Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Nothing to see here, move along now

Hospital in Venezuela

Dr María Gonzales cannot recall the exact moment when she realised Venezuela’s health crisis had enveloped her hospital, the Luis Razetti in the Caribbean coastal city of Barcelona.

It may have been during a surge in cases of scabies, a skin infection that ought to be easily prevented with soap, water and disinfectant. It could have been her first sight of an emaciated child, something she had only previously seen in medical books or documentaries about famines in Africa. Or perhaps it was when she found herself prescribing a 40-minute cold shower because the pharmacy had run out of anti-fever drugs.

But the severity of the situation was certainly clear earlier this month, when a patient came in with a suspected case of diphtheria – a disease that Venezuela was supposed to have eradicated more than 20 years ago.

“It’s like we have returned to the last century,” she says. “Everything is going backwards.”

The Grauniad – Inside Venezuela’s healthcare crisis

Thus begins the gradual transformation of the narrative from “Venezuela – The new socialist paradise” under El Presidente Hugo Chávez to “Venezuela never tried socialism”, or some other bullshit excuse.

In this rewriting of history, Nicolás Maduro plays Alexei Rykov to Hugo Chávez’s “Lenin” and in so doing tells us everything we need to know about socialism and why it has always failed and will always fail. No doubt socialist revisionaries will decide that the hapless Maduro was actually a capitalist mole, implanted by the CIA to undermine the efforts of comrade Chávez.

If done slowly (as in the UK), you end up with death by a thousand cuts, if done quickly (as in Venezuela), you end up with people scavenging through garbage cans for something to eat and infant mortality sky-rocketing.

For those on the left, actual evidence of the continual and repeated failure of socialism is something that must be buried and denied to preserve the narrative, something which they have had plenty of experience with over the last century or so.

All of which just goes to show that every attempt to create a “great socialist paradise” just ends up being a reinterpretation of Animal Farm, the only difference between these various failed states being the weather.

Cartoon of the Week

Matt cartoon, October 20

Hell’s Teeth boy! Lazarus is that you???

Well I was all ready to jump ship and find a berth at Longrider’s august site, had the launch codes and everything, when the Frankenstein’s Monster, CCIZ, miraculously resurrected itself once again.

We have been down for over a month… not fuckin good enough is it? There were many things I wanted to post on, not least the death of Arnold Palmer, so I’m a mite pissed off once again.  All I ask is a steady platform, one you can guarantee to be there, we writers will take care of the rest. And what great writers they are. My fellows are not just internet friends, some are face to face friends too. We are a great team given the opportunity, so I have decided to stay with my friends here a bit longer. Loyalty has always been a weakness of mine, but there you are.

So thanks to you Longrider, I appreciate your kind offer and will keep the log on codes safe in my back pocket for the time being. Cats has promised to do the site properly and commercially this time, or turn it over to one of us who knows what he/she is doing (certainly not me!). But then Cats has informed us that he is off to China for two weeks soon, so who friggin knows…

Without a conscious (chosen) commitment to liberty government naturally grows – which means that David Hume and F.A. Hayek were wrong.

Some years ago I arrived very late for a talk on Edmund Burke that I was due to give (I had failed to come to London by train, I as should have, because a friend kindly offered to drive me to the event – and then everything went wrong).

Another person had kindly stepped into the breach and was giving the talk on Edmund Burke as I arrived. I noticed that the talk was very one sided.

Burke’s “Reflections….” (1790) was stressed, but his other works (over some 40 years of engagement in politics) were almost ignored. And even on Reflections on the Revolution in France the talk was very one sided – as it stressed the liberty-is-just-what-we-do-here side of “Reflections” and not the other side of the work.

Of course liberty was not just a habit or tradition in 18th century Britain – it was consciously chosen and supported, one only need look at the work of Sir John Holt (the classic “Old Whig” Chief Justice after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 right to 1710) to see that.

The 18th century was a time when Old Whig (such as Edmund Burke) and Tory (Dr Johnson) were united in what “liberty” was – both philosophically and politically.

On philosophy Dr Johnson famously said “we know our will is free – and there is an end to it” (meaning the philosophical dispute), in this he was not just saying much the same thing as the Scottish “Common Sense” Whig philosopher Thomas Reid (the philosopher most stressed by the American Founding Fathers – with their “we hold these truths to be self evident”) but also the Old Whig Edmund Burke – with his Aristotelian position that we can (with effort) choose to resist our desire (our passion) to do evil, and are thus morally responsible for our actions.

Not just an Aristotelian point by Burke (as if he were just following the anti determinist “On Fate” by Alexander of Aphrodisias – the great “Commentator” on Aristotle revered by later generations) – but a vital part of his Christianity, as it was with Dr Johnson also.

If we do not (with effort) know moral right from moral wrong and can not (with effort) choose to do what is morally right against our passion to do what is morally wrong – then liberty, including Christian liberty (the choice to pick up our cross and follow Jesus Christ) is nonsense, – we are just the flesh robots of Mr Thomas Hobbes and others, abominations that look and sound like people but are NOT people. This was common knowledge in 18th century Britain – after all Ralph Cudworth (the philosopher theologian who replied to Hobbes on such matters as morality and moral agency) was widely read in the 18th century (especially by people who followed the anti determinist Church of England at the time – and in Scotland the Calvinists tied themselves into knots trying to reconcile their Predestination with the obvious truth of moral self awareness – i.e. free will as James McCosh and others were going to continue to do in the 19th century). And an “argument” that runs “Cudworth believed in witchcraft – so he must have been wrong about moral agency” would have been rejected with contempt – and rightly so.

The politics of Old Whigs such as Edmund Burke came from their philosophy and their religion – without the philosophical foundation of moral self awareness (free will) their Whig Constitutional politics was absurd – and they knew it (one can not really, contra “The Constitution of Liberty” by F.A. Hayek, have Old Whig politics without the foundation of Old Whig philosophy of what a “person” is – they stand or fall together). And Dr Johnson”s Tory dreams of a moral monarchy were also meaningless (and he knew it) – if the King (a human after all) was not capable of telling moral right from moral wrong and not capable of choosing to do what is morally right against the desire (the passion) to do what is morally evil.

As for the “compatiblism” of Mr David Hume – Dr Johnson and Edmund Burke may not have agreed with the German philosopher Kant about much, or agreed with the later American philosopher William James about much – but they would both have agreed that compaibilism is a “wretched subterfuge” (an attempt to pretend that the radically opposed are “compatible” – via a mist of words) leading to a “quagmire of evasion”.

The person who was giving the talk on Edmund Burke had not just radically misunderstood 18th century Britain – he went on to talk about Ancient Athens here again liberty was supposedly “just what they did”, not something that they consciously thought about and choose.

In reality Ancient Athens was a place of open reflection about fundamental principles – both the plays of Ancient Athens and the political debates (they were both held in much the same place – with the citizens as either audience or the debaters) show this. It is hard to think of a more gross error to make about Ancient Athens that to think it was a place where liberty just happened by accident and was continued without people thinking about fundamental principles and choosing (of a while – a brief period in the grim history of humanity) freedom of speech and so on.

Indeed liberty “naturally” dies without conscious effort to maintain it. Edmund Burke did not invent the saying “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”, because this was commonly known.

When David Hume wrote of the “euthanasia of the constitution” – what was shocking was not the idea that liberty would be destroyed without constant conscious effort to maintain it (everyone knew that) – what was shocking was the seeming indifference of Mr Hume to this “euthanasia of the constitution” into absolute monarchy (after the manor of the “Sun King” – Louis XIV of France). He did not write as a desperate appeal to inspire men for the struggle to maintain (indeed advance) liberty, he wrote as if liberty was unimportant and humans were not beings (moral beings) anyway. That we are soulless (in both the religious and the Aristotelian sense) creatures. A position far away from both the Old Whig position of Edmund Burke and the Tory position of Dr Johnson (no wonder Johnson reacted with contempt to the suggestion that he and Hume were on the same side politically) of the individual standing against the forces of evil (the savage “Social Justice” mob or whatever) to the bitter end – if bitter it must be, as the sun sets and we collapse, broken sword in hand, into a pool of our own blood.

Both Whig and Tory went to see Addison’s play “Cato” – about Cato the Younger who fought to the bitter end to preserve liberty in the dying Roman Republic, and they both held it dear to them. I can not see Mr Hume being so moved.

18th century people knew that liberty naturally declines, that government naturally expands, without desperate resistance to this – without people making a conscious choice to stand for liberty, to risk everything for it (including their own lives). They did not need 20th and 21st century experience to tell them that without principled (“ideological”) opposition to it, the state expands and liberty dies.

“But Paul, David Hume said…” and “But Paul. F.A. Hayek said…..” – yes and they were obviously wrong.

As obviously wrong as those “libertarians” who, for example, think that Mr Donald Trump opposes free trade treaties because they are not free trade enough – when he actually opposes such treaties because they are too close (not too far away) from free trade. Ditto his position on government “infrastructure” (and other) spending, and so on.

It is not subtle errors of detail that cause the most harm – it is gross errors about obvious matters that cause the most harm. And these vast (gross) errors are the ones that intellectuals are most vulnerable to.

As Cicero pointed out – nothing is so absurd that some great philosopher or other did not believe it, indeed some things are so absurd – that only a great philosopher (someone who has left common sense so far behind that they are blinded by their own speculations) could believe them.

Preserve what liberty that still exists and seek, with all your might to expand liberty – be principled to the bitter end, if bitter it must be.

When the savage mob (each member of that mob could have chosen otherwise – but have made the choice for evil, deep in their souls they KNOW) come, with their Social Justice doctrines of group “Identity Politics” of “race” or “class” – it is the role of an honourable person to stand against them. Even if one’s death is the certain result of doing so.

And, no, one does not have to be a Christian to see that – one can believe that the soul dies with the body and still see that.

Cartoon of the Week.

Adams cartoon for September 15, 2016

It’s not that heroic really

The BBC were on fine form yesterday, they were telling us that single mothers are heroes. Not reckless, brainless work-shy slags that will lie down with anyone and bugger the consequences, no. Heroes apparently.

Now a word of caution, it is possible they are using the old “see one thing and call it something else” trick. So let’s assume that they are talking about actual single motherhood and not widowhood. The two are obviously very different, but this didn’t stop the BBC once putting up Colonel “H” Jones’s widow (sic) when they were discussing single motherhood. Nor one of these cases where there is a marriage but the husband regards it as okay to use the woman as a punch bag, nor indeed one where he regards monogamy as an option.

Let’s assume this is about genuine “oops-I-forgot-to-get-married-to-the-failure-I-let-knock-me-up” single motherhood; herewith we have Miss Yevette Vazquez, from Fort Worth, Texas

Apparently the school that one of Miss Vazquez’s sons attends was having a “Donuts with Dad” event. This was being held by the school to honour father-child bonding. Maybe it’s the old reactionary in me, but I don’t need the school to give me a donut to make me bond with my son. I think they should be spending time and money on improving literacy and numeracy for example.

However, Miss Vazquez turned up at school one day and was alerted to the fact something was going on by the number of cars at school. I guess she must have missed the e-mail from the school. So to ensure her son “didn’t feel left out” she went home, donned a fake moustache and then went back to participate in said event. Social media seem to regard her as something of a hero (that should be heroine I suppose).

I don’t. Maybe she’s doing the best she can for the kids right now, I don’t know. Maybe she’s working two jobs to provide for them. Maybe the kid’s father would love to be active in their lives as a positive role model but he’s currently deployed In Afghanistan, or met his end in an auto-accident. Or maybe not.

So before we all “celebrate” this brave, independent ‘mom’ should we not ask “Where is the child’s father? What does he contribute financially to the child’s upbringing? How much does he see the child? Why was he not there? If he is not in the child’s life through choice, why did you lie down with such an idiot and then have his child? Why is the long suffering tax payer on the hook for your bad choices? Don’t you know that the kids of single mothers under-perform in a range social indicators from educational attainment, to likelihood to commit crime, obesity, drug-taking, employment and themselves becoming single parents?”

Because donning a fake moustache and then posting about it on Facebook does not make you a father. No fake moustache can do that. Maybe you’re doing your best in difficult circumstances, but maybe those circumstances were entirely made by the choices you made earlier in your life. So, NO. That does not make you a hero. Not in any sense.

Black Lives Matter UK – oh good….

The whole Black Lives Matter phenomenon was an American thing I used to look at with a kind of disinterested contempt. But it’s now come to the UK. Such as I can make out any strategy, they seem pissed off at airports (sic).

I’m not going to talk about the fact that all today’s BLM types were white but we can have a giggle at some of the claims they made. So here goes…

“Black Lives Matter UK said the action was taken in order to “highlight the UK’s environmental impact on the lives of black people locally and globally”

Right, so briefly disrupt flights and make complete fools of yourselves at London city airport because… I really can’t see how city airport impacts on black people more than any other people, even if you’ve swallowed the enviro stuff.

“Whilst at London City Airport a small elite is able to fly, in 2016 alone 3,176 migrants are known to have died or gone missing in the Mediterranean”

So what’s that got to do with city airport? And anyone can fly these days, it’s just wrong to imagine flying is elitist. And whilst we are on the subject, aren’t the migrants escaping Black and Arab countries to come to the ‘racist’ west. If we are so terrible, how come everyone wants to come here?

“Black people are the first to die, not the first to fly, in this racist climate crisis”

Well it rhymes but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence backing up this claim and it’s the first time I’ve heard the alleged climate crisis called racist. Also is there any evidence that black people fly less in the UK than say white people per capita?


“We note, however, that the UK is willing to charter special flights to remove black people from the country based on their immigration status.”

Yep, quite right, illegals gotta go regardless of skin colour. Perhaps they’d be happier if we sent ‘em all back by ship but I suspect they might complain about the historical resonance. It does show you can’t please these bastards however. West African slave trade, Africa to the US, bad. Repatriation, the West to Africa, Bad!

Speaking to BBC London, group member Joshua Virasami added: “The community where this airport is a predominantly black community”

Depends where you draw the line of course but if you take the London Borough of Newnham where the airport is located (and creates jobs for black people etc) you see Newnham is according to Wikipedia 21.59% Black, 33.48% Asian and 39.42% White! So he’s wrong in fact not just opinion.

“In Britain, 28% of black people are more likely to be exposed to air pollution… being in closest proximity to the industries causing climate change.”

Again no source for the figures but none of them were sufficiently bothered about this unsupported claim to actually join the protest. They could of course move to other parts of the country that are not in London and are therefore cheaper as well as presumably less exposed to ‘air pollution’

“The Met said all nine arrests were on suspicion of aggravated trespass, being unlawfully airside and breaching London City Airport bylaws” If you want to protest, fine, but serious criminality has taken place here and I hope these attention seeking, virtue-signalling clowns get to sympathise with local people in Wandsworth prison for a sustained period of time.

How John Roberts Gave Us Donald Trump

Prof. Randy Barnett has, over the years, developed an interesting theory about the two ways we Americans seem to see our Constitution. Some of us, chiefly but not always Republicans or libertarians or some form of Conservatives, understand it as a document designed to provide the legal foundation that will support a Republic. This he calls “the Republican Constitution.” Others, known generally as “Living-Constitutionalists,” read it as a document aimed at supporting a democracy. This understanding he calls “the Democratic Constitution.”

His latest book, Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of “We the People,” is aimed at showing that it’s properly understood as a “Republican Constitution.”

In this talk on the book, he explains how Chief Justice John Roberts’ policy, mis-called “judicial restraint,” of ignoring the Constitutional limits on government in the first Obamacare case, ended up by so diminishing Tea Partiers’ and other Conservatives’ trust in SCOTUS that they picked Trump as their paladin.

About an hour. He brings up Trump about 21 minutes in, and Q&A starts around 40:00. Don’t miss the Q&A: It gets back to the origins of the “Democratic” Constitution — a confection of the Proggies, would you believe!

21st Century problems and the self-awareness fail

You’ve probably seen many examples of the storm-in-a-teacup nonsense that seems to upset some modern women. Yesterday’s gender criminal was someone called Dan Bacon. He published pretty clueless advice on how to talk to women in headphones. The less socially inept person might conclude that someone with headphones on doesn’t want to be talked to. And anyone who would actually follow this advice is “less-likely” to be socially skilled. But that’s pretty much it, more nonsense on the internet that can be happily ignored.

Unless that is, you are one of the perennially offended women, whose raison d’etre, whose whole purpose is to live life in a stroppy, whining, angry mood, and it’s all, all men’s fault. The twitter responses of some of them, were bordering on the crazy, with their instant abuse or calls for violence (which I thought was what was upsetting them in the first place).

The funniest one that I came across was this one on the Huffington Post.

This is the rant that just keeps on giving; here are a few of the funnier extracts

“You, dear misguided, what’s-wrong-with-so-much-of-the-world-today, total bag of pricks, HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE”
This could arguably come across as a bit hostile, bitter, future cat-lady…

“So, because I am a nice, kind, helpful woman”
This was the next sentence; she actually seems to be able to write these sentences one after the other?

“In this great state where I live, the burden of proof is on ME to show not only intent, but opportunity for my husband’s infidelity”
This may explain the bitterness somewhat, and that pesky burden of proof in court…

“Yesterday at the gym in a room full of wide open machines, a man chose the treadmill next to me”
The bastard, he clearly doesn’t know that some women have special memberships which mean they have a total exclusion zone around them, often enforced with angry stares, tutting and raised eye-brows.

She then goes on about how unfair it is to show images of a clearly sick Hillary Clinton looking sick (?) while claiming Trump gets away with stuff in the media (I know, but she seems serious?)

Anyway the article is by someone who I won’t name, but I wasn’t shocked to find out she was divorcing. Frankly if the article is anything to go by, I kinda get why the husband may have looked for happiness elsewhere. The big irony however, is this. Right now she’s pissed when men jog next to her, soon enough she’ll be pissed that they don’t any more.

What next?

So, we have Brexit, but where to next for the UK?

Assuming that this all goes through, and the UK really does exit the European Union, something I will truly believe only once Article 50 is invoked, what are the options?

Remain on the periphery of the EU?

Establish a North Sea Union?

Something different?

Well, I don’t know what all the options are, and I am not going to go through a list however small, but there is one option I am absolutely in favour of.

I have never been against a European Union per se,  just this particular model. In my younger days, not only was I in favour of the UK being in the EEC and then the EC, but I was in favour of Australia also joining… However, as I observed its operations I went from disturbed, through concerned and deeply troubled, and ended up militantly anti. However, I continue to have no objection to a union in principle, it just has to be structured a bit better.

Where am I going with this? I have just finished reading a new paper by James C. Bennett, of Anglosphere (1)(2) fame, and I am convinced by his arguments. Although, I was disposed to accept what he was putting forward long before I read the document.

When the UK joined the EU it was a kick in the teeth to their brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces and sundry other friends and relatives scattered all around the globe in many different countries and territories. For some places, New Zealand as an example, the loss of UK markets caused real hardship.

But that was then, this is now.


Burkini Atoll

You always know when politicians are either unwilling or unable to address something which is bothering a lot of people.

They make a big splash over something which is basically irrelevant, go on TV and talk about it, introduce legislation if necessary, generally create a big old fuss. I refer of course to the French and their ludicrously miniscule “Burkini ban”

I’ve only ever once in my travels through the Med seen a woman wearing one. It was in a water park and she was thoroughly soaked like everyone else. I felt a little sorry for her. Whether it was some patriarchal figure who said she had to wear it (ludicrous on its own terms by the way), or whether she was a prisoner of her own idiot ideology swallowed whole, I do not know. But one thing was for sure, she was no threat.
Now there are good reasons for banning some of the looser Islamic clothing and some of the face coverings, I get that. Sometimes you need to show ID, and very loose clothing can hide a multitude of sins. But there really isn’t a problem with beachwear.

Politicians could do something effective like say halting immigration, beginning deportations, not legally recognising polygamy (sic), insist on English competence before citizenship, ending ‘faith’ schools, prosecuting child rapists without fear of being called racist or abolishing hate crime or hate speech laws. They could allow us the means of self-defence. Israel recognises an armed populace is essential for the safety of its citizens; we in the West allow ours to be tortured and killed.

They could reach the now obvious conclusion that radical Islam and its adherents hate us and their presence in the West is antithetical to our continued peaceful existence and civilisation.

But they don’t, or won’t and thus getting “tough on Burkinis”

Idiotic, counter-productive and a symbol of their own impotence.

Turkeys Strategy

What was it? Did Turkey undergo a failed coup, or was it a successful purge? A combination of the two maybe?

I prefer the latter myself.

Anyway, what next?

The President of Turkey has a history of encouraging the Turkish immigrants to Germany to retain their national identity, not only encouraging them to refrain from integrating into their new home, but now reinforcing that identity with demonstrations and nationalist pro Erdogan rallies. Germany is objecting to this, but who cares what they think. What are they going to do? Show some backbone? Unlikely.

What’s happening in Germany is not going to be pretty, and does it tie in with President Erdogans ambitions? The man is not just an Islamic supremist, but a Turkish nationalist as well. Just as Iran is seeking to extend its influence west, re-establishing Persian influence across its ancient lands, Turkey is starting to look south, putting northern Syria, including the Kurdish lands, under its control.

As well as dominating the middle east Ottoman Turkey was for over half a thousand years a major power in Europe, and if he sees an opportunity Erdogan will make it one again.

I can’t see that it was an accident that a million young men have been dumped in Europe by Turkey. I am not going to argue that this was all preplanned in detail, but once the refugees became available Erdogan put them to use.

Turkey is demanding, as the price of halting the flow of refugees, that Turkish citizens have the right of free movement throughout the European Union, so thousands, tens of thousands, of Erdogan supporters and sympathisers could soon be on the move, settling with and bolstering already significant Turkish and Islamist communities.

In the very near future Germany and other parts of Europe will become violent places. As immigrant ethnic groups consolidate they will look for support elsewhere. Turkey will supply organisation, planning, agents provocateur, provocations and matériel under the table to Turkish and other Islamic communities, encouraging the violence and providing the wherewithal to carry it out, and then use the fact of the disturbances to exert a right to protect its nationals, and demand an influence in European countries (Germanys) internal affairs. What could be more reasonable than Turkish soldiers donning blue berets and taking responsibility for the security of Turkish and Islamic areas within Germany, once violence becomes endemic?

The idea that Turkey, as things stood five years ago, could re-establish itself as a European power would have been a joke, but Europe committing suicide provides it with the opportunity.

Doing my bit to smash Labour


Labour Party Leadership Election - Jeremy Corbyn

Another day, another vote. It’s beginning to feel like Switzerland…well perhaps not quite. The merits or otherwise of Owen Smith I couldn’t say, but voting for dearest Darling Owen will not split the party and cast this irrelevant bunch of middle aged Trots into the everlasting darkness of political oblivion.

Given that Comrade Jezza has already wreaked havoc on Labour during the 18-months of his leadership thus far, chances for further mayhem are high. This will be especially true if he succeeds in his attempt to force all sitting MP’s to go through re-selection as part of the process for determining which of the party’s MP’s will be squeezed into the more slimline Houses of Parliament in 2020 when the number of seats is reduced from the current 650 to 600.

For those whose memories are not so ancient, the idea of incumbent MP’s being subject to re-selection prior to each election was a Bennite policy that was rejected back in the 1980’s. It’s application now has only one purpose, which is to purge the moderate Blairites from the parliamentary party and replace them with those who are loyal to Comrade Jezza.

For those who imagine that this whole farrago can’t get any worse for Labour, watch this space, because the re-election of Comrade Jezza will unleash a tide of revenge over the parliamentary party which may well see a split before the end of the year, in which case they will be both up in court seeking ownership of the Labour Party name and more importantly the party machinery and war chest for the next election.

Watching Labour tear itself apart is something which I have dreamed about for more than a decade. We live in interesting times.

Some people just want to watch the world burn

Hillary’s health question

The Donald won’t release his tax returns. This is damaging, but I don’t blame him. As it is, the media have one stick to beat him with; his full tax return would be a gift that kept on giving. Like anyone else he probably avoids as much tax as he lawfully can. However, you know the pro-Hillary media (almost all of it) would be all over it, every day, drip, drip, drip. So he’s smart not to release.

Hillary on the other hand, won’t fully release her medical records and this is interesting.

It surprises me that the hurricane of corruption blowing around the ghastly Clintons seems to have left Hillary undamaged in the eyes of many. I find this staggering. How could anyone possibly consider voting for a liar who left men to die in Banghazi. And knowingly lied about it. As well as the small matter of breaching national security with the e-mail server and lying about that, and claiming she landed at an airport one time under sniper fire (another lie), and any number of other ghastly goings on.

But it maybe all this is too ephemeral. You need to spend a few minutes thinking about this to grasp the significance of the e-mail server. Low information, low IQ voters may find this too hard to understand.

So maybe the Republicans should start questioning her health. Twitter has made a lot of this, even though the first time I saw it on the MSM, it was a piece saying the whole thing was made up, (interesting that they feel the need to ‘debunk’ when they never covered it – the power of social media). So let’s look at the claims:

1. She’s been falling down a lot. People in their sixties, by and large don’t fall that much, this tends to be a problem for those in their seventies and eighties. We know in 2012 she suffered a transverse sinus thrombosis. I read that people who have to wear prism glasses are often the ones who have cognitive impairment after falls. She wears prism glasses.

2. There is the suggestion she has Parkinson’s disease. This would explain Huma Adebin’s January 2013 e-mail when she told an aide that Hillary was often confused and needed hand-holding on her daily schedule.

3. Then there’s the fact she’s not had a press conference since early December. Maybe she just feels she’s a shoe-in and press conferences can only hurt her now? But seriously not talking to the press when you are running for President?

4. Physically she has stools to sit on everywhere she goes and is often propped up with cushions. Again, could just be she doesn’t want to stand around, but it’s odd. And she seems to be sleeping a lot. It could be a weird schedule of course but I’ve seen some pictures where minders are simply holding her up when she speaks. This is not good.


5. Then there are some very odd videos doing the rounds on youtube where she seems to be acting very oddly. There is one where she just seems to freeze and some kind of minder comes on stage and says “just keep talking” Watch the video, judge for yourself. Also, the minders seem to carry around lots of odd medical paraphernalia.

6. Lastly, just take a look at her physical appearance. She doesn’t look like a well woman. I know she’s old and it’s a little unfair to expect a svelte figure from a woman her age, (this probably explains all the trouser suits). More seriously however, take a look at her face, she just looks really ill.

But here’s the bottom line, the Clinton campaign know this is hurting them. If there was nothing to hide, they’d do an hour long press conference and have a three minute video of her jogging or working out.

We aren’t seeing that, just like we never saw Roosevelt walk. This is telling.

Ethnic minorities face ‘entrenched’ racial inequality – watchdog

So reported the BBC this morning anyway, it was such a lousy, inadequate report that one would perhaps think it was created by a guide dog.

“Black graduates earn on average 23.1% less than white ones” reported the Beeboids somewhat breathlessly.

Isn’t this proof of inequality?

Well no, obviously not. I read the source material and there didn’t seem to be any info on the type of degrees black graduates got compared to other grads. So if they all have identical degrees from identical universities and passed at identical rates, that’s fine. It’s eliminating variable parameters which any statistician will tell you, is very important of you want to make meaningful comparisons.

But given that’s not clear, would we be shocked if graduates with lower second class degrees from Slough Polytechnic in gender studies were paid less than those with double firsts in computer science from Cambridge? This could just possibly explain the difference. I simply cannot believe any employer these days thinks to himself “Hmmm…. A Negro eh? Let’s pay them 76.9% of the while salaries”

The report also claimed that “Black people in England are more than three times more likely to be a victim of homicide than those who are white” which is probably true but it doesn’t say the race of the perpetrators of the crimes. If they were also black, it is hard to know how this could be racial discrimination.

The report also said “New targets to improve opportunities and outcomes for ethnic minority communities should be introduced” Opportunities, fine, no problem – Outcomes? Outcomes? Are you kidding me? Put me in a class with 25 Singaporean teenagers and I will likely be the 26th most successful mathematician. Who would you want calculating the bearing capacity of a new bridge, the no 1 Singaporean or me who got the job as the token white guy?

This is destructive, race-baiting garbage which actually harms the people it purports to help.