kim-jong-il-3

James Delingpole, Britain's most dangerous podcaster is back. This week with his guest columnist and author Douglas Murray, they bid so long to Kim Jong-Il, lament the passing of Vaclav Havel, get angry about Nick Clegg, attempt to parse mystifying (to them, anyhow) Presidential election, try to explain Sharia courts in Britain, and wind up with a rant about Ron Paul.

Ricochet members, subscribe here (you'll also find the direct link there). Also, don't miss Douglas Murray's new book Bloody Sunday: Truth, Lies and the Saville Inquiry available on Amazon.com now.

Comments:


CJRun
Joined
Dec '10
CJRun

Direct link, pleaassee?  :-]

Blue Yeti
CJRun: Direct link, pleaassee?  :-] · Dec 19 at 3:14pm

Does the new player not work in your browser? It should work in most, making the direct link superfluous. Let me know. 

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn
CJRun: Direct link, pleaassee?  :-] · Dec 19 at 3:14pm

Click the title on the right frame of the homepage. The direct link is always beneath the player on the popup.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

I thoroughly enjoyed this podcast. Well done, both of you.

Now for my copious notes. I'll try to organize them by subject. First, the miscellany:

Screaming for love versus screaming for hate — interesting point!

There are two primary motivations, I believe in people's lives in democracies and non-democracies. The first is to be free. And the second is to belong.

Well said. Multiculturalism is, in part, a denial of the necessity and respectability of nationality.

This is a major hurdle for tackling the issue of borders and immigration in this country. Many citizens seem unable or unwilling to define what makes them Americans (not just American citizens, but Americans). They have trouble understanding that foreigners, though equally human and deserving of our concern, cannot be treated the same as citizens. If citizenship means nothing, then so do our borders.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

It seems the problem of sharia courts as you describe them boils down to the will and ability of the individuals subjected to such proceedings to refuse to participate. In other words, it's not really a question of law but of power. The police are, afterall, not enforcing the decisions of sharia courts, but rather turning a blind eye to civilian enforcement of illegal and unjust "verdicts" by non-legal entities.

Police officers, politicians and neighbors must ensure that nobody is at the mercy of extra-legal proceedings against his or her will. And individuals must be willing to stand up for themselves and seek help when they need it.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

Ron Paul does seem committed to dismantling the centralization and expansion of authority and bureaucracy in DC. Of that I certainly approve. But does he have the rhetorical and negotiating prowess to move both public sentiment and legislation toward such goals?

A President is the one person in America who everybody listens to even when they think he's talking nonsense. However much I would like to believe that we could reverse government growth with a President who merely signs the right legislation and vetoes the wrong legislation, it must be the President who represents our case for limited, local government to the American people. Our President must be the voice of the Republican Party, and the Republican Party must be representative of freedom and political restraint.

I doubt that Ron Paul could be such a communicator. But at least few believe him to be representative of the image of Republicans our party is trying to get away from.

Our salvation can't come from any one man, of course. But we need leaders, and leaders in particular positions of influence. The Presidency is a key position — not just for shaping policy but also for influencing public opinion.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

But I do agree, James, that America's military activities will be limited, despite anyone's will to maintain the status quo, by our impending fiscal disaster. Western economies are going to recede greatly. Our political choices now cannot prevent that tragedy, but only moderate it. The strength of our national defense depends upon our fiscal security, so we must focus on limiting our economic woes with saner domestic policies.

Yes, Douglas, America has all the resources it needs to turn this country around quickly... all except the will. We cannot expect that to change overnight, and time is almost up, which is why we can only moderate this decline.

If that is possible in Texas, then it's possible across the rest of the country.

The difference is culture. You're assuming most Americans are culturally homogenous enough to agree to Texas-like standards of politics and behavior. The sad fact is that a large percentage of Americans reject that culture (including many Texans). It might not be a majority, but it doesn't require a majority to wreck a government.

I admire your optimism, though. As often as I agree with Steyn, Peter and Rob offer welcome balance.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller
Police officers, politicians and neighbors must ensure that nobody is at the mercy of extra-legal proceedings against his or her will. And individuals must be willing to stand up for themselves and seek help when they need it.

By the way, I just watched the film Harry Brown starring Michael Caine last night. It's a brutal film, but salient. Justice requires that politicians, police and civilians basically agree on standards and responsibilities / roles.

Police and politicians increasingly set themselves against civilians in both our countries, but the problem seems more advanced in England (judging not by a film, but by the articles of Mark Steyn and others these past few years). The result is a perverse protection or even promotion of criminality by government.

Yeah...ok.
Joined
Jan '11
Yeah...ok.

Awesome work, great podcast.

"...It's easier to chant against things you hate rather than for things you love..." I plan to steal this line and use it whenever I can.

Why does everyone go native once they got to Washington?

Edited on December 20, 2011 at 1:45pm
jonsouth
Joined
May '11
jmarksouth
Why does everyone go native once they got to Washington? · Dec 19 at 6:35pm

It happens when they realize (or don't) that they've become institutionalized in a system more powerful than they ever imagined; one that cares less about right/left ideology than expanding further into people's lives and perpetuating its own influence. Anyone on a crusade to reduce this influence runs up against brick walls repeatedly until they too give in.

Sorry, in a bit of a cynical mood today... 

Beach Baby
Joined
Jul '10
Marlene Cowan

Wow, what a great discussion, worth the price of joining Ricochet alone! And the best comment comes when James asks, referring to the GOP presidential candidates: "Who is going to rescue America?" Douglas brilliantly, and rightly answers: "I will tell you who will rescue America, America will rescue America." Amen, brother! The answer to our dilemma is not found in politicians. It begins and ends with the people, the American people. For within all people there is the innate desire to be free, to be free to provide for one's family, to be free to own property, and to be free to enjoy the rights given to us, not by government, but by God: The right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What will it take for Americans to wake up and rekindle these values? I don't know, but I do have faith in that indomitable American spirit that made our country great. 

PracticalMary
Joined
Nov '11
PracticalMary

From fly-over country: I think the RonPaul polls show that conservatives are leaving the Republican fold- not they will actually vote for Ron Paul. Many of us now describe ourselves as libertarian-leaning conservatives. In other words a libertarian candidate running as a Rep. (not RP), is beginning to look like they are closer to our views than the Republicans and they actually fight for them. This does not mean most of us are stupid enough to vote 3rd party and let Obama win, but does mean that in this field I might answer a poll question with Ron Paul (not vote for him) to send a message. People ARE shocked aren't they? We are facing the fact that the Republicans think they have their grassroots in the bag (we all complain but say ABO and they know we won't vote for Obama, and most do not stay at home like the Dems 'grassroots'). Also I think it is under-estimated how angry most were about McCain and now Romney. Perhaps Republicans/media do not know how fed up we are.


Joined
Jun '10
Richard Russell

Excellent transmission from occupied Europe! Really enjoyed it. 

Good luck smuggling the wireless to the next safe attic.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In