Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Why there can’t be change, whatever happens

So to Rotherham and no doubt many other towns around the country. It’s a disgrace, that much is clear and agreed upon. Middle aged men having sex with 11-year old girls is not consensual in any sense. That’s where the consensus ends. Before light was shined upon this festering sewer, whistle-blowers were sent on diversity courses, the message being, shut-up, and sacrifice the rape of children because to notice this would make you racist. Being a racist you see, is a worse crime than being a part of a gang that rapes children.

There are calls for the PCC to resign, but this misses the point. Who cares if he does or not? He is one man, a useless, incompetent clown to be sure, but just one man. It’s not the man, it’s the system. Then we come to the poor Ashya King. When this story broke, it was portrayed as looney-tune religious parents screwing with wise, paternalistic doctors and then ‘abducting’ their own child.

The reality seems to be, that Mr King was very unhappy with the ‘care’ poor Ashya received and wanted to try his luck in the Czech Republic. Good luck sir, if I believed in God, I would pray for you. The hospital were less happy. It was reported that they had taken Ashya “without consent” Well excuse me and kindly fuck off. After listening to professional advice from multiple, reputable sources, I will decide the medical care my son receives as necessary and it seems Mr & Mrs King thought likewise. And for disagreeing with the all-powerful NHS, they got – arrested (sic). You see, the state knows best, so be a good little prole and do as you are told.

Whilst I may have disagreed with the tactics employed by the Kings, I cannot fault their devotion, but this is not about Ashya. This is about saying “No” to Big Brother. Again, there will be questions and editorials and blogs and perhaps an inquiry of some sort, but nothing substantial will change. And this is the crux of it. The establishment, in the form of the bureaucracy, neither wants change, nor indeed is capable of change. Doubt this? Look at the drug laws. It’s hard to find a serious defender of them these days (who is not part of the anti-drug industry and thus personally, financially benefitting).

So if the state can’t change, and be honest, it can’t. What should we do next? Ignore it. No violence, no terror, no killing, simply ignore it (so far as one can) and let it collapse into bankruptcy as the western governments and the local councils more or less all will. Detroit is not an aberration, it’s a front runner. And then finally, perhaps we can conclude that a coercive, violent society, is not a sustainable one. The state (despite all the money and power) gave us Rotherham and Ashya, they can’t change and don’t want to. So ignore them and let them die a natural death.

It’s the humane thing to do.

“How much there is that we prefer not to notice.”

The title is from the diaries of the Soviet poet Alexander Tvardovsky, as quoted (and translated) by Helen Szamuely. It’s from a passage describing an incident in the winter of 1955 when he saw young girls attempting to dig ditches in frozen ground.

The girls earn 10-15 roubles a day and their food is terrible. Today I joked a little as I went past: “Why not wait till spring? It will be easier to dig.” A pleasant young girl replied with sad determination: “We have to do it.”

How much there is that we prefer not to notice.

That was just how life was in the USSR. Now, this is not the Soviet Union. It’s not even close. But still, we go along with things for the sake of an easy life. We accept things we’d rather not until they become the “new normal”. There is much, even for us, that we prefer not to notice. “Asian” men abusing young girls in Rotherham, for example.

Once someone did notice, that shocked us all. But sometimes you have to step back a little, and look at what you’ve come to accept in a different light before you realise there’s something to notice in the first place.

I can’t recall exactly who it was – it may have been Helen’s “boss”, Richard North, or his associate Christopher Booker – who when writing about the European Union, asked a Norwegian politician prominent in that country’s campaign against membership exactly why it was that his countrymen voted against it, and received the answer, “It’s the lack of democracy in your system that we don’t like”. It struck whoever it was – and myself, reading it – deeply. “Your system”: we may rant about Brussels ordering around, and still, even now, persist on reporting it as “Foreign news”, but we are a part of this system. It’s ours, it’s governing us, and it’s rotten. We prefer not to notice.

