Why yes, you’re right: that’s *exactly* what I meant.

Shame he didn’t take Griffin with him, but a pleasing development nonetheless.

Things you won’t see in the American press about convicted terrorist murderer Eric Rudolph, from Juan Cole:

"Thomas Friedman will not write an op-ed for the New York Times about what is wrong with white southern Christian males that they keep producing these terrorists. He will also not ask why Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not denouncing Eric Rudolph every day at the top of their lungs.

"Daniel Pipes will not write a column for the New York Post suggesting that white southern Christians be put in internment camps until it can be determined why they keep producing terrorists and antisemites.

"Frank Gaffney will not write a column for the Washington Post castigating the Republican Party for appeasement in surrendering to the terrorist threats of radical Christians, by now opposing reproductive rights.

"Pat Buchanan will not write a column blasting King George III for having promoted the illegal immigration into the American south of criminal elements, whose maladjusted descendants are still making trouble."

In news that will come as no surprise to long-term SBBS readers, another independent organisation has estimated the Iraqi civilian violent death toll (not including disease or combatant deaths) at around 25,000 – consistent with the Lancet and UN studies.

This is a truly amazing piece of kit. I’m tempted to buy one, or several.

What’s the most classic, stereotypical piece of antisemitic rhetoric you can think of? Mine would be the charge of divided loyalties: the claim that Jews are willing to sell out their nation in favour of International Jewry, and that they’re willing to lie and pretend they’re assimilated in order to gain influence. Once they’re in the establishment, they’ll take over the world and run it for the benefit of their co-religionists and hangers-on.

So, how does this relate to the currently prevalent meme about Muslims’ ‘divided loyalties’? (clue: if you believe that Muslims have divided loyalties, and that those who don’t appear to want to overthrow us are merely pretending, you may wish to consider the evidence on which you base this belief, and compare it with the evidence on which people historically based their belief that the Jews did the same).

David T at Harry’s Place has gone very, very strange today. First of all, he’s linked to and praised the disgraceful fascism-justifying Shalom Lappin article. Not, perhaps, the behaviour of anyone with a shred of decency [*].

More weirdly, in between defending empirically fascist articles, he’s been accusing me of being a "fellow traveller with fascism". While I’d never make such wild, deranged and libellous accusations against Mr T [**], I guess he may be feeling a little defensive on the whole ‘apologist for fascism’ front after constructing that last article…

Seriously, though, nothing I’ve ever published on this site or elsewhere endorses, defends or justifies fascism. Indeed, I’m somewhat opposed to it – as you might be able to guess from my clear and repeated opposition to all authoritarian and state-corporatist policies. I can barely think of a single issue (other than ‘kittens are nice and torturing babies is bad’-level issues) where I’d share any views whatsoever with a fascist, whether of Christian, Islamic or secular flavours. If you claim to believe otherwise, you either can’t read, have serious mental health issues, or are deliberately lying in order to slur me.

[*] Entirely consistent with Decent Left-ness, however.

[**] And I pity the fool who would.

Update: David T admits he was confusing me with another John B, who comments at Harry’s Place and is a bit of an apologist cock. This is a bit lame, in that the latter calls himself ‘JohnB (no2)’ precisely to avoid being confused with me, in that he doesn’t link his comments to SBBS, and in that I’ve been on HP’s blogroll and presumably therefore David T’s radar for over a year. But at least it’s not wild, deranged or libellous. And thanks for your apology, David.

US Decent Left [*] blogger Tacitus has proved that he has precisely as much of a sense of humour as his British counterpart Oliver Kamm about cool-but-murderous 1970s anarchists.

"I’m down as an extremist, he’s a parasite". Etc.

[*] I’m using ‘Decent Left’ here to mean ‘someone who approves of bombing Muslims, but at least disapproves of lying and torture’. Under the official New Moral Code, this officially makes them a Good Person.

I don’t give a fuck whether or not Mamoun Darkazanli is a terrorist backer. The Spanish say he is; he says he isn’t. But that’s not the point.

The European Arrest Warrant (like the UK’s recent extradition treaty with the US) allows the defendant to be extradited purely on the basis that they’re accused of a crime, rather than on the basis of evidence that they have a decent case to answer. In other words, I could be arrested under Greek blasphemy law and deported to Greece if prosecutors claimed I said ‘fuck God’, or under US antiterror law and then extraordinarily rendered to Guantanamo Bay if they claimed I said ‘Al Qaeda are great, you should join’. The extradition hearing in my home country would have no right to ask whether there was any evidence I’d actually said these things.

So great respect to the German Federal Constitutional Court for finding that the legislation that enables the European Arrest Warrant is unconstitutional; I wish the UK had some kind of constitutional court that could do the same.

In an ideal world, the Germans would now abandon the scheme, the EU would dump it since it doesn’t work without the Union’s largest member, Tony and Charlie The Safety Elephant would see the light and dump the similar treaty with the US, and the fierce beating civil liberties have needlessly taken in recent years would ease up a little.

(yes, in practice, the Germans are likely to change the relevant enabling law and/or the constitution so that the Arrest Warrant can come back into play. But one can dream…)

There are many weird things on the Internet. One of the weirdest I’ve seen recently is a whole website dedicated to the thesis that disgraced politician Neil Hamilton is a thoroughly honourable man.

The site claims that Mr Hamilton was set up by a conspiracy led by the Guardian (which, apparently, controls British society). The anti-Hamiltonians also include the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Martin Bell, Geoffrey Robertson, Charles Moore, Conrad Black, ITN, the BBC, Granada TV, and Private Eye. Strange that they’d team up purely in order to smear Mr Hamilton: obviously the man was more of a threat to the Established Order than we ever thought…

Side note: did Neil Hamilton once win a libel action against someone who called him a ‘crook’ (on the basis that he’d never been convicted of a crime)? I thought he had, but Googling doesn’t seem to dig anything up.