@ Oliver of "faith and morals"

I understand from your bio that you are questioning your "political orientation", and it would seem that you have still some more questioning to do.  Surely, anyone who feels "sorry" for Hitler got some more thinking to do.  And someone who can not separate his emotions from empirical observation, is in dire straights.   Whatever your 'feelings' about Blair, he is not - certainly was not -  a "strategic nonentity".  Wasn't he the longest-serving Prime Minister in Britain's postwar history?

I think that we can safely assume that Blair is not for "legalised buggery for children", and that he does not approve of "soddomites".  And, if you think that a British Prime Minister is in total control of who gets to sit in "the Government", you have a naive and false view of how politics 'works' in a 'modern' democracy.

And no, Britain is not - at least not yet - a "global pariah state".  Most of the world is not even aware of what the state of "human cloning" is in Britain.   And if they did, they probably wouldn't "give a toss".  Isn't that a 'peculiar' British expression?

P.S. It is not wise to 'project' everything that is wrong with the world (or Britain) today on one single person. That way one tends to lose touch with reality.

Apart from the Chomskyite rant about the liberation of Iraq, this is pretty accurate. I just feel sorry for Hitler and Cromwell, being compared to a strategic nonentity like Anthony Blair.

As for the rest of you...

There was nothing "trivial" about the Blairite assault on Faith and morals on this country. His Government had outspoken sodomites as members (one of whom was actually infected with the AIDS virus) and legalised buggery for children. Trivial? I think not. On human cloning he actually made Britain a global pariah state.

And Hitler was not a secularist. The Nazis themselves actually invented their own version of Christianity and rewrote the Bible to make it more suitable for Aryan readers. Hitler frequently invoked God in his speeches in a way that would have made Alistair Campbell blush and shuffle his feet.

1) It is extraordinary that the author, Mr Laughland, starts off by comparing Tony Blair with Adolf Hitler, in terms of someone whose "hatefulness" is simply "inexpressible".  Now, in our times it has become quite common for some people to lose all sense of proportion, and of perspective, when it comes to expressing their disgust for some or other politician of the day.   For example, the so-called "Bush derangement syndrome" can quite commonly be found on the extreme-left, and even in 'moderate' leftist circles.  But comparisons with Hitler are still broadly regarded as inappropriate for elected politicians (who relinquish their limited powers) in democracies.  I guess, given the extraordinary length of Blair's prime-ministership, cases of "Blair derangement syndrome" can now commonly be found in Britain too.  

2) Most of the author's other complaints about Blair appear to be truly of the trivial kind, and are interspersed with an extraordinary degree of wilful misunderstanding and of anti-American sentiments.  For example, the charge that it was "relentless social climbing" that attracted Blair to George Bush and America, is laughable on its face.  Let's just say that Blair had been "attracted" at least a decade earlier to a very different American, Bill Clinton, when both had been engaged in moving their radical-leftist parties towards more moderate 'third way' positions.

3) I do not think that the author is qualified to opine on the "catholicism", or lack thereoff, of Blair and of his past governments.  And quoting "one American bishop" in that regard, does not particularly clarify matters on that score.  If one were to look at individual quotes on political topics (like Iraq) by American bishops, one could maintain almost any position on anything. 

4) The author's presentation of Blair's Iraq dilemma is very one-sided and simplistic.  It is as if it were taken straight out of the post-communistic The Guardian.  It does not allow for any 'doubt' whatsoever, and simply does not allow for the possibility of any 'positive' motivation on Blair's part.  

5) Mr Laughland's complaints about contemporary electorates and culture certainly do have some validity.  But he would help his cause, if he could display a little bit less of a certain kind of British snobism and also less fundamentalistic 'certainty' in his own thinking.

Some may think that I am a national-socialist because I praise Germans. By no means- I am not a German and not a socialist. All successful German rulers converted to Christianity, others disappeared in vane. Nazis were secularists and even worse, they were socialists. Socialists due to the essence of their teachings cannot be rulers, because their power is inevitably compromised by this intrinsically destructive and anarchic ideology. I would conclude, that when Germans accept a right ideology, they are a great creative force, but when a wrong one- a great destructive force.