I thought the same thing when I read Andrew Gilligan’s Sunday Telegraph column this week: (more…)

Lets avoid a shotgun divorce

Fog in the Channel - Continent cut off

Before I get kicked to death in the streets by the Counting Cats Eurosceptic wing (which seems to be most of us in fairness), I shall be clear and unequivocal.

I believe that Britain has a place in Europe as its political and economic stability is essential to British peace and prosperity, but that “Europe” and the “European Union” are two very different things.

I believe that the EU is a travesty and, if not brought down by its own hubris, will cause conflict in Europe in the not too distant future, probably over the secession of Germany.

For this reason, I believe the UK should leave the EU, in fact we should have baulked at its creation at Maastricht in 1992.  Although John Major was very successful at negotiating away the worst excesses of the transformation from European Community into European Union, it was in fact little more than appeasement. (more…)

There’s a hole in my bucket…

… dear Liza, dear Liza. etc. [Repeat to fade]. Apparently all hell has broken out in Manchester because of a hole in the road. Except the Manchester Evening News prefers to refer to it as a “crater”.

Now this is a crater…

This, on the otherhand is a hole in the road…

Just look at the barricades! And why close both lanes? Why? And where is Prof. Quatermass when we need him?

Self-Fulfilling Prophesy, UKIP-style

douglas-carswell[1]

If we’d failed in the European elections I would have stood down, if we fail next year the party will pick someone better than me…

UKIP will be a force in the House of Commons next year and if we get this right we may find ourselves in a hung parliament holding the balance of power.

Nigel Farage – Yesterday

As if in recognition (although more likely politically orchestrated), former Tory backbencher Douglas Carswell MP this morning announced he was defecting to UKIP and resigning from Parliament – sparking a crunch by-election.

Now in fairness, he could have simply defected to UKIP and remained a UKIP MP (the very first) until the next scheduled elections in June 2015, but he’s chosen to do the more honourable thing and fight the seat in a by-election for UKIP.

BREAKING: Tory MP Douglas Carswell defects to UKIP and resigns from Parliament sparking a crunch Essex by-election

The UKIP fox is definitely in the Westminster hen-house, I spy fun times ahead. Nothing like upsetting the Westminster apple-cart even if it is in the form of the Little England brigade.

Craven

The retailer of “naughty things” Ann Summers has apologized over a lingerie range named “Isis”

Knickers

Not to be confused with…

Twat

London (AFP) – Adult retailer Ann Summers apologized Saturday after launching a range of lingerie named Isis — but said it did not support jihadists in Iraq and Syria and had no plans to withdraw the line.

Well, that last bit is reassuring. Not, I suspect, that Ann Summers would be especially welcome in the New Caliphate anyhow. But why apologize? An Ann Summers spokeswoman stated the decision had been made months ago and Isis is an ancient Egyptian fertility goddess which seems a fairly reasonable name for female intimate attire. I mean it’s not something a lady would wear to play football in is it*?

It remains on sale which is something, though why apologize anyway? It is admitting that “ISIS” (or “IS”) have stolen part of our culture and mythology. It is bizarrely conflating something to cover your er… with a bunch of arseholes. And that is my point, really. Are ISIS vile? Are they dangerous? Yes. Are they the greatest threat facing the USA as President Obama recently stated? Are they Hell! They are just a bunch of ragged-assed renegades on the create. They ought to be treated with the disdain they deserve and not treated like Sith Lords. By regarding them as Mordor itself we are their best recruiting sergeants because it gives spurious glamour to a collection of honour-free tossers playing at jihad.

As an aside they are currently carrying out “judicial” executions, crucifixions and amputations and “encouraging” children to watch (like Alton Towers in the sand). Of course they would regard the ladies pictured above as depraved. I have a rather different standard for depravity.

On the plus side I am reliably informed that Russia has banned such frivolous under-garments on spurious grounds of causing minge-rot or something so it would seem we are annoying the right people.

Pooty Poot and the Sand People – sounds like a dreadful band from the ’50s.

*No I haven’t seen that video. Curse you internet!!!

