Thursday, 31 July 2008

Blogging Controls

Loads of people are currently blogging about the latest attempt by the authoritarian left (you know them, they're the ones who talk about "freedom" and who really don't buy the whole freedom of speech thing, and who think that my rights not to be persecuted or suspected by the state are not as important as your right not to have someone else attack you, whatever that means), to fuck the conservative blogosphere.

Well, look to Canada. It's been underway for years and they damn nearly won. If only Ezra Levant hadn't kicked up such a fuss, and hadn't protested so loudly about being persecuted by a quasi-legal body with the power to exact extra-judicial punishments to last the rest of your life, who make you pay the costs of your defence while the complainants get money from, er, you; if only people had not been fooled by the left's arguments about its flexibility being its strength (ie the fact that it is not constrained by law); if only people had agreed with one or two notable Canadian leftists that Mr Levant should of shut his gob and accepted his punishments, and bought the whole left narrative that people opposed to this appalling abuse of power were anti human rights in general and just, you know, bad; if only that had never happened, they would have won.

They would.

They still might win. We know, from experience of "independent" bodies like the Charities Commission that the first things these regulators go after are old style left wing targets. You can bet your final euro cent that if such a law were imposed it would only be rightish blogs subject to its constraints, for only they could be considered to show hate (after all, some people deserve hate (C. H Harman)), only they would be expected to account for themselves.

We know that such a law, or such a "code", or such a regulatory body, would command the death of free speech online, to enable the left to conform all typed speech to its own prejudices: hate of Christians,of men, of rich people (all the oppressor people, basically - you know, those people who definitely are privileged, whatever has happened in their own lives ( c. H Harman) - would be ok. And "hate" of the left's client groups would be defined as "any statement that the key pressure organisations of X-group disagree with", as it more or less is anyway.

It would fuck, permanently, opposition to anything the left loves.

Do not believe the opinion polls. They mean nothing. The left is not about to give up the reins of power: over the state broadcaster, over education, over all public services including police and judiciary, over academia. IF the Tories win the election we will go on as before unless something deeply radical is done.

For the left write history, which is why the history books tell us how unlucky I was (Jim Callaghan), but how evil Mrs T was; how the unions were blameless; how shadowy right wing groups brought down lovely lefty governments in the 70s and how wicked electoral rules deprived Labour of victory in 1992 (yes, I've read this). The left are already writing this period: global conditions, nothing Labour could do, positive social legislation, key evidence based action, nothing Labour could do, good relations with Europe, nothing Labour could do.

And so on.

Nothing Labour could do: the stock tale of the postwar history book. It barely matters who you read, the story is the same.

Unless the Tories can cut this cancer out of the body-history-politic, it will all happen again, and David Cameron's government will be the 2nd most wicked in history, and Gordon Brown's the 2nd most sinned against.

No comments: