judge it from the (very skewed) right-wing American perspective of politics, but I’m no bleeding-heart liberal.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Stan,

    I haven’t answered you here because frankly, Technorati has been fucking up something awful lately. Eric Olsen had a great site, but he had to live by his wits. Now he has a job and his corporate bosses have told him to redo his site. So he and Phil Wynn have been working their asses off to reinvent the elegant wheel they had. Maybe this comment, sent in the dead of Ohio’s night, will get through.

    I’ve found most Aussies to be fellows who will give you a “fair go” as you like to say. If I weren’t a Jew, I’d have considered very seriously moving to Australia and chucking the US of A. But the mohel took his tip – or rather mine – and here I am in the Samarian mountains cause it’s cheaper by far than trying to get by in J-lem.

    But Pommies have a bad rep here. They made a basic promise in international law – that is what the Mandate was – and they broke that promise. And in doing so, they held Hitler’s coat for him while he murdered off millions of my co-religionists. There is no telling how many Jews would have come here alive if the Mandatory power had made the Hagana legal and told them to handle the Arabs for them so that Jews could immigrate and develop the country.

    But the experience of lots of Jews was that the average Brit didn’t particularly care for Jews. And now that the Moslems are shitting all over them on the home island, the Brits are afraid of the ones who are truly vicious and violent – the Moslems – just like they were in the Mandate. And they are bigoted against the Jews who are civilized – but who dare to believe they are the equal of the non-Jewish Brits.

    Hey Stan, don’t take my word for it. I know nothing on my own about what really goes on in Britain except what Brits in Israel tell me. Go read what Melanie Phillips has to say. She knows whereof she speaks.

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Ruve, we’ve been over this before …

    Let’s agree to disagree. Or at least, I’ll agree to disagree with you, and you can keep giving me a bollocking.

    I think the British did more good for the world than bad, and there were far wider issues at stake in the policies regardinmg The Mandate.

    Not least of which was, what if an Arab uprising, a stab in the back, had led to the defeat of Britain whilst she was battling Hitler’s legions in North Africa.

    If they’d been defeated, and the Germans had got the oil, that likely would have been the end of ALL jewry outside the New World. It would also have given them a leg up through Persia into the caucasus.

    It’s always good to look at these things from every angle. For that reason, while they went back on their word, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see why.

    IMO, Jews should be thanking them for not caving in to Nazi tyranny (and a lot who don’t look at this in so one-eyed a fashion actually do, even if they feel terrible anger about the Holocaust).

    Whatever the case – it’s become a circular argument … which is also the reason I refuse to engage Franco here, because he doesn’t want a debate, he wants to tell me what’s right.

    And I still say: lay the blame squarely at the feet of Nazi Germany, where it belongs, because without Hitler, we probably wouldn’t even be discuissing any of this right now.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/jordan-richardson/ Jordan Richardson

    Franco, whereabouts is this ring of ideas of which you speak? I heard once it was in South Dakota, but I haven’t been able to verify that.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Alright Stan,

    We’ll agree to disagree. When I cite this stuff in future, it will not be aimed at you so much as a recitation of history.

    I promise you though, that I’ll never call you a liberal. I know better. I may say you are liberal with beer, or liberal with money, or liberal with banter – but I’ll never call you a liberal. I suspect that a nastier insult might not be found.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I think you should all lay off poor Franco. He’s already foaming at the mouth as we speak, unable to form simple English sentences, becoming incoherent.

    You don’t want a casualty on your hands, do you now?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’ve got it wrong, Jordan. It’s in a dungeon for trolls.

    Franco is quite at home there, a real homeboy and an old-time favorite.

    I wouldn’t recommend stepping into that ring.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Roger,

    Franco suffers from dyslexia. You should cut him some slack on that point if nowhere else.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Franco et al,

    The reason Stan’s so, um, amused at being called a liberal is that the Liberal Party in Australia are actually the conservatives.

    Just imagine if the Democrats here decided they needed a name change and settled on The Conservative Party, and you’ll get some idea of the illogicality of it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    No wonder Stan almost hit the roof.

    Give yourself a solid uppercut, Franco, straight to the chin.

  • STM

    Either way, I’m still not what Americans would call a “liberal”. Despite having views that are normal in this country but would have me branded a real leftie in the US, I don’t like namby-pamby liberalism as expreienced in America.

    The good thing about OZ is that it understands that the left has a right wing and can be very conservative.

    You can believe in universal health care, workers rights and still believe in free-market capitalism and tearing terrorists a new arsehole.

  • Franco

    “Franco, whereabouts is this ring of ideas of which you speak? I heard once it was in South Dakota, but I haven’t been able to verify that.”

    This arena is wherever the ideas of liberty and justice take a stand against the ideas of tyranny (in whatever from it is being disguised as in today’s world politics), which is what this opinion piece right here on BC is about, and was specifically what my comment in post #32 was about, which no one has yet been willing to address, including you Jordon. But then again, and quite frankly, you already know all of this.

    So your making derisive comments about such matters in the manner you have only shows your avoidance of this arena too, for your own reasons. While I can support your liberty to be able to walk away from it as you have Jordon, even though I do not respect you for doing so, be careful trying to claim you don’t know where it is, because that makes you entirely something else again.

  • Daniel Turissini

    Torturing people and not adhering to the Geneva convention? What’s your definition of torture? 30 seconds of waterboarding and sleep deprivation?

    Have you read the Geneva convention? People love to say we’re breaking it, but read Article 4 of it and tell me if the Geneva convention applies to any of these idiots. Will you bother going through the trouble? I bet you won’t, but if you don’t, stop spreading misinformation.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Were we talking about torture?

    Yes, Daniel, I read Article 4. How about, though, Article 3?

    Whoops…

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Still going on the old British tyrants theme eh?

    I’ve forgotten what set Dave off now but I must say, the fact that a newspaper was able to expose the misuse of politicians’ expenses by applying for the specific details in six cases through Britain’as Freedom of Information Act (in fact just the fact they’ve got one of those is a clue as to the nonsense of Dave’s argument) is a great pointer to the fact that Britain is still one of the world’s most progressive liberal democracies – and contrary to American belief, the first.

    If info obtained through lawas made possible by an Act of Parliament, having been pursued by a newspaper, can then be used by that newspaper to drum up enough public outrage to shame MPs on both sides of the house (and possibly bring down a government), then I’d say there’s no finer example of Britain NOT heading towards tyranny … no going anywhere near it.

    I’d say Americans need to look at their nation’s own actions of late if they need a reality check on that score … who the real tyrants have been.