Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Comment is free

Greek Tragedy.

This is a modest proposal as to what to do with Greece.

We, Europe, foreclose on the entire shooting match of shit and auction it. We could solve the entire Elgin Marbles stuff by “buying” the Parthenon in toto and sticking them back onto it in the O2 Arena. At least it would prevent One Direction gigs. It is win-win.

Other creditors could take pro-rata and the rest we auction. I wouldn’t fancy Erdogan’s Turkey taking the gaff but a normal secular Turkish regime would be OK. The Russians are absolutely verboten not least because they got their warm water port after nicking the Crimea. And I don’t want the Putinocrasy spreading West. I want that bar-steward house-elf shot in the rectum. The rectum*.

So… China for the Hellenic yard-sale? The EU writes off debts to China and the Chinese get “Hong Kong West”. I see great trade deals for all and the Greeks get a government that might, might be able to get a fuck in a Danish dog brothel with a sack of sausages. Because the current bellendege of gits that is the Greek government (and I am especially including the uncivil service) couldn’t get a tug-off at a crack-fuelled Bonobo orgy – in Vegas – with Bon Jovi headlining. And nibbles.

So that is my modest proposal. Sell Greece.

I had this idea in the shower. The best ideas come to me in the shower. I guess washing my hair ain’t pulling too many cycles of the Nick CPU.

*”Rectum, damn near killed him”. Works best in a Geordie accent. And apparently it is common amongst the Russian mafia to execute folks with a shot up the Johnson Pickles. And if Putin isn’t Capo di tutti capi then I’m Pope Gregory the fucking Ninth.

Sometimes they say it better than me…

From Jihad Watch. This is good.

Chloe Valdary concludes this terrific piece by saying, “It is of course your prerogative to continue to utilize platitudes for your cause. You are entirely within your rights to chant words like ‘equality’ ‘justice’ and ‘freedom fighter.’ You can keep using those words for as long as you like. But I do not think you know what they mean.” Indeed. Or maybe they know full well what they mean, and want to confuse and manipulate people into no longer being sure, so they can more easily claim them for themselves.

“To the Students for Justice in Palestine, a Letter From an Angry Black Woman,” by Chloe Valdary, Tablet, July 28, 2014 (thanks to Linda):

The student organization Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is prominent on many college campuses, preaching a mantra of “Freeing Palestine.” It masquerades as though it were a civil rights group when it is not. Indeed, as an African-American, I am highly insulted that my people’s legacy is being pilfered for such a repugnant agenda. It is thus high time to expose its agenda and lay bare some of the fallacies they peddle.

• If you seek to promulgate the legacy of early Islamic colonialists who raped and pillaged the Middle East, subjugated the indigenous peoples living in the region, and foisted upon them a life of persecution and degradation — you do not get to claim the title of “Freedom Fighter.”

• If you support a racist doctrine of Arab supremacism and wish (as a corollary of that doctrine) to destroy the Jewish state, you do not get to claim that the prejudices you peddle are forms of legitimate “resistance.”

• If your heroes are clerics who sit in Gaza plotting the genocide of a people; who place their children on rooftops in the hopes they will get blown to bits; who heap praises upon their fellow gang members when they succeed in murdering Jewish school boys and bombing places of activity where Jews congregate — you do not get to claim that you are some Apollonian advocate of human virtue. You are not.

• If your activities include grieving over the woefully incompetent performance by Hamas rocketeers and the subsequent millions of Jewish souls who are still alive — whose children were not murdered by their rockets; whose limbs were not torn from them; and whose disembowelment did not come into fruition — you do not get to claim that you stand for justice. You profess to be irreproachable. You are categorically not.

• If your idea of a righteous cause entails targeting and intimidating Jewish students on campus, arrogating their history of exile-and-return and fashioning it in your own likeness you do not get to claim that you do so in the name of civil liberty and freedom of expression.

• You do not get to champion regimes that murder, torture, and persecute their own people, deliberately keep them impoverished, and embezzle billions of dollar from them—and claim you are “pro-Arab.” You are not.

• You do not get to champion a system wherein Jews are barred from purchasing land, travelling in certain areas, and living out such an existence merely because they are Jews — and claim that you are promoting equality for all. You do not get to enable that system by pushing a boycott of Jewish owned businesses, shops, and entities — and then claim that you are “against apartheid.” That is evil.

• You do not get to justify the calculated and deliberate bombings, beatings, and lynchings of Jewish men, women, and children by referring to such heinous occurrences as part of a noble “uprising” of the oppressed—that is racism. It is evil.

• You do not get to pretend as though you and Rosa Parks would have been great buddies in the 1960s. Rosa Parks was a real Freedom Fighter. Rosa Parks was a Zionist….

She shoots. She scores. That is serious back of the net.


This comment fell foul of a CiF censor.

Mankind has a long history of people who were absolutely convinced that survival depends on everyone else adopting their belief system.

Steven Goddard at Real Science.

The truth will set you free at loggerheads with greenie Graunie gatekeepers.  It makes you wonder what these people are afraid of.


The Guardian’s CiF writer Lemn Sissay is advocating what can only be described as apartheid. Oh and he also launches into a deranged (and irrelevant) rant on gollywogs and refers to children as “resources”. It’s truly a class act!.

Britain’s Intellectual Elite

I tend to avoid the Graun’s ironically-titled Comment is Free, but Helen at Your Freedom and Ours linked to this article by Jonathan Freedland about the Left’s eugenicist past and I thought it’d be an interesting read. It was.

But the comments

Oh, my good lord. I’ve never seen so much intellectual arrogance from people so little entitled to display it in my life. That Freedland’s evidence is dismissed without coherent argument goes without saying (Shaw and the Webbs weren’t socialists, apparently), but it doesn’t end there. If you fancy a quiet Sunday afternoon clutching your head in fear of your brains running out of your ears, click the link. A pseudonym (from the Greek ψευδώνυμον, “false name”) isn’t a pseudonym if everyone knows it, associating the Left with authoritarianism is “willfully obtuse” (but Ayn Rand, oh she was authoritarian)… the parade of misinformed claptrap, delivered in that confident, withering, tone so beloved of Leftists, is almost endless. Of course, it goes without saying that eugenics is perfectly fine by a fair number of them.

And people wonder why everything’s fucked.

The Great and the Good

Darwin was a geologist. Does this mean his opinions on biology should be ignored?

NEWSPAPERS should refrain from publishing the opinions of average Australians, academic Robert Manne has said.

Professor Manne says they should report only the views of a "core" of experts in key debates.

At a book-signing in Sydney last night, he also urged the media to embrace greater contributions from controversial left-wing commentators such as US linguistics professor Noam Chomsky and Beirut-based commentator Robert Fisk.

Professor Manne is facing fierce criticism over his recently published Quarterly Essay, Bad News, in which he alleges that The Australian plays an "overbearing" and "unhealthy" role in national debates by publishing fringe views on controversial topics.

Professor Manne, who described climate change as the most serious threat facing the planet, has said only experts within the "core" of the scientific consensus should be heard.

"I do not believe it makes sense for non-scientists to have views on scientific issues," he told the gathering at Gleebooks, in inner Sydney.

"They should get scientists in the consensual core to debate it, but that would be so boring."

Folie à douche

The Grauniad’s Wintour and Watt blog reports that:

Former PM believes he could still be in No 10 if new allegations relating to Andy Coulson had emerged before the election

The blog post headlines with:

Gordon Brown: I’d still be PM if hacking claims had been aired earlier

That’s right.  The former Prime Mentalist believes that he lost the election because details of Coulson’s alleged phone hacking were suppressed and not because he was a totally useless twat who wrecked the economy and sold us down the festering  EUSSR creek we hated his incompetent and worthless fucking guts.  So let’s see what the Grauniad blog warriors have to say.

Gordon Brown has been experiencing mixed emotions this week.

Translation:  Brown’s been chucking around iPads, iPods, laptops and tablets as well as Nokias.  Maybe his new dummy as well.

One side of him has felt what can best be described as a sense of Schadenfreude as he watches the pressure pile up on Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch.

It doesn’t even begin to match the sense of revulsion I experienced as I witnessed the damage this pin-headed, shit-for-brains freak inflicted on the UK.

Brown has never, and will never, forgive the pair for the brutal manner in which they withdrew the Sun’s support for Labour before the last general election. The former prime minister always knew he would struggle to retain the red top’s support. But pulling the plug on Labour in the autumn of 2009 on the evening of his last speech to the Labour conference before the general election was seen as a deeply hostile act.

So it isn’t about Coulson and the phone hacking then.  It’s about petty revenge.  Labour was perfectly happy to hitch its dilapidated wagon to the Murdoch ox despite the hacking scandal.  It wasn’t until Murdoch’s change of editorial policy that Brown began stamping his feet and scweaming and scweaming until we were all sick.

But Brown is not enjoying any sweet taste of victory because his over-riding emotion is one of regret. He believes that had the latest set of allegations been aired 18 months ago he might well still be prime minister.

That’s because, to borrow a very appropriate phrase, he’s nucking futz.

It might seem slightly far-fetched to believe that alleged law breaking at Britain’s largest Sunday tabloid newspaper, even if it supports the Tories, could have changed the result of the election. But here is his logic.

Only slightly far-fetched?  In the same way that the Pope is only slightly catholic perhaps?  Your stupidity bias is showing, boys.

Had two of this week’s key developments become public at the turn of 2009/10 then the electorate’s doubts about David Cameron might have hardened into outright rejection. Brown believes those doubts explain the Tories’ failure to secure an overall majority.

That load of retarded bollocks is so hairy you could make a sporran out of it.  Cameron failed to achieve an overall majority because he was perceived to renege on his ironically called “cast iron” promise regarding a Lisbon Treaty (EU) referendum.  And even had the scandal broke early all Cameron had to do was sack Coulson and do what any slimy politician worth his salt would do, distance himself from the issue at the speed of light.  The country was so fucking sick of low-Brownism they would have voted for a lump of dog shit.  Which is more or less what happened.

The two disclosures – the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone and News International’s admission that payments were made to police – raise questions for Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications chief from 2007 to January this year. Coulson was NOW’s deputy editor at the time that Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked and News International let it be known this week that it had passed emails to the police suggesting he was aware of the police payments.

All of which happened under Labour’s watch while they were cosying up with News International and stroking Murdoch’s wrinkley member.

Brown believes the appearance of these allegations 18 months ago would have led to Coulson’s immediate resignation. That would have led to questions about Cameron’s judgment in hiring Coulson. These questions are being asked now. But Brown believes that Cameron would have faced far more pressure in the immediate period before a general election. Voters, who were unsure about the Tories, would have turned away from Cameron, according to the Brown thinking.

Personally I’m more interested in Labour’s equally questionable love affair with the Murdoch press before Rupe kicked them in the balls.  Brown should be down on his knees thanking God for the Wapping bastard’s infidelity. But then, Brown’s not the one who broke it off, is he…

The former prime minister developed a close interest in the phone hacking scandal after the Guardian disclosed in July 2009 that News International had paid more than £1m to settle cases that threatened to reveal widespread phone hacking. Patrick Wintour and I recently reported that a few months later, after the News of the Worldand the Sun abandoned their support for Labour, Brown sought to hold a judicial inquiry into the allegations. This was blocked by Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, on the grounds that it would be too sensitive before the election.

A close interest, eh?  I’ll just bet he did.  And Sir Gus pulled the plug.  Possibly because hypocritical Brown only called for a judicial enquiry after being dumped so conspicuously by Murdoch.  Before that, while they all were defecating in the same pot, he’d kept judiciously schtum.  Throwing his dummy out of the pram with such bitter public resentment would have raised too many eyebrows and too many questions about Brown’s, and therefore Labour’s, pisspoor judgement and (non existant) veracity.

And who was the decisive voice in persuading Cameron that at least one of the inquiries must be led by a judge? That would be Nick Clegg who of course was the man directly responsible for Brown’s resignation. During the coalition negotiations Clegg held open the possibility of a coalition with Labour but only if Brown announced that he would step aside.

Something for which Clegg should be thanked even if he is an insanely leftist cunt with the principles of a shithouse rat and for whom hardly anyone voted.

The breathtaking dishonesty of the Financial Times newspaper.

Today (Thurday 14 April 2011) I have seen perhaps the most dishonest frontpage story in a supposedly “quality” newspaper, that I have come upon in my life.

The “Financial Times” has a front page story that President Barack Obama has proposed cutting four trillion (yes with a “t”) Dollars from the American Federal government deficit over a period of ten years.

Such a story, if true, would be welcome news – as the American Federal government is already more than 14 trillion Dollars in debt (thanks, in part, to the wild “stimulus” spending of President Obama – which the Financial Times supported) and is borrowing more than one and half trillion Dollars in the comming year alone.  So whilst the Federal government would still be spending trillions of Dollars over the next ten years – it would at least be spending four trillion Dollars less, and so would also borrow four trillion Dollars less.

The Financial Times, however, then goes on to report that spending cuts to tax increases are at a rate of three to one – so, in reality, the spending cuts are three trillion Dollars.

“Well that is dishonest Paul – but not wild dishonesty, you have got too upset over such a thing”.

Accept for one fact:

There is no “three trillion Dollar” spending cut (no more than there is a four trillion Dollar one). It is all a LIE a vast stinking LIE.

Barack Obama has proposed no real overall spending cut at all – it is all smoke and mirrors, waffle and spit.

It is the duty of a “quality” newspaper (especially a financial newspaper) to expose such a vast lie – but, instead, the Financial Times reports it as if it were the truth – and makes this lie a front page news story.

They are scoundrels, scum of the worst order. They are financial journalists, they must know what they are reporting as truth is a lie. They are misleading, deliberatly misleading, any trader or investor who sees the front page of their newspaper. I care not for what qualification there may be inside the newspaper (I have not looked inside it – and I do not intend to dirty my hands with it) – it is the front page headline and story that is what matters.

Should the lying scoundrals of the Financial Times, who have undertaken this fraud upon the pulblic, take exception to my words – I am at their disposal, for I am prepared to defend my words before the courts.

Unsuitable for readers of a nervous disposition

This is bloody terrifying.

The UK will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2030 under world-leading proposals from the government’s advisers on climate change.

Achieving the target proposed by the Committee on Climate Change requires a complete revamp of the nation’s electricity market, making it virtually zero-carbon, as well as an overhaul of heat-leaking homes and the replacement of petrol-driven cars with 11m electric or plug-in hybrid models.

This is, of course, impossible.

“We are recommending a stretching but realistic fourth carbon budget and 2030 target, achievable at a cost of less than 1% of GDP.”

This is, of course, bollocks. It’s as if they have alzheimer’s and can’t remember what they just said. You’re going to insulate everybody’s houses and replace all the cars in the entire country with more expensive ones, remember?

But that’s not the worst of it. Oh, no. They’re going to resurrect Gosplan:

“We have had the most liberal electricity market in world – which had some benefits in a different era,” said Kennedy. The market must be more “planned” he said …

Have these utter fuckwits learned nothing from the last hundred years? Will nobody spare us from these turbulent totalitarians? Life as a grizzled prospector in a log cabin somewhere in Alaska is looking more attractive by the minute, only I’m not very good at grizzling.

By the way, I’m not much of a Groan reader (my blood pressure couldn’t take it); I’ve never seen so many comments removed by moderators. They don’t like it up ‘em, do they?

H/T: EUref.


Now we have this race obsessed dickhead:

I’m all for a bit less Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, Galileo and Copernicus, if it means a bit more McCoy, Banneker and Carver. It’s a question of balance. It’s important.

So, this bloke Muir wants us to study the scientists of the past based on their race? Their skin colour? Not their contribution?


Ok, take the first two, Newton and Darwin; why do we study them? Well, because they had some good ideas and helped create modern society, right?

Well, yes, I suppose they did, and that’s pretty much how they’re taught. No wonder this fool can dismiss them so casually. But there is another, even more valid reason to study them and their contributions – they were the two most influential people in all human history.


Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica and On the Origin of Species, each, in their own way, changed the way all people think, across all cultures, for all time. Only those two frauds, Freud and Marx, come even close to the influence these two men have had. And no, I’m not forgetting about Big Mo, Confucius, The Buddha or anyone else; just discounting them as not in the same league.

You don’t agree? Then I suggest you probably don’t appreciate just how radically different was the world view of your recent ancestors.

The ones Muir suggests we study instead? Well, I read a biography of George Washington Carver about forty five years ago, and he seems to have been a fine and decent gentleman; and for his times that is praise indeed. The others? Never heard of them. Is that really racism? Or a justifiable acknowledgement of their importance?

Quite frankly, we don’t accord either Newton or Darwin the attention they deserve.

As for the rest of his crap about black history month? Well, uncle Morgan gets it.

We will never abolish racism so long as idiots like this keep ramming race down our throats. Far from helping abolish racial concerns, obsessive’s like Muir just keep exacerbating it. Making curriculum decisions for political reasons.

The (asymmetrical) Art of War.

I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.

-misattributed (in the movie) to General George S Patton but very much the sort of thing that hard chargin’ sonofabitch might have said judging by the other quotes on the page.

We love death more than you love life!

- this (and many variants) are the quote in trade of jihadis.

Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.

- Golda Meier (disputed).

What can men do against such reckless hate?

- King Theoden, The Lord of The Rings.

This war is not just asymmetrical because we have MQ-9 Reapers and the loonies in the boonies are concocting explosives in granny’s poss tub but in attitude, in principle. Aragorn of course could give Theoden an answer but what is the answer now?

A Tale of Two Jurisdictions

The European Court of Human Rights has ordered a halt to the extradition of radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri to the US on terror charges.

Abu Hamza and three other British men complained about the length of sentence they may face if convicted in the US.

The British courts have already approved the extraditions, but they will now be delayed for further submissions to the Strasbourg court.

The poor petals! Someone perhaps ought to have told them beforehand that being involved in jihad is not a risk-free occupation. I mean your sacrifice is for Allah, the all knowing, the all merciful etc.

Meanwhile in Iran…

The lawyer for Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani fears the mother-of-two could be put to death at any time after she was found guilty of an affair while she was married.

The 43-year-old received 99 lashes in mid-2006 after she was convicted of an “illicit relationship” with two men after her husband’s death, according to Human Rights Watch.

Later that year she was put on trial again for “adultery while being married”, during which Ashtiani said she was forced to make a confession under duress.

In 2007, Iran’s Supreme Court confirmed her execution and the woman has since exhausted all her appeals. She is currently imprisoned in the city of Tabriz.

The organisation said under the country’s law, cases of adultery must be proven either by repeated confession or by the evidence of witnesses – four men or three women and two men.

However, judges are also able to use their “knowledge” to determine guilt or innocence.

Ashtiani’s lawyer has said two of the five trial judges found her not guilty – the other three ruled she was guilty based on their “knowledge”.

“Death by stoning is always cruel and inhuman, and it is especially abhorrent in cases where judges rely on their own hunches instead of evidence to proclaim a defendant guilty,” said Nadya Khalife from Human Rights Watch.

Now, if you really want to know about a stoning (and I advise against it if you either are utterly sickened by such things or made skirlingly angry and have just bought a nice new laptop) then click here.

Anyway, feel free to compare and contrast these two cases.


Hey, it’s Sunday. In fact, it is not just Sunday but it is Sunday all day. That’s right ALL DAY.

Today, on this posting, comment is free. There is no off topic so comment away.

%d bloggers like this: