Tuesday, 25 December 2007

Saturday, 22 December 2007


Supermarket of Sedition


Effete purveyor of goods and services, Waitrose is the consumer choice of pointy-headed liberal relativists and ivory tower elitists.

Its aisles jammed with expensive beverages and hilariously ethnic foodstuffs, it is here that the chattering classes that constitute the Academic/Media Complex gather to bray their contempt for the working man, before engaging in sordid bottom-based activities and mass golden showers.

Sample shopping list

Anti-Semitic Pizza
Non-Israeli organic olives

Muscular Liberals disdain the fare available at the effeminate retailers, preferring to shop at Aldi with proletarian credibility while shunning all those branded with The Mark of Waitrose.

See also Liberal Dinner Party, What's Left?

Muscular Taxonomy

Know Your Decency
A Regular Series

#1 The Working Class Superhero

A titan of authenticity, the Working Class Superhero speaks for his entire social stratum with invincible moral authority, his every pronouncement a testament to the hard-learned wisdom of generations of ordinary Britons.

Appearing in public, onlookers gasp in astonishment at his amazing feats of humbleness, as he holds forth on who is and is not Tory filth, liberal scum, middle class vermin or fascist bastards.

Using the boundless power of his proletarian bona fides, the Superhero defends New Labour, the beloved blue-collar tribunes of the people, from relentless attacks by an unstoppable tide of chardonnay-swilling liberal elitists and ivory tower intellectuals. Armed with only five cursewords and a hideously repellent personality, the Superhero lays waste to the Waitrose-shopping moral relativists who seek to crush the plebians beneath their perfumed heel.

For intellectual sustenance, the Superhero turns to those rough-handed sons of toil Christopher Hitchens and Martin Amis, hanging rapt upon their every word. No matter where they go, they can be sure that the faithful Superhero will be on hand to protect them from hordes of bruschetta-munching hatemongers.

Even when Hitchens finds himself in darkened basements calling for torture and perpetual war, the Superhero will be huffing close behind, all clattering pots and pans, crying "I don't know where you're goin', Mister 'Itchens, but I'm comin' with you!" like some kind of mentally impaired, modern day Sam Gamgee.

For the Working Class Superhero, all considerations are secondary to the need to kill fascists, a term he defines so broadly that it encompasses roughly 60% of the planet's population. Naturally, the Superhero is content to delegate the actual fascist-killing to others, preferring to direct operations from the rear.

In the wider movement of Muscular Liberalism, the Superhero is the lone wolf, the loose cannon, even moved to deny his own Decency on occasion. The deception fools no-one, however, for the Superhero's perpetual hissy-fits and generalised condemnations prove that you can take the man out of Decency, but you can't take the Decency out of the man.

Friday, 21 December 2007

Nobody Could've Predicted

Rhetorical Ploy

Noh-Baw-Day Coo-Duv Preh-Dick-Ted

Risky yet potentially fruitful rhetorical gambit, whereby one asserts that the failures of certain foreign policy clusterfucks have been caused by astonishing, unforseeable acts of barbarity and random chance.

Amazing, utterly unprecedented occurrences that can be cited include -

Who would've thought that a modern military force could be stalemated by a committed insurgency? I mean, has this ever happened before?

Nobody could've predicted that demolishing a nation's civil structure would lead to lawlessness and looting...

I'm dumbfounded that an invasion and occupation of a country by a superpower would be met with foreign interference. It's totally unprecedented.

Jesus, if you'd told me five years ago that the Republicans would pack the CPA with clueless partisans and use the war as an excuse to loot the Federal Treasury, I would've called you a fascist and a twat... It's just unbelievable.

I could never have guessed that the US would respond to an invisible insurgency with brutal, overwhelming acts of demonstrative violence - I don't want to think about it too hard now, in case my wife has to wipe my exploded brains off my monitor.

These rhetorical gambits are useful when adressing the slow-witted, but may founder if accidentally presented to a pro-fascist familiar with the history of Vietnam or Afghanistan.

If caught out, immediately switch topic to the plight of Iranian Bus Drivers.

If pressed, it may be necessary to concede ground - see Mea Culpa Sed Tu Quoque Ad Maximum.

Monday, 17 December 2007




1. Person prepared to throw him or herself to the floor, abjectly begging forgiveness for his or her personal failings, religious and political beliefs, habits, friends and acquaintances.

Someone who accepts that he or she is entirely wrong and is willing to apologise for the manifest crimes of his or her entire political, religious or ethnic group, to whom one can thus reach out.

"What can we do when there are so few moderates with whom to engage?"

Case Law

Proceedings of the Court of Decency

Session 2007/08 CoD 33

Professor Geras vs. Your Intelligence

An interesting case just placed before the court, in which the plaintiff, Professor Geras, attacks the defendant, Your Intelligence, by extrapolating from an anecdotal account.

The facts of the case are clear -

1) That some guy with a website had that Kenneth Roth, director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), in the back of his Decent Taxi, wherein he did single out the Americans for special treatment, to whit -

2) That, in the back of some guy's Decent Taxi, Roth did categorically and maliciously state that American human rights violations will encourage nasty regimes to violate international law.

3) Hence, that in the back of some guy's Decent Taxi, Roth did state that America should be held to a higher standard than other nations. Thus -

C) Kenneth Roth is guilty of the crime of moral equivalence by effectively stating that it is more acceptable for tyrannical regimes to violate human rights.

Your Intelligence contends that it has been grievously insulted by Professor Geras's argument.


The case is yet to come to court, and may prove to be a landmark in the evolution of Decent case law.

Firstly, the court will likely accept hearsay evidence obtained in the back of a Decent Taxi without independent corroboration.

Secondly, and controversially, a brief Google search reveals that HRW has repeatedly made some form of the following argument -

"It is highly damaging to the cause of international human rights when the nations that conceived, drafted, signed and have pushed for the enforcement of human rights laws are caught in flagrant violation of them. It is doubly damaging when those nations actively seek to exempt themselves from such laws with mendacious claims of exceptionalism and point-blank refusals to improve their behaviour.

This encourages people all over the world to believe that human rights are merely a stick for beating international pariahs, rather than strict laws which should be adhered to by all nations. The damage this causes may well be irreparable.

In short, the leader of the free world must possess the moral authority to castigate China's human rights record without facing an outbreak of sniggering."

Your Intelligence refuses to accept that a Professor Emeritus of politics is incapable of grasping this simple idea. Further, by implying that this argument means "it is to some extent all right for nasty regimes to violate human rights," Professor Geras has clearly insulted Your Intelligence.

Since Professor Geras has grievously insulted Your Intelligence on numerous occasions in the past, this may seem an open-and-shut-case. Readers are reminded, however, that the Court of Decency has a history of bizarre rulings against Humanitarian NGOs generally and Human Rights Watch in particular.

Full text of Professor Geras's musings here.

Wednesday, 5 December 2007

Mainstream Liberal Culture


Mane-Streem Lih-Beh-Rall Kult-Yer

Odious hosepipe of hateful propaganda, urinating a thick stream of relativist bile into the eyes and ears of the hard-working, honest people of Britain.

Commonly associated with Hollywood, but in reality championed by the brie-eating liberal intelligentsia and ivory-tower elitists of the BBC.

"...so consistent was the pro-Islamist party line in the BBC's drama it seemed as if a politburo had taken control of the arts department."- Nick Cohen

Sample schedule - BBC1

6.00 Robin Hood

Pro-Jihadist re-imagining of the traditional legend, in which Osama and his Merry Islamists fight bravely against a thinly-veiled Tony Blair, as played by a short, fat, bald Keith Allen. This foul slice of terrorist-promoting light-entertainment repeatedly penetrates the eyes of innocent British children nationwide, spurting great wads of disease-ridden filth into their fragile little minds. With Minnie Driver. Producer Nigel Gurning-Twitte

7.00 Spooks

Racist drama chronicling the struggle of the intelligence services to expose the megalomaniacal schemes of a secret clan of demonic Jewish space-lizards from Saturn. German subtitles available in some areas, press red for extra Protocols. Producer Lavrenty O'Toole

8.00 Movie Premiere

Honey, I Wilfully Blinded Myself To The Urgent Threat Of Islamist Fascism (2005)

Fantastical action movie, starring Bruce Willis as a hard-bitten New York cop who must battle a thousand-strong band of fanatical terrorists from England, Germany, America, Russia, Australia, Mexico, Israel, Italy and Spain. Not a Muslim amongst them, of course, which is typical of the mealy-mouthed appeasers of Hollywood. Honestly, do you remember Delta Force? Proper bad guys, then, all swarthy and filled with genocidal bloodlust... That scene where Chuck Norris blasts that Palestinian with his motorbike's built-in grenade launchers, I was stiff as a rolling pin, I can tell you. But you don't get proper films like that these days, do you? No, it's all bending-over-backwards-to-avoid-offending-the-Muslim-fascists, isn't it? Bastards.

Also starring Jean Reno and Antonio Banderas as non-Islamic terrorists 1 and 2.

10.00 News

Daily litany of false accusations about the legitimate security operations of western nations. With Fiona Bruce.

10.30 Question Time

Hillary Benn and the American ambassador face hate-filled tirades from a jeering mob of liberal scum, while John Humphries and George Galloway fight to be first to lick the hot, salty tears of sorrow from their honest, trusting faces. Producer Tarquin Pierrepont

11.00 Fahrenheit 9/11

12.30 24

04:00 - With the clock ticking on an ebola-stuffed nuclear bomb, Jack is forced to take radical measures against an injured prisoner by shoving his arm down the suspect's throat and pulling his arsehole out of his nose. President Palmer faces a dilemma as he decides whether to accede to the terrorists' demands or to push a corkscrew into Mahmoud's eye really slowly. Meanwhile, Kim is menaced by a slightly annoyed cougar while sporting a truly sensational cleavage. Contains scenes of masturbatory violence, torture and sadism, although curiously, no strong language. Those crazy Americans, eh?

Now, that's more like it.


See also ...

Screens that flicker and fail to challenge

Post-script to the new edition of What's Left?

The Bien-Pensant Robin Hood

...and many, many others.

Monday, 3 December 2007

Administrative Notes 2

Venezuela - An Apology

It has come to my attention that some consumers of Decent journalism and bloggery may have formed the impression that we believe President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is a megalomaniacal tyrant, drunk on power and intent upon launching a thousand-year reich of fascist horror.

Readers may also have misinterpreted our principled stand against Britons who write positively of Chavez as somehow indicating that they have "brought shame upon the Left".

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Nonetheless, having re-examined articles and posts entitled Bloodthirsty Dictator Chavez Crushes All Human Freedom; Fascist British Chavistas - The Shame Of The Left and Nationalisation of Corporate Interests - Who Will Be First Into The Gas Chamber?, I can see why some confusion might have arisen.

As the official scribe of Muscular Liberalismtm, I can categorically state that we have always believed that Chavez is merely a very silly person, if not an outright figure of fun. His recent electoral defeat merely confirms that he is rather weak, ineffectual and something of a comical loser.

Nor have we ever intended to imply that leftists said nice things about him because of their inward yearning for the crushing of all democracy beneath the Latin jackboot. It was not our intention to imply that modern socialists are generally a feeble-minded mob of genocidal cretins whose brains are ripe to be washed with the most hateful and violent ideologies imaginable.

No, these leftists have instead "brought shame upon the Left" by believing the words of this empty-headed charlatan and his sub-Chomskyan jeremiads.

I hope this clarifies our principled position against this terrifying, cartoonish stuffed-shirt and his pathetic, hilarious attempt to overthrow democracy and create a totalitarian communist empire.

P.S. I have recently discovered that certain unserious writers have implied that our honest stance against Hugo Chavez is motivated solely by our desire to crush anyone who says nasty things about George W. Bush. Others have claimed that our position is motivated by our maniacal urge to discredit and destroy any political movement to the left of Blairism.

I can confirm that these accusations have no basis in fact, and are being circulated by a small, dishonest group of irrelevant, Stalinist throwbacks whose hatred of the American President has warped their tiny minds.