Wednesday, 30 December 2015

Why Prince Charles (and William) Should See Cabinet Papers

It has recently come to the attention of the media that the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge routinely receive confidential Cabinet papers, to keep them up-to-date on the workings of the Government. Yes, the Government that will one day act in each of their names. Literally. 'His Majesty's Government'.

Cue the predictable outcry from the usual suspects, arguing that it is undemocratic that unelected Princes should be privy to confidential Government documents. Of course it's undemocratic. We have a constitutional monarchy, not a presidential republic, you imbeciles.

We have an unelected head of state, where the office passes down by lineal descent. We know, therefore, barring a huge change in circumstances, who our next head of state will be, and the next, and the next. It is entirely reasonable, under those circumstances, for the future incumbents to be schooled in what the job entails, so that when the time comes, the transition will be as smooth as possible. The criticism is not, therefore, that the future heirs to the throne have privileged access to the workings of the Government, but that we have a throne at all.

Well, that's silly, isn't it? Firstly because, if we were to have a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy, it would lose by a landslide. The vast majority of the UK population support the monarchy and its continuance. The institution of the monarchy enjoys de facto democratic consent, therefore any argument that it is undemocratic is faintly ridiculous while there continues to be such high public support for its continuance.

Secondly, constitutional monarchy is the most stable and balanced form of government known to man. It provides democratic accountability through an elected legislature balanced with a check on radicalism through the monarchy. It also provides a figurehead which the entire nation looks up to and cleaves to. Humans are tribal creatures, and most need the sense that they belong to something greater than themselves. Monarchy provides that. Constitutional monarchies are far more likely to be rich and prosperous and far less likely to be prone to political crises.

So stop moaning about the fact that the future Kings have access to the workings of the Government that will act in their name. Christ, it'd be a hideous oversight if they didn't.

Monday, 14 December 2015

More Girl Action Figures Needed... Apparently

Just finished reading this bizarre piece on the BBC website which, in keeping with the new feminist tradition of bleating about utterly nonsensical things, maintains that there aren't enough girl action figures, which is, you know, sexist.

Of course, there's a really, really, really fucking obvious reason why there aren't as many girl action figures as boy ones. It's the same reason why there's more Barbie dolls than Ken dolls.

Action figures are bought primarily by or for boys. As boys are the majority consumer of said action figures, rather unsurprisingly, action figure manufacturers focus their marketing at that demographic. And in another stunning development, most boys do not enjoy playing with action figures of girls.

Who fucking knew?

Likewise, dolls tend to be consumed primarily by girls. Hence they are marketed at girls. Hence they are virtually all female with pretty dresses. That's not sexism - that's marketing, you throbbers. And before you go on about gender stereotyping (blah, blah, blah, blah, blah) has it occurred to you that most girls like playing with dolls and boys like playing with action figures because it's in their nature, not because of the nasty and (fictitious) social construct of gender? You dipshits?

Oh, and by the way, gender is a biological difference, not a social construct. Otherwise, behavioural differences wouldn't be manifest in virtually every animal species on the planet. Except they are. Quite why idiot feminists think humans are different when we've evolved from the same fucking pool of muck is beyond me.

Friday, 11 December 2015

Cultural Appropriation? Don't Make Me Laugh

Cultural appropriation is one of those silly, meaningless terms bandied about by hare-brained Leftards in their perpetual quest to Not Cause Offence (tm). The argument goes that if you not a member of a particular minority, then you are Not Allowed to use any symbols, icons, artefacts, concepts or language which pertain to that minority. So, because I am white, I am Not Allowed to wear a Native American head-dress, or an African mask, or learn to speak Japanese, because if I do, it smacks of colonialism, and I might offend Native Americans, Africans or Japanese.

What. Utter. Shit. Does that mean to say that black men are Not Allowed to wear business suits, because they are culturally reserved for white people? Don't be fucking ridiculous.

Yet again, idiotic mongs miss the point entirely. If you're going to have a 'multicultural' society, then surely it is better for all members of society to be equally involved in and familiar with all aspects of that multiculturalism? And that means sharing, merging and enriching each other's culture by borrowing bits from everyone else's. That's perfectly natural, normal and will lead to healthier, happier relationships between communities which are able to relate to each other much better.

The alternative is ghettoising ourselves, and reinforcing the virtual apartheid which causes such racial and cultural tensions in the first place, where every little demographic is pigeon-holed, and needs their own little 'safe space' where they can talk to people just like them. All this results in is grievance, envy and tension, but Leftards fucking love that, don't they? Because then some people are 'oppressed', and they have a cause that they can champion, going out and waving their placards, sticking it to 'The Man' and making themselves feel important.

Wankers. Here's a good deal. I have absolutely no problem with anyone from any minority, be it ethnic, religious or cultural, listening to classical music, wearing a suit, appreciating da Vinci, reading Shakespeare or any of the other great cultural accomplishments of Western society. Good on them. By the same count, what's to stop me having an ornamental katana on my windowsill, learning to speak a foreign language or wearing a Native American head-dress, if I particularly felt like it?

Stop being offended by stuff that doesn't matter. You fucking asswipes.

Thursday, 10 December 2015

Trump, Fury and Banning Things

We've had two newsworthy comments in the past few days, one from Tyson Fury, the new Heavyweight Boxing Champion, who made some apparently sexist and misogynistic comments about women, and Donald Trump, the leading in the race to become the US Republican Party's Presidential Candidate, who stated that all Muslims should be banned from coming to the US, at least temporarily.

Not unsurprisingly, these comments have caused a fair bit of angst and noise. They appear to be utterly ludicrous. But what also strikes me as utterly ludicrous is the proposition that they should be disqualified from competing or even barred from entering the UK on the basis of these comments.

I'm sorry, what?

I know precisely what you're thinking: he's banging on about free speech again. And you're right. I am. Because it's really, really, really fucking important. Tyson Fury and Donald Trump should be free to say whatever ridiculous things pop into their minds, as should everybody else, short of defamation or incitement. And the reason why is simple: if speech and expression are not free, then they require policing. In which case, who is it that gets to decide what is or is not acceptable?

Whoever would be charged with such a duty would wield tremendous power - the power to control language, which shapes ideas, underpins culture, politics, our institutions, our very society. A person or organisation who held such power, in effect, controls thought and behaviour. And I personally think that's too much power for anyone to hold.

This is yet another sinister manifestation of authoritarianism from the Perpetually Offended, who seem to think they have a God-given right to go through life without ever experiencing any level of unpleasantness or discomfort. Newsflash, fucksticks: you don't. Nobody does. The vast majority of your discomfort caused by things people say isn't caused by offence - it's caused by cognitive dissonance, that horrible nagging feeling that you might be wrong. It is phenomenally important that your ideas (and mine) are constantly challenged, because they might actually be wrong. Less so in my case, obviously, because I'm not a screwloose Leftard.

It is quite bleeding obvious that Donald Trump and Tyson Fury are talking utter bollocks. The correct way to deal with their arguments is not to demand their censorship, but to confront those arguments and highlight how utterly preposterous they are.

And before you bang on about how these opinions, utterly bonkers though they are, constitute incitement, don't be fucking stupid. Donald Trump has not said that all Muslims should be murdered, has he? Tyson Fury has not suggested that women deserve a good rape. THAT would be incitement - actively encouraging others to go out and commit violence against others. So they are in no way morally equivalent to hate preachers who suggest that homosexuals, apostates, non-believers and women who complain to the police about forced or under-age marriage should be murdered.

They're not evil, just phenomenally dumb.

Wednesday, 2 December 2015

ISIS, Syria, Iraq and Other Assorted Issues

We once more find ourselves upon the brink. A debate is taking place in the House of Commons today, and there will be a vote tonight, on whether to authorise military operations against the Islamic State terrorist organisation in Syria. Note, we are already engaged in military operations against them in Iraq.

My opinion on this is that we should bomb the fuck out of them. Here's why:

  1. ISIS are a despicable bunch of fascist pigs. They behead civilian prisoners, throw homosexuals off buildings, stone rape victims, sexually enslave women and children and engage in mass murder the likes of which the world has not seen on this scale since the 1940s. They are our enemy, and the enemy of anyone who stands for decency, freedom and the rule of law;
  2. They are ideologically opposed to our existence. Their stated aim is to establish a global caliphate, a theological Islamic dictatorship where all other religions are prohibited, and society is policed according to their fundamentalist interpretation of the Quran. They are actively seeking to destroy the United Kingdom and our allies;
  3. They have already attacked France. The despicable murder of over 130 innocent people in Paris shows just what these medieval thugs are capable of, and the depths to which they will stoop. France is our closest military ally and has stood with us in both World Wars. They have requested our assistance, and we should not abandon our friends when they need us;
  4. We are already engaged in military action against them in Iraq, but due to our observance of an artificial, obsolete and irrelevant border, we cannot attack them in Syria. To imply that we will somehow provoke an attack by engaging them in Syria is ludicrous. We're either already provoking them, or they need no such provocation, because they're murdering bastards;
  5. We bring something to the party. The RAF is one of the best air forces in the world, and our precision weapons, including drones and targeted missiles, can cause considerable damage to specific targets whilst minimising loss of innocent lives. We will be able to contribute to the military campaign significantly, and hopefully help to tip the scales against them;
  6. They cannot be negotiated or bargained with. They are fundamentalist, totalitarian, fascist extremists. They are morally indistinguishable from the Nazis. I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but in this case, it is justified. There's no reasoning with these fuckers. They are hateful, vicious, nihilistic bastards, and the sooner they are put in the ground, the better off we'll be;
  7. They have already advanced significantly beyond a mere terrorist group. They control vast swathes of territory in both Iraq and Syria. They have their own flag and government, they are issuing their own currency. Whether we like it or not, they are making their dream of an Islamic State a reality. And it is now time to shatter that reality.
Is military action the panacea solution? Of course not - ultimately, a political solution will have to be hammered out in the Middle East. But I'm damn sure that ISIS are not part of that solution - they're part of the problem. They need getting rid of first, and once the dust has settled, then the talks can begin.

Will this lead to mission creep and boots on the ground? Most likely, yes. We - and other Western powers, and probably Russia as well - will probably have to occupy Syria and Iraq for an extended period of time, most likely decades, to see this through. Once we have deprived them of territory and resources and destroyed their training bases then we will be safer.

Is this the only front we'll have to fight on? No - ISIS are pernicious in how they spread their vile ideology, and it needs confronting at home as well as abroad. We'll have to become, by necessity, censorious of them - closing down their websites, social media accounts, propaganda outlets, and prosecute people who advocate and support them.

Will it lead to innocent civilian casualties? Most likely - some loss of innocent life will be unavoidable. But when it comes to decisions of war and peace, we must weigh these in the balance. More people WILL die if we do nothing. Our way of life, our very civilisation, is threatened by this fundamentalist ideological cancer, and like that vile pestilence, they are spreading. The only solution is to blast them, and cut them out.

The road will be long and bloody. Many people will die before this is done. But ultimately, we are faced with a choice - do we tolerate evil, or do we confront and destroy it? The dark spectre of fascism has once more reared its head. We know that there is only one response to it. We must, on behalf of our children, and our children's children, pitch ourselves against this vile force and destroy it utterly, lest the world be plunged back into a dark age of despotism, brutality and superstition which should have been consigned to history centuries ago.

Enough is enough. Kill the fuckers.