Monday, October 24, 2011

British Conservative leader not very conservative -- like an American RINO

(He even runs his own Thought Police)

By Peter Hitchens

Two Tory MPs are so scared of David Cameron’s pro-EU thought police that they have hidden their identities when giving radio interviews on the subject.

One said that wanting to leave the EU was ‘the love that dare not speak its name’. The other attacked Mr Cameron’s broken pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Both knew that the Tory whips would destroy them if their names became known.

So their words were spoken by actors, as if they were dissidents in some foreign dictatorship.

This extraordinary behaviour, broadcast on BBC Radio 4’s ultra-respectable Analysis programme, tells you all you need to know about the Conservative Party’s real position on Brussels, and plenty of other things.

For of course, this isn’t just about boring old Brussels. The EU is symbolic of all the other great issues that divide Mr Cameron from Tory voters - mass immigration, crime, disorder, education, marriage and morals.

I have known since I first spotted him trying to weaken the anti-drug laws that Mr Cameron was not a conservative. I have spoken to former colleagues who have concluded that he believes in nothing at all, but I think it is much worse than that. I think he is an active, militant elite liberal, who despises our country and its people, just as much as any Islington Marxist does.

What I could never understand was how so many men and women with the usual complement of eyes, ears and brains (and nostrils) managed to fool themselves so completely about him.

How many times did I read weighty commentators (weighty because of the huge number of lunches they had eaten with their political insider chums) proclaiming that Mr Cameron was a ‘sound Eurosceptic’? Or that he had ‘deep conservative instincts’? I seem to remember one such even praising his cricket.

Well, it was bunkum and balderdash, wasn’t it? I wouldn’t know about his cricketing skills, but his performance on the EU issue has been dishonest and treacherous from the start.

I still remember the look of rabbit-like fear on his smooth face on the day he broke his pledge of a Lisbon referendum. He was too cowardly to take a question from me, while that pathetic burst balloon, William Hague, sat silent in the front row of the press conference, endorsing his chief’s poltroonery.

But still the Tory loyalists wouldn’t see it, fooling themselves with a babyish dream that Mr Cameron had a secret plan, that once in office he would tear off his outer garments and reveal himself as SuperCam, a real patriot and conservative.

Well, now he has torn off his outer garments, ordered his cringing followers to vote against an EU referendum and revealed that he is in fact the reincarnation of Ted Heath, the man who betrayed Britain to Brussels and got his way by bullying and shameless dishonesty.

Nobody is making him do this. It is his own true self speaking.


New British drive to speed up adoption

Nasty British social workers chase off nine out of 10 potential adopters by grilling them as if they were terrorists

David Cameron will within days launch a new drive to make adoption simpler and speedier and to improve the educational opportunities for children in care. The blueprint will see local authorities which perform badly in placing children with adoptive parents being named and shamed – as well as plans to boost the funding given to children in care as they progress through school and to university.

The initiative comes after the Prime Minister pledged to remove barriers to adoption in his speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester this month, describing the fact that just 60 babies under the age of one were adopted last year out of 3,600 in care as a "scandal."

The move has been fast tracked on the urging of Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, who was adopted at fourth months old by a family in Aberdeen. Ministers are to adopt a "twin track" approach, including a new campaign to get more parents to consider adopting.

Mr Gove has already put fresh guidelines in place to ensure social workers allow white families to adopt black and mixed-race children and ensure that single people and older people are not barred from adopting.

Councils will have do report on their success in placing children in new households more regularly and more transparently – with the threat of publicly identifying the worst-performing authorities.

Ministers will impose a fixed limit of six months for a child's care proceedings to be sorted out. Currently the average time between a child being taken into care and being adopted is two years and seven months, a period ministers regard as being "unacceptably long."

The coalition is also considering radical proposals designed to help children who spend periods in care do better at school.

Moves to boost the pupil premium – extra money given to schools for the poorest children – for children who spend time in care, and to reduce their tuition fees if they go to university, are likely to be put out to public consultation. At the moment, only 19 per cent of "looked after children" (defined as those that spend some time in care) achieve five GCSEs with grades A* to C, compared with 70 per cent of all children.

They also go on to achieve worse A-level results and fewer university places – as well as being more likely to be involved in crime and alcohol abuse.

Department for Education data shows 27,310 children were taken into care during the year ending 31 March 2011, down from 28,090 the previous year. There was also a fall in the number of looked-after children placed for adoption from 2,720 in 2007 to 2,450.

In his conference speech Mr Cameron said: "I can announce a new focus on the 65,000 children in care. "Do you know how many children there are in care at the age of one? 3,660. And how many children under the age of one were adopted in our country last year? 60.

"This may not seem like the biggest issue facing our country, but it's the biggest issue for these children. How can we have let this happen? "With the right values and the right effort, let's end this scandal and help these, the most vulnerable children of all."


London's new churches: dynamic, superstitious and obsessed with money

Earlier this week, a disturbing headline appeared in my Twitter feed. “Church HIV prayer cure claims 'cause three deaths’,” it read. There was a link to the BBC website, but even before I clicked through I knew I would find the word “Nigerian”.

According to a leading HIV doctor, three women have died after attending London churches that told them to stop taking antiretroviral drugs. The news story singled out the Synagogue Church of All Nations (SCOAN), whose UK headquarters are in Southwark. Its website displays a photograph with the caption: “Mrs Badmus proudly displays her two different medical records confirming she is 100 per cent free from HIV-Aids following the prayer of Pastor T B Joshua.”

This being the politically correct Beeb, however, there was no discussion of the background to the story. Nigerian and other West African churches are the most vibrant expression of Christianity in Britain. Indeed, they’re so bursting with vitality that they buy up disused cinemas and warehouses (sometimes to the alarm of residents – there have been protests about “pop-up” West African churches). The Kingsway International Christian Centre (KICC) has a congregation of 12,000 every Sunday.

West African evangelists claim to be able to cast out demons and cure the dying. They also predict the imminent return of the Lord. A warning to Islingtonians who think a Nigerian pastor might spice up a supper party: don’t invite a gay couple unless you’re comfortable with the word “sodomy” thundering across the bruschetta. On the other hand, you wouldn’t want an early Christian on the guest list, either, since they shared the same beliefs about disease (curable by miracles), homosexuality (unspeakable) and Armageddon (coming soon).

But there’s also a distinctly un-biblical side to the new Christianity spreading across London. It’s obsessed with money. It’s not unusual for a Nigerian mega-pastor to own a jet: Bishop David Oyedepo of the Living Faith World Outreach Ministry owns four and is worth $150 million, according to Forbes. Temitope (also known as T B) Joshua recently donated $20 million to charity, which would be impressive if his “charity” didn’t include bogus Aids cures. Forbes claims that Matthew Ashimolowo of KICC earns a salary of more than £150,000, “but his real wealth comes from business interests, including his media company”.

Some smaller Nigerian churches are also on the radar of London’s social services because they incorporate the “exorcism” of child witchcraft into their teachings, which can have dreadful consequences. According to a social worker contact, some local authority employees belong to these churches themselves and view society through the prism of semi-Christian spirit beliefs.

Why don’t we hear more about this? Imagine the hysteria if this were white American Christian fundamentalism. But, because these are black-led churches, the media report the situation nervously and inadequately. Not that the Right is any more interested: it’s preoccupied with the excesses of Islam.

In the long run, however, we’ll pay dearly for our polite indifference. I don’t want to caricature the faith of West African Christians, but it’s a simple fact that it focuses intensely on “God-given prosperity” (ie making money) and spirit possession. And, if trends continue, it will soon overtake the mainstream churches as the dominant expression of Christianity in this country. That raises the real prospect of Christians and Muslims joining forces in a culture war on degenerate British society. What will happen then?