Free apologist with every rape

Rotherham Child Abuse Scandal - Ring A

“Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”

Rotherham child abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited, report finds

There is a reason that “Lady Justice” wears a blindfold, it is so that both prejudice and favour are ignored in the legal system and one of the reasons why the Anglo-Saxon legal system has established itself around the world.

Unfortunately, the same rules do not apply to the politically correct who see a “narrative” at every turn, indeed is a “Social Worker” not the very epitome of the Fabian state writ large?

The net effect of such deliberate and wilful ignorance was that a significant number of children were subjected to violence, sexual abuse and coercion because the public appointed and empowered enforcers of the law were colour-blind to their actions because they were Muslims.

Without committing acts of outrage myself, it is impossible to continue, but suffice to say that until political correctness and random acts of racism are removed from both law and public service – for what else is “Child Services” – or whatever the current politically correct euphemism?

There may well be a place for social workers, but it is within the voluntary sector of the 19th century rather than the state enabled child abductors of the 21st.

Maybe Women are Some Good after All?

But really, they should also include K-9 officers and enlisted.

From Clash Daily, via Weaselzippers, who got it from WSJ, where it’s only available to subscribers:

BOOM: Kurds Send All-Female Soldiers To Fight ISIS, The Reason Why is Hilarious

Posted on August 21, 2014

Kurdish women are bad-ass. You’ll never guess why they’re the ones on the frontline’s against ISIS. Check this out…

The Kurds have adopted a rather unique strategy for not only eliminating their targets, but also humiliating them along the way.

According to WZ, Kurds are deploying whole units comprised of female fighters to the front line, which has boosted their recruitment numbers, and given them a psychological edge over ISIS. One female fighter explained why the Kurds have decided to put women in the thick of the battle, and it’s sure to make radical Islamists go crazy.

“The jihadists don’t like fighting women, because if they’re killed by a female, they think they won’t go to heaven.”

Awesome. The Kurds have an understanding of what it will take to stop ISIS, and it isn’t peace talks or goodwill offerings. It’s bombs, bullets, and brute force.

So. This Scottish thing, then.

It’s a month from now, so I suppose as the resident Jock I should say something about it. Okay, here’s the thing. I realised recently exactly why I’ll be voting “No”, and it comes down to this: Sure, the UK sometimes screws things up – Cameron is currently busy making an almighty hash of dealing with ISIS, for example, and the economic situation’s an unholy mess – but it’s my country, dammit. I’m British. My father’s family were Ulster Protestants (and you don’t get much more British than that), ultimately from Yorkshire, while my mother’s descended from border reivers who didn’t give a flying crap what country there were in at any given time. She has a cousin who moved to Yorkshire, coincidentally enough, and brought up a family there. I like cricket (as much as I like any sport), and support England, for whom Scots are eligible to play, and have. Friends I grew up with live and work in England and Wales (and therefore, incidentally, have no say in this). We don’t have much of a military history on either side of the family (both my grandfathers neatly managed to be too young for WWI and work in reserved occupations during WWII), but my great-grandfather died at Gallipoli under the Union Jack. Buggered if I’m about to vote for taking the blue bits off it.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

… as someone once said.

But moreover, leaving aside all the emotional aspects that we’re told are irrelevant by a bunch of people swanning around in painted faces and tribal dress, harking back to battles fought seven centuries ago – and this is the epiphany that struck me the other day when I realised that it’s what’s been in the back of my head all along – I have absolutely no confidence whatever, not a scrap, that a Scottish state would be the slightest bit better. Not least because, as we all know, all states are a bit crap in the end, but mainly because of Holyrood itself. Great Things were promised by the “Yes” campaign back in 1997. Almost exactly the same Great Things as are promised by the “Yes” campaign right now. Everything was going to be absolutely wonderful in the New Scotland, brought to us by an Era of Consensual Politics™. The parliament would get everything right, be all things to all men, we’d all be happier, healthier, and wealthier, neighbours would smile benignly at one another of a morning, and everyone would get off with the all the people they fancied. Or something.

And you know what? It’s no different. If anything, it’s worse: more centralization of power, more irresponsible profligacy with the taxpayers’ money, more pinch-faced governmental busybodying, and less individual liberty. Which might have happened anyway, but still. No better. Just last week Holyrood announced an attempt to scale back Westminster’s relaxation of gambling laws because “there are too many betting shops”. Who says? They do, our Betters. And if the Edinburgh Tramway isn’t the Springfield Monorail come to hideous, eye wateringly-expensive, life, I don’t know what is. (“What about us braindead slobs?” “You’ll all be given cushy jobs!” Was that the Simpsons, or the referendum debate the other week? It’s getting hard to tell.)

I didn’t buy the “Yes” hucksters’ flim-flam in ’97 and I don’t buy it now.

But why is it no different? Because they don’t want it to be. The entire raison d’etre of the seperatist movement – in which I include the paradoxically centralizing “devolution” – is to resist the perceived liberalising trend of Westminster. The writers of the words I quoted above recognised that the logical response to abuses of the power of a state is to create one less able to exert that power (and they still, arguably, failed) but the Scottish political class is absolutely fine with it as long as The Right People are in charge. It’s painfully obvious from everything they say that the advocates of a seperate Scotland want to use it to its fullest. From what little we know of their constitutional plans – we are again, as we were in 1997, being asked to sign a blank cheque – they intend a litany of “positive rights”, making classical liberalism effectively illegal.

But then, that’s nationalism for you. They always think they speak for all of us. No, worse than that, they think they – or somebody – can speak for all of us. People like that have no concept of the dangers of the state’s monopoly of force. If the state is “us”, then misuse of its power is an impossibility; how can we oppress ourselves? And this really seems to be the thinking: Westminster’s failures are due to “them”, “the English”, but if “we” had the power, all would be rosy. I can’t help recalling that old joke about the Lone Ranger: “What’s all this ‘we’ stuff, Kemosabe?” A nation is not one big happy family making consensual decisions around the kitchen table of its government. State power is at best a necessary evil that must be handled with the utmost care. Scotland’s nationalists – of all political colours, because they only differ on the matter of degree – are far too in love with it to be trusted.

If it ain’t broke

I recently caved in and bought a Kindle, the ‘paper white’ if you must know.  I’d resisted it for years and for the life of me, I don’t know why.  Of the many benefits, the instant access to literature is great, but the access to non-publisher e-books is a revelation.  This is probably the end of traditional publishers as we know them via disintermediation.  We now get to ask the question which is an absolute death knell for any business “What are you for?”    More importantly, the internet enlightenment is unleashing a new generation of Pamphleteers in the mould of Tom Paine, wholly unshackled from the analogue publisher-industrial complex.

And it is with this in mind, I came across an Amazon suggestion called “If it ain’t broke, the case against constitutional reform in the UK” which is an examination of British constitutional change since 1997.  Now this may not strike you as the most interesting read.  As an anarchist, any constitution is by definition, invalid.  And this could have turned into just another dreary anti-Blair polemic.  But it’s much, much more.

The author engages in a forensic examination of the pre-1997 UK constitution and its relationship to democracy, monarchy, the sovereignty of the crown in parliament, various voting methods, the judiciary and UK culture and social cohesion.  He goes on to look at post 97 changes and assesses their impact.

He notes some of the spectacular failures such as the devolved assemblies and the obvious instability of the current settlements* along with some of the more damnable creations such as the “supreme court” the ill-judged rush to get rid of the lord chancellor’s office along with the problems inherent in direct democracy.  He attributes California’s record deficit with the impact of the various voter initiatives.  There is a section on federalism which is brilliantly insightful where the author points out the two great threats of power siphoning away to higher European and lower regional structures which confuse accountability.  He quite correctly argues accountability should be with the office holder, not the office.  There is a very interesting section on the problems of partisan, activist judges, how else can we explain the banning of handguns in Washington DC despite the crystal clear second amendment?

There is much to disagree with, I’m not a monarchist and whilst I am sure he realises there are more than two options, the confines of the study mean he looks at only the hereditary head of state vs elected President, the oft quoted Queen vs President Blair argument.  Similarly, I think he gives too much credence to the role of Christianity as a cultural (rather than a religious) force in the UK; if anything, I think it’s on a long-tail residue rather than a live force.

The book is clearly well researched and well referenced, often citing the great Victorian constitutional expert A V Dicey amongst others.  For me, it’s greatest strength is the recognition that the UK has traditionally been a country where if it is not specifically banned, it is permitted, whereas written constitutions suggest if it is not specifically permitted it is banned.

A good argument may not entirely change your mind, but it will engage you and leave you perhaps slightly different after you have processed it, and that’s what this book did to me. Interestingly, I downloaded it less than 48 hours ago and have just finished it.  The best £1.83 I spent over the weekend.  If you have digital access to books, read it.  You’ll be glad you did and almost certainly better informed.

 

*The West Lothian question can’t be ignored for too much longer

That’s it boys, just keep on digging…

ISIS Black Flag Brigade

The American invasion presented Mr. Baghdadi and his allies with a ready-made enemy and recruiting draw. And the American ouster of Saddam Hussein, whose brutal dictatorship had kept a lid on extremist Islamist movements, gave Mr. Baghdadi the freedom for his radical views to flourish.

U.S. Actions in Iraq Fueled Rise of a Rebel

I must admit that I nearly gave out the cockney rebel cry of “Go on my son” when I saw the West continuing to fail in it’s opposition to ISIS on the one hand and its support of the puppet-masters of Palestine on the other. Surely, hypocrisy hath no bounds…

Don’t get me wrong, I support neither one, nor the other – but the fact that the likes of Barrack Obama and David Cameron think that they can split hairs over Islam just demonstrates that they are so mired in their own hypocrisy that they can’t see it even when it is pointed out to them. The emperors new clothes and then some…

For those who have no veil over their eyes, we recognize that there is no such thing as fundamentalist Islam or liberal Islam, there is only subservience to the teachings of the prophet and that is lock, stock and barrel – from the 5-a-day kowtowing to butchering babies and Jihad. Anyone who tries telling you different is either an apologist or deluded and most liberals are both.

So I am fully supportive of the horrors of ISIS, because if Cameron, Obama and the rest of the Western elite continue to evade reality in the pursuit of votes and liberal support, they will quite quickly find that reality gives them a big, fat kick up the arse and if that happens to be from the new Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, then all the better.

There is a simple rule in life, either learn the easy way or be taught the hard way, I suspect the new Caliph has a pretty good idea which way that is going to be.

Fruity Girls

Today the A-level results came out. I never knew they were friends of Dorothy. Anyway the Daily Mail celebrates with this…

That is better than their earlier piccie which showed no lads at all. It would appear only sexually attractive girls pass the exams. I had to wear a wig (itched like Hell) and shave my legs (itched like Hell) but I got four A-levels.

And it isn’t just the Daily Mail. They all do it. The BBC do it, the Telegraph does it, even The Guardian does it. As to educated fleas… Who knows or indeed cares?

One hundred years from now my scholastic achievement shall be forgotten and it will be concluded by historians that in the late C20th-early C21st only sexually attractive women won this (by then) obscure qualification and that on the basis of four of ‘em in a row jumping in unison. For they shall have access to the digital archives that clearly show that only A-levels were only for fruity girls.

Golf and Morality.

Golf… is the infallible test. The man who can go into a patch of rough alone, with the knowledge that only God is watching him, and play his ball where it lies, is the man who will serve you faithfully and well.
- P. G. Wodehouse

This is why I never cheated at exams. Well, 2nd year secondary school history and I didn’t give a fuck about Horse Hoeing Husbandry. The Agrarian Revolution – give me strength! That was many years ago. RAB said a bit back (much more recent) that a golfer plays the field (I have to disagree with his chess analogy because if you are playing the course not the man or woman then it isn’t like Chess). It isn’t tactical in that sense but it is hellishly skillfull. And I’ve only played pitch and put and stuff with windmills. But in a real sense RAB is right as is Plum. Playing the course is playing yourself. In a real sense it is testing yourself and therefore in a way cheating is cheating yourself or God or whoever. I don’t believe in God but I think I know why folks do. We all have a deep need for an eternal and omniscient umpire. We have all done questionable things which we knew nobody saw and felt bad about it. Well, all of us who aren’t sociopaths.

Ultimately, for me anyway, morality is doing the right thing when nobody is watching*. Not even the Pope. And I think that is what Wodehouse was getting at. I didn’t learn it from Sunday School – Godless heathen that I am. Learned it from 8-bit computer games. There was no way to cheat because this was the days before the internet so like golf you play yourself (oh er… missus). Sorry couldn’t resist.

When I got my second (or third?) PC I played a lot of Hardwar. I’ll tell ya something… Flying a Tiger from Central Industrial to Downtown 05 with a Narcotron in your cargo pod is not an amusement. You pause the game, make a tea, plan your route, make sure you have enough flares and chaff and then wrench the throttle off the stick because you have to run like the fucking clappers. A Narcotron is worth a lot. My point is that whilst there were download cheats I never used them. You play the course.

It’s a great game -in a real sense (despite insane physics) it is the spiritual successor to “Elite”. “Home of the Underdogs” (which I’m not sure is still going) had it as it’s highest rated. Well that is where I got it from for it it was abandonware. It was never really finished and should have been updated. For shame. Now we have Babs Windsor cackling about playing bingo on phones.

Give me a Swallow Moth with a laser and a plasma kannon (yes, it is a “k”), a fusion cell, a drone (for the salvaging of stuff you offed) and a pod (to put it in) and Downtown 05 (and a narcotron, natch) and I’m happy as a sandboy. Add a couple of beers and 4am comes round very early.

The family expands

I just thought I would share this with you.

Back in June, 2013, I met an attractive lady in a coffee shop in Brisbane. We got along kinda well, met a few times, and, as these things can lead to, yesterday, at noon, in a beachside park at Burleigh Heads here on Queenslands Sunny Gold Coast, we married – at my age as well.

Sigh.

Anyway, meet the new, freshly minted, Mrs Cats.

(more…)

Marlowe

“In everything that can be called art there is a quality of redemption. It may be pure tragedy, if it is high tragedy, and it may be pity and irony, and it may be the raucous laughter of the strong man. But down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid.

The detective in this kind of story must be such a man. He is the hero; he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor — by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a good enough man for any world. I do not care much about his private life; he is neither a eunuch nor a satyr; I think he might seduce a duchess and I am quite sure he would not spoil a virgin; if he is a man of honor in one thing, he is that in all things.

He is a relatively poor man, or he would not be a detective at all. He is a common man or he could not go among common people. He has a sense of character, or he would not know his job. He will take no man’s money dishonestly and no man’s insolence without due and dispassionate revenge. He is a lonely man and his pride is that you will treat him as a proud man or be very sorry you ever saw him. He talks as the man of his age talks — that is, with rude wit, a lively sense of the grotesque, a disgust for sham, and a contempt for pettiness.

The story is the man’s adventure in search of a hidden truth, and it would be no adventure if it did not happen to a man fit for adventure. He has a range of awareness that startles you, but it belongs to him by right, because it belongs to the world he lives in. If there were enough like him, the world would be a very safe place to live in, without becoming too dull to be worth living in. ”
― Raymond Chandler, The Simple Art of Murder

It is a brilliant essay – the whole thing I mean – highly recommended to anyone who likes detectives and despises the “literary” types who despise “genre” fiction. Just go read Chandler. He was an awesome prose stylist and Phil Marlowe is an epic character. I can think of few people I’d rather have at my back in a tight spot.

%d bloggers like this: