Nah, it’s Devil’s Kitchen, who’s now apparently moved from libertarian Euronihilism to ethnic cleansing. (I say ethnic because I’m going to assume that ‘Muslim’ in this context means Arabs; it would be a little difficult to deal thus with an entire religious group that includes white converts, Africans, South-East Asians and those from the subcontinent as well. Best stick to what you know.)
No, silly boy: when I said "Muslims", what I meant was—and I know it might be difficult to grasp this—"Muslims"; that is, people who follow the religion of Islam. Richard Reid was, as I recall, not an Arab and I believe that there is at least one British convert amongst the current crop of failed bombers. I'll reiterate this for the hard-of-distinguishing-between-an-involuntary-skin-colour-and-a-voluntary-belief-in-a-mediaeval-creed: when I say Muslim, I mean Muslim, not Arab. I have nothing for or against Arabs particularly whereas I consider (most strains) of Islam to be an abhorrent religion. And whilst we are about it, I am an atheist: I think all religions are stupid, but Islam is stupid and repulsive; the reasons why I think this have been laid out in innumerable posts on this blog.
Some more Jawbox delight [emphasis mine]:
Tempting though it is, I won’t delve into the realms of whether or not DK called for the tagging and deportation of all Catholics during the IRA’s mainland bombing campaigns (remember that one, when theologically-driven people blew stuff up on a fairly regular basis?) - although for consistency’s sake I very much hope he did.
Hmmm, I don't think that I was blogging at the time although, as I recall, Irish people did used to get a hard time when entering the country and tended to be monitored for a while. I would certainly support such a thing, yes. There has to be a trade-off between security and personal liberalism: yes, yes, I'm starting to sound like NuLabour, blah. No. All sensible people accept this trade-off: the only point of discussion is the positioning of the line, as it were.
However, I am glad to know that the IRA was theologically motivated because—silly me—I had always thought the IRA was politically motivated. You know, they used to bang on about a "united Ireland" or something like that. But if Ben says that they were theologically motivated then I'll just have to take his word for it, I guess.
Oh, no. No, I don't think I will. Don't be a fuckwit, Ben; there was bugger all theological motivation. The IRA has taken several forms, including the present Provisional IRA, but all of them were politically motivated.
Since [the Provisional IRA's] emergence in 1969, its stated aim has been the overthrow of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and their replacement by sovereign socialist all-island Irish state.
See anything religious there, Ben. No, didn't think so.
Ben then derives amusement from my use of the phrase "liberal, secular way of life" which is all well and good (though he might have noticed that it is one that echoes Tim Garton-Ash's phrase).
Indeed - seeing as DK must be fully aware that his original idea was so ridiculously unworkable as to be amusing - he wouldn’t have written it if he was interested in anything other than showing how incredibly masculine he is, something he comprehensively demonstrates:
[cue a nice selection of swearing distilled, and neatly divorced, from any post content: much like Davy-baby did] It's a pity that some people just don't get this blog, do they? I have said before that if you want nuanced debate then go somewhere else: at The Kitchen you'll get knee-jerk reactions, swearing and, most pertinently, me working out my anger over the wires.
In reality, this kind of crap is just the tip of a very poisonous iceberg. Viciously right-wing attitudes are no longer the embarrassment they were not a decade or two ago.
Really? And what "right-wing" views are these? Or are you referring to "right-wing" in the same way that people refer to the patently left-wing but admittedly racist BNP as right-wing? But what really makes me grit my teeth in rage is that "left-wing" views are considered in any way acceptable; that people think that it's "cool" to wear a Che Guevara t-shirt or even—I can hardly believe it—cite the evil, mass-murdering fucker as their hero; that people, mainly privileged schoolchildren and students have a poster of Lenin because, like the Che image, it's "iconic".
I find it disgusting that Communism has not been as thoroughly denounced as Nazism has; it says an awful lot about our attitude that Seamus Milne can write an article which is, essentially, a defense of Communism (which was pulled apart by a number of people): can you imagine the reaction if someone wrote an article defending the Nazis? It could—in imitation of Milne's—go something like this:
But Nazism had its plus sides when compared to the other great totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century; Nazism and the Second World War—which, it is now generally accepted, was caused by Hitler—may have been responsible for the deaths of 50 million people, but compare that to Communism. Estimates vary wildly, but it seems likely that Mao Zedong was responsible for the death of roughly 70 million, Stalin an impressive 23 million and Pol Pot a measly 6 million. Even so, it is easy to see that in terms of raw deaths, Nazism was almost twice as beneficial than Communism.
In reality, this kind of crap is just the tip of a very poisonous iceberg. Viciously left-wing attitudes have never been the embarrassment that they should have been. Ben then goes on to essentially say that the government are really right-wing, blah, blah, flubble, blimp. Ben, this government is as left wing as you like; socialist governments like control; indeed, they have to have it for very obvious reasons.
Still, I'm bored now: I might gang up with Worstall and some other CiF lurkers and really spew some bile...