'Reality Shows' Distort the Real World

Networks hungry for viewers know the cheapest way to nab eyeballs is to produce a "reality show" with no stars and often uber-sleazy, supposedly-unscripted-but-in-reality-very-scripted content. But in the rush for the prized 18-49 adult viewers, what about the millions of youngsters, the audience aged 11 to 17, who are also lured into the soup?

The Girl Scout Research Institute recently surveyed 1,000 girls in that age bracket and found these children aren't clueless. Everyone surveyed thought reality shows promote bad behavior: 86 percent felt the shows often set people against one another to increase the dramatic value; 73 percent thought reality shows depict fighting as a normal part of a romantic relationship; and 70 percent believed that reality TV leads people to believe it acceptable to mistreat each other.

So the youngsters see through the mud? Not exactly. Here's the rub: 75 percent said that competition shows (like "American Idol") and 50 percent of "real-life" shows like MTV's "Jersey Shore" are "mainly real and unscripted." They may not find the antics admirable, but they see them as real. For them, it is a mirror of what awaits them in the "real world" when they grow up.

What kind of "unscripted" sludge are teenagers watching on "Jersey Shore"? A new episode finds the cast taking their alcohol-drenched misbehavior to Italy (so much for "unscripted"). Deena desperately wants Pauly D. to "do sex" with her, which causes Pauly to go trolling through nightclubs looking for a one-night-stand alternative. Does this sound like a show for 11 year olds? (set ital) Of course not. (end ital) Presumably, the producers would argue: Our show is aimed at an adult audience. But millions of middle schoolers watch, too.

Pauly can't find an adequate partner, so back at the MTV-rented villa, Deena is drunk and telling Pauly "I'm a good f**k! And I have no shame!" With all the tenderness you'd expect from "Jersey Shore," Pauly replies, "Deena, I would knock the dust off that ... if we weren't friends."

The New York Daily News recap explained: "The next morning, Deena and Snooki decide to drown their sorrows -- or at least the memory of their sorrows -- with a day (and night!) of binge drinking, meatball grinding and showing strangers how to do the 'Jersey turnpike' dance move. If you don't know it, look it up. Not at work."

You shouldn't look it up at work because that would be inappropriate. But your sixth-grader can watch it on basic cable. Not only that, but with Halloween coming, your kids can buy the trick-or-treat costumes to imitate them. Last year, MTV proudly displayed a photo of what looked like second-graders dressed like their channel's promiscuous drunks. Their headline read, "These Jersey Shore Halloween Costumes Make Us Proud."

The "reality" shows featuring young people with no discernible talents whatsoever has also led to a distorted and unhealthy view of fame. The GSRI study asked girls 11 to 17 if they expect to be famous. One in 4 think so.

So how does one achieve this fame? Here's where the damage from the "reality show" is documented. Two very different worldviews emerged when the sample was divided into regular viewers of reality TV and non-viewers. On the statement: "You have to lie to get what you want," 37 percent of regular viewers of reality TV shows agreed versus 24 percent of non-viewers. On "Being mean earns you more respect than being nice," 37 percent of viewers agreed versus a fourth of non-viewers. On the notion, "You have to be mean to others to get what you want," 28 percent of reality viewers agreed, compared to 18 percent of non-viewers.

This is what networks like MTV are achieving. Regular viewers of reality TV accept and expect a higher level of drama, aggression and bullying in their own lives. The study found that 78 percent of regular viewers agreed that "gossiping is a normal part of a relationship between girls," compared with 54 percent of non-viewers. Sixty-eight percent agreed that "it's in girls' nature to be catty and competitive with one another," while only 50 percent of non-viewers thought so.

Obviously, not all reality shows promote societal disfunctionality (though I'm hard-pressed to find an exception on MTV). Some are positive and truly inspirational by design, such as "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition." And before the cynics pipe in to say that "the market" demands the raunchy, let us underscore that shows like "Extreme Makeover" can be wildly successful commercial ventures as well. So it follows that the reverse of the present "reality show" poisoning is also possible. What would happen if these reality shows were to promote decency, chivalry, honesty, respect, manners, modesty, beauty, innocence, goodness, and fortitude?

It would all sell.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: