Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Progressives

When the wrong guy is the right guy

Jeremy Corbyn vs Owen Smith

Jeremy Corbyn believes he can win the Labour leadership by a landslide as it emerged that more than 180,000 people have paid £25 to vote in the contest. [JG - By my calculation that an extra £4.5 million quid]

Allies of Mr Corbyn were left jubilant by the late surge, predicting the vast majority were his backers and claiming rival Owen Smith would be left “crying his eyes out” at the news.

Moderates had attempted to shut down the chances of new joiners by upping the price from £3 and restricting registration to a 48-hour period, but people signed up at the remarkable rate of one a second.

While the 183,541 people who applied are still being vetted, they are expected to make up around a quarter of the total group voting on the next leader – meaning they could swing the result.

Labour leadership race: Jeremy Corbyn camp jubilant as 180,000 people join to vote in 48 hours

I know that the apocryphal belief is that the vast majority of these new members are from the Militant sorry Momentum group of Labour supporters who have a hard-left interpretation of what they think Labour should be doing and for them, the incompetent Jezza is just the man for the job.

For those of us who joined the Labour party to get Jezza elected in the first place [JG - *whistles tunelessly and looks around the room*] he has been a great investment in chaos, anarchy and disorder. In fact the only thing that caught me by surprise was that he nearly did the decent thing and resigned until a backbone stiffening session and stern talking-to by erstwhile comrade John McDonnell and others.

So the vote is coming up and Jezza is on the ballot to the great chagrin of the Parliamentary Labour Party and a minority of the NEC. They