I consider Putin as the return of traditional German rule in Russia. All successful European countries were parts of some empire before German tribes settled there and started to rule them: Franks in France, Angles and Saxons in England, Langobards in Spain, Swedes (Russ?, Vikings or Varyags) in Russia, which used to be the Khazar empire before. Freedom is American brand, which coinsides with a very strict control and law enforcement. My guess is that successfull experiment in American "freedom" is due to a high percentage of German immigrants (50% at the time of Revolution). Those countries which have lower percent, need a despotic rule in order to control the order, since most of the population is anarchy-inclined. Among those Russia, Italy, Late Austro-Hungary. A good example of a democratic country which ceized to exist due to too much democracy is Poland. And now we see that the future od democratic Europe is unclear.

@ onecent

You misunderstand pvdh's comments. He is a 'socialist', just like Blair, and he is not concerned with Blair's "nanny state" sympathies.  Indeed, he admits himself that "as a non Brit" he does not fully understand such concerns.  At least, give him credit for that partial recognition of possible own limitations.   This is a very old problem.  It is the problem of recognising the historical dilemma of how one can marry using (monopoly) government power for alleviating (alleged or real) 'social concerns' with maintenance of political freedom for the individual.

@ pvdh

I fear that you misunderstood me, but that is probably my own fault because of earlier poor formulation on my part.  By "narrowminded British resentfulness" I was NOT referring to resistance in continental Europe (and possibly in some quarters in  Britain as well) to Blair's possible accession to the European 'presidency'.  I would agree with you that he would not be a bad choice, given other more likely alternatives.  At least, Blair understands the need for western (Atlantic) unity in a very dangerous world.  So, we both 'like' Blair, at least to some extent, but for different reasons. 

No, by "narrow-minded British resentfulness" I was referring to the general unbalanced picture of Blair being painted by Mr Laughland, and also his needless (and stupid) anti-Americanism that is still characteristic for a certain kind of British 'conservative'.  'Rob the Ugly American' has already addressed that to some extent, and I may return to it later as well.

If a Democrat wins the White House we can be assured that the US will travel down the same path that Blair took Britain. 

@onecent:

Notice Armor's superficiality?  Don't bother arguing with him.  He has what my pastor would call "invincible ignorance".

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

"In the USA, people of Russian ancestry are probably undistinguishable from other European Americans. It isn't so for Mexicans."

Are you suggesting Americans would choose looks over integrity?  Get real.

The issue isn't if Mexicans look like me, but, that they think like me, a person endorsing secular capitalist democracy. Most do.

Looks don't matter in the US as a criterion for good citizenship. Take a look around here, or perhaps you never have, Americans don't have homogenious faces. Ethnicity, a European face, isn't an asset if you are a brain dead Putin approving Russian seeking immigration to the US. Putin is popular, besides his luck with oil revenues, because Russians are willing to trade bread and security for freedom. After decades as needy sheeple they have chosen by default Putin, totalitarian regression, rather than risk. 

"And yes, the world likes the US less because of Iraq, but what does that mean?"

Nothing, Rob.  

Well, "likes less", but, still needed as the only Good Guy cop still standing that has the resolve and the means to thwart the world's thugs. Question to the defenseless and whiney Euroweenies, just who the hell do you think is going to save you if Putin, Pakistan(when, not if, the radical Muslims there grab that arsenal) or eventually the mad mullahs in Iran point their nuclear weapons at you?  Or, when things get violently out of your control with your homegrown jihadi networks?

The dirty little secret is that the world is very grateful for American intervention in the ME. The non-radical Arabs are grateful for the protection that our presence in Iraq creates. The Iraqis have a future based on free elections instead of tyranny.  The Europeans are grateful that any attempt to take over the oil fields by Islamic extremists will be countered and their economies won't be wrecked.

It's the idiots on the Left and their news organs embodied in the brain dead fact challenged Keppert(who drinks the Left's Koolaid) of the world that are too dumb to get that. They mistake statecraft for personal friendships, feel their way through life, and never examine anything outside of their one or two sacred ideas.

Blair turned Britain into a sewer of Nanny State totalitarianism, cheapened the culture and enriched himself personally.

I'm not exactly sure how to respond to some of the breathless conspiracy points raised by the article, except to point out that trusting information from a source like the Guardian (especially from opinion pieces, as opposed to news stories) can be chancy, at best, considering the paper is known to be both anti-US and anti-Jew; after all, during the Cold War it regularly published articles by KGB agents posing as journalists, and now regularly publishes pieces by apologists for al_queda, and the narrative on Israel there tends to range from published pieces by people who want to kill all the Jews and those who want a 'one-state solution'.

And we know, just as a factual matter, that the million or several hundred thousand figures of civilian deaths in Iraq are bogus, as it was recently revealed that the study was funded by George Soros as part of his campaign to defeat Bush in the elections (for which he illegally contributed over a hundred million dollars, and received the largest fine in US history by the FEC). And attack plans are regularly drawn up by Presidents as they enter office against known enemy states; even Clinton had a plan to attack Iraq.

In fact, I'd argue that Iraq was one of Blair's least mistakes. Far more egregious is the incredible growth of the state under his leadership, the surveillance society, the fact that one can get fined for saying unpleasant things about Islam or any other controversial subject, and that Britain has now slipped from the ranks of free states as measured by the Index of Economic Freedom.

Blair ruined Britain's exceptionalism, turned his country into yet another burgeoning European-style nanny state. It's precisely these types of states that are having the hardest problems repeling radical Islam from within their borders. The Muslim rioters in France just don't seem to care that their government was against Iraq.

And yes, the world likes the US less because of Iraq, but what does that mean? 9/11 was celebrated across the Arab world, those videos were blared on our TV screens, so it's hard to care if they like us less. The Chinese? The Russians? These are totalitarian dictatorship, so, again, who cares? India? Bush has an approval rating there that's double his rating in the US. Europe? Yes, they think even less of the US than they did, but we weren't that popular in France and Germany and the rest before (Clinton was greeted by rioting protestors after Kosovo), and, to be brutally honest, in the new world order, it matters a lot more what Indians think of the US than what Europeans think.

If Europeans don't want to be led by the US anymore because of Iraq, then they can find someone else to foot the bill for their defense.

Well, the question is, how much money Blair received from Bush for supporting the war. Isn't that what the author hints at? The aim of the author is actually to broaden the Euro-American split. By the way, where the author gets money from, I wonder?

It is really to be perplexed by the chameleon named Blair. Once he was in the Labour party, then he turned a liberal and now he's "pushy, trashy and obsessively publicity-seeking", earning fees from Morgan-Stanley. It would be sad for Europe if he decides to be candidate.

@ Atheling

"Spirit" is the name of a very small Flemish political party in Belgium. Generally speaking it is very naive-left in its world outlook.   This goes to show that translating from one language to another is always a tricky business, and that translators should make an effort to consider the public that will read their texts. It would have been clearer, for foreign readers, if the writer/translator had referred to Bettina Geysen as "a leader of the Spirit political party".

You better interpret the party name Spirit in the meaning of 'lively' (or spirited) rather than 'ghostly'. I think that they see themselves as being "lively" (i.e. of bringing 'life in the brewery'), but I see them more as 'very dumb' (from a Flemish nationalistic perspective).

Instead of being concerned with such details, I think TBJ readers should focus on the content of Mr Laughland's article.  It strikes me, again, as another example of narrow-minded British resentfulness. But I have no time now to develop that theme, and will hopefully return to it soon.

Speaking of traitorous politicians (and women)...

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/957/home/article/detail/132168/2008/1/13/Geysen...

"Spirit leader Bettina Geysen wore a hijab at the start of her New Year's speech in Antwerp this past Sunday, out of indignation with the Ghent ban on hijabs and a possible ban in the future also the in the East Flanders province.

The move was met with criticism from Vlaams Belang. Filip Dewinter said she "prostitutes herself for Islam". Dewinter said Geysen provoked all Flemish by giving her speech with a headscarf, under the cloak of pluralism and tolerance. He said that having the head of a self-declared progressive party, which stands up for women's emancipation and equality, decked out with an Islamic headscarf is too crazy for words. "The headscarf is the Islam symbol of the discrimination of the woman and of resistance towards our Western society."

The Antwerp Vlaams Belang head called the Antwerp municipal council to follow suit on the ban also in the civil service."

What in the world is a "Spirit Leader"???

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine