Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

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.

zzzzz

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37114418

“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.

If this isn’t offensive, I don’t know what is.

It’s disrespectful and it’s probably hate speech. The very nerve! It should be banned.

–Snowflake

.

Gloom Descends. :>((

From Paul Hunt, 1980.

USA-USSR display, Los Angeles, 1988.

Ditto.

Vote 2016

America is a constitutional republic not a democracy, claim many of the twitterati. This strikes me as something of a mis-reading of reality since there are elections. So in rather more than an abstract sense, they can claim to be democratic, if not an out-and-out democracy. It’s imperfect of course; the primaries seem like a great idea but the uncommitted delegates (such as I understand the nuances of the system) strike me as an awful one. And there seem to be mechanisms to keep pesky candidates off the ballot in some states, and voter fraud seems like an issue. But in the end, there is some kind of a choice.

So the question then becomes, who shall we elect. If you were eligible to vote, or if you are, who would you vote for? None of the candidates fill me with much hope, but let’s have a jaunt through the options:

Trump – I can’t quite see why so many Libertarians have fallen in lock-step behind this guy. Sure he fucks with the media and PC culture and he’s not Hillary, but half the economic stuff seems demented, tariff barriers?

Clinton – I would vote for Saddam Hussein before this evil lying bitch and it simply baffles me why anyone falls for her race-baiting, money from Saudis, lying, lying, lying shit. Then there is the question of her health. I’ve not followed this closely, but is she ill?

Johnson – Supposedly a libertarian but hardly one I’d recognise

Stein – Green lunatic, nuff said

5th party candidate – pick your own

So who amongst this lot, if anyone, would you vote for and who do you expect to win?

I know the polls favour Clinton but I can’t take ‘em seriously anymore and the propaganda and hate in this election seems worse than anything I’ve yet seen. I just wonder if there are enough shy Trump voters lying to pollsters for him to do it?

Narratives and reality 2

Sylville Smith was unlikely to win a Nobel prize (unless he became a community organiser of course). He did however have a pretty substantial arrest record for some serious crimes. He was the individual the Milwaukee police shot recently and this was the incident that sparked the “protests” It must be said the lazy, formulaic media coverage doesn’t help. It’s always black ‘youth’ killed by white police officer and you are invited to imagine you are back in segregated Alabama in 1950.

There is rarely if ever any coverage of the huge number of black “youths” being killed by other black youths. I saw 2016 figures from Chicago recently and of the over 2,000 gun-shot victims in the city, seven were shot by police. If the 350+ homicides, none were shot by police. You might reasonably conclude this is the bigger story. That is unless you just wanted to hawk the white racism angle.

You might also want to address the absolutely epidemic levels of black on white crime eloquently highlighted in the book “Don’t make the black kids angry” by Colin Flaherty. Mr Flaherty absolutely demolishes the myth of black victimisation and shows how they are in fact, the aggressor not the peaceful victim.

Now whether this reporting is just lazy, repetitive journalism at its worst or deliberately seeing one thing and calling it something else is not clear. Perhaps there is some kind of leftie journalistic pressure to peddle the narrative. But one thing is for sure, the scenes we’ve seen on television do not resemble a protest. Call me pedantic, but I’d define a protest as people with placards assembling to hear speeches with a clear outcome in mind. For example, legitimate protestors might say “We do not trust Milwaukee PD, instead we’d like to have the justice department investigate” Fine.

However arson, violence, looting, robbery, shooting at police, none of these things can be fairly called a protest. A more accurate description maybe opportunistic, atavistic crime. The “protestors” are simply seizing any excuse to commit larceny.

The reporting continues to stoke the fake racial narrative, the ever reliable BBC tell us “In 2014, police shot dead an unarmed black man, Dontre Hamilton, in Milwaukee, leading to protests in the city. Prosecutors chose not to charge the officer responsible”

“Chose” this suggests they casually thought “Pfft, we’re kinda busy” In fact there would have been a detailed review of the evidence, and had there been any chance of a conviction, the officer would have been thrown to the wolves. He was in fact, exonerated, shown to have acted properly. Not that you’d get that from the coverage.

Khalif Rainey, a Milwaukee’s city councillor, said people were “tired of living under this oppression” He added “Now this is a warning cry…Where do we go from here? Where do we go as a community from here?”

Hmm…. Well I’ve never struggled under the burden of slavery, but then neither has he or anyone else alive today in the West but I’d suggest the following.

Don’t steal cars, don’t steal guns, don’t flee from the police, and do drop the gun when a police officer is pointing his at you. Maybe also stop blaming white racism for everything, take responsibility, get an education, when you see black crime call it out rather than offer excuses. Oh and of you want to have kids, marry the woman in question. One of the very worst things you can do to a child is not be married to its mother.

Oh and in case you missed it, the officer who shot Mr Smith was African-American and the whole incident was captured on his body cam. Perhaps the protestors will volunteer to rebuild the stores they burned if its shown the shot was legitimate?

Quote of the Day, Aug. 13, 2016

*** Disarming a nation is easy if you first disarm it of its reason. ***

Raymond Ibrahim (One of the Good Guys.)

Let’s exaggerate problems like it’s 1974

The TUC are probably feeling a bit irrelevant at the moment, (this maybe one of their rare sojourns into reality). What is the point of a 19th and 20th century industrial-society dinosaur in today’s world? Their soul-mate Corbyn has seized control of Labour and looks set to start de-selecting anyone not sufficiently deranged. So what are they for?

It is against this backdrop, they’ve fallen back on a made-up cum exaggerated out of all proportion problem of yesteryear, namely sexual harassment in the workplace. The TUC tell us that more than half of the women surveyed cite the problem. That’s unclear language, I can cite the problem of a lack of goals from my favourite football team, but is doesn’t mean I’m missing open goals personally.

But to take this at face value … well I just can’t. I’ve worked in a few places over the years, almost always in construction. This is not a politically correct industry like the local council, housing association or major charity. Yet in all the years I’ve worked, I can’t recall seeing a single incidence of this. Literally zero, no touching, no groping, no “get your tits out” remarks.

Part of this reflects a culture change and part reflects legislative changes since the 1970’s. If a person feels (and can prove) harassment, they can sue and potentially be handsomely compensated. And I don’t know of anyone with the opinion our society is insufficiently litigious. Furthermore, HR departments realise this too, and they aren’t keen to be on the hook because of some oaf acting boorishly. Pretty much everywhere I’ve worked has a clear code of conduct and very clear procedures of what to do if you feel you are victimised in this way.

My suspicions were further raised when half way through the article, the BBC ground-shifted from harassment to discrimination, the second head of their Cerberus-like obsession. They then go on to cite someone from the “every day sexism project” which might give us a hint into that particular cognitive bias. The BBC page contains a link if you’re particularly interested.

Finally, the ever impressive Frances O’Grady the TUC general secretary tells us “we want the government to send a clear signal that this kind of behaviour is unlawful” Er, we know, everyone knows. We know because it’s not 1974. Just for balance, they quote some middle-aged guy complaining about sexual harassment from a younger female member of staff. This is where whatever vestiges of sympathy I was feeling completely disappeared.

You see this with a lot of pressure groups. It’s almost like they need a problem to feel relevant. Like a lot of the 1970’s problems, they are all but solved, addressed, done. But some people just can’t let it go. They kinda like being paid for moaning and so ever more miniscule problems are highlighted. Like ‘everyday sexism’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37025554

The Olympics – Why does anyone care?

I might get why some of the competitors care, especially if they receive some kind of sponsorship. I rather enjoy mountain biking and if someone would pay me for four or eight years to ride around mountains rather than actually work productively, that would be lovely.

Being a libertarian I couldn’t take any government largesse of course, but if someone voluntarily paid up, great.

And I see why the elite competitors, especially those who are telegenic might see it as an opportunity for self-promotion. Who wouldn’t like pots of cash for smiling next to a picture of some product or other?

I understand (but clearly don’t sympathise with) politicians who want a “legacy” of “delivering” the games. Quite why they think that’s a good thing is another matter. The justifications for London seemed to be that it would put London “on the map” But I checked; it was already on the map, just look at any map.

Then there were the supposed “economic benefits” Sure, tourism peaked during the games, but the Stadium alone cost £537m and now we rent it to a football team for £2.5m PA. Anyone seriously claim this is a good deal for the taxpayer? Don’t even start me on Tessa Jowell’s cost estimates.

The politicians want it as an easy distraction in the Roman tradition of Panem et Circenses, but this phenomenon is getting to be well-known.

Once you’ve taken this particular red pill, you can’t take the whole spectacle seriously.

Then you have the whole faux patriotism nonsense. If the Somali born Mohamed Muktar Jama Farah wins some running what does this possibly mean to anyone? Do I feel somehow better about Britain or being British? Who cares? Even if a competitor could trace his ancestry back to William the Conqueror wins some prestigious or obscure event, so what?

Finally there was the nonsense idea that having the Olympics in your country would encourage participation in sport and somehow fight obesity. I’m sure many of you will have seen the recent report that could find no evidence for this.

But there is one thing I care about.

I care about being stuck with the bill for this boondoggle, I care about the ghastly over-zealous security, the pointless development, the placing of missiles on people’s roofs without their consent and the implied cultural imperative that one ‘has’ to be excited about the Olympics. I care about being forced to fund any number of sports and competitors I don’t care about. It’s a jumped-up sports day to distract proles, nothing more.

Narratives and reality

I am feeling slightly sorry for the mainstream media. Not that sorry, but slightly sorry. The days of their hegemony are over. As recently as the 1990’s the TV channels as well as some newspapers were unchallengeable.

Now, they are dying. Newspapers (mocked today as the dead tree press) seem cumbersome, and slow to respond. The ones that do survive are seeing their advertising revenues plummet and their serious journalism shrinking. Instead they downgrade to click-bait garbage, stories about such-and-such a starlet’s ‘bikini beach body diet’ and reporting what people tweet.

Similarly, the TV news has seen its influence diminish and its ability to spew clumsy propaganda shattered by near instant fact checking. They too engage in so-called “churnalism” with near verbatim parroting of cut-and-paste of press releases from friendly sources. They are like the dinosaurs that saw an asteroid hit. They realise it’s getting cold and dark and they are simply clueless on how to react.

Of late, we’ve seen a doubling-down of the hysterical propaganda. Global warming has been unchallenged orthodoxy for years and somehow, as a white man in the West, everything is your fault. Slavery is your fault. Set aside the fact that the culture that did more than any other to abolish slavery and actually recognise human dignity was the white Western culture. When was the last time you heard the Ottoman Empire or the
Barbary slave trade condemned? Didn’t the Romans keep slaves? The ancient Egyptians? Weren’t over a million white people kept as slaves in North Africa? You won’t hear that much on the MSM

And it’s against this backdrop of decay and hysteria that we come to the BBC reporting of the recent stabbing in London. Any thought that the Beeboids report this sensibly or authentically must now surely be dropped. The Metropolitan police were reporting early on that the perp was mentally ill. It’s hard to know how they could have concluded a psychiatric evaluation before they even knew his name but that was the story. The Beeb parroted this for a while before putting on their website “Norwegian” teen arrested over stabbing (sic). By this morning, the story had disappeared down the memory hole. Nothing to see here, move along.

The “Norwegian” was not someone called Lars Svenson or Torben Erikson, no this Scandinavian was called Zakaria Bulhan who was a Somali.

The cops have not yet told us this person’s religion but we do know that 99.8% of Somalis are Muslim and Islam is the state religion of the provisional constitution. We also know that the average Somali IQ is 68 (that’s not a typo), so probably not too many critical thinkers or great movements of religious reform coming out of Somalia anytime soon. But they might be susceptible to clumsy terrorist propaganda

The cops have assured us however that there are no known links to terrorism. So that must be true because you really should trust the state and the MSM.

Protests, what’s the point?

Yes, I know, writing to your MP is more or less redundant. They might send a letter to someone about something trivial, but anything significant which defies the party whip? Forget it.

So what can you do? Many people seem to think protests make a difference, but I don’t think they get how modern politics works. First, the sometimes unpalatable, but absolute truth; the view of the electorate is more or less irrelevant for four years and ten months out of five. Only when the politicos are afraid of losing power do they (pretend to) listen.

We’ve had three recent examples of futile, pointless protests. The Remain supporters demanding the people be given a voice after the referendum, sic, the black lives matter campaigners blocking the road at Heathrow today because of perceived problems with various American police forces and Father’s for justice who seem under the impression that climbing onto Crobyn’s roof will change things.

Last to first, Corbyn is out of power, he can’t change anything and these clowns have been doing this for 20 years and achieved nothing. I have real sympathy with the aims of fathers 4 justice but come on. Is there some strategy meeting they have that says “well this has been a total and complete failure for two decades so let’s do more of that”

The BLM crew today were even more ridiculous. There really isn’t an ongoing and endemic problem of police officers shooting black men regularly in the UK. They were talking about Mark Duggan. So if you want to avoid being shot by the cops, don’t be a criminal gangster wannabe carrying illegal handguns about your person. You should be more or less safe. That would actually work but it wouldn’t get you on TV!

As to the remainers, some made good cases to remain some did not, but one cannot have a referendum then declare the result invalid because you did not like it regardless of how much you protest. Indeed this obvious truth should have been clear from both the countryside marches of the 90’s and the anti-war marches somewhat later on. These were very substantial and completely ignored.

What does work in politics is forming pressure groups and giving money to the offices of various politicians. Then the legislative program is yours for the taking. So F4J, BLM, just organise subscription fees and pay the politicians whose votes you want. In later years you can get handouts from government itself to bribe MPs with. So put away your ladders and understand what actually works to change things.

I got you Babe… And a Dynasty!

They say we’re young and we don’t know
We won’t find out until we grow… But they didn’t

Now they are back for the Supermarket Sweep of the Presidency again.

Both shaggy-haired, it’s a rather hippy Hill and Bill pictured at Yale Law School, where they met in 1970 in their early 20s

Bill Kristofferson  and Shrillary Mitchell (Bill was a Rhodes Scholar as well as Kris. How come so many lefties freeloaded on what is now considered to be nasty Imperialist racism?) No wonder their kid is called Chelsea.

%d bloggers like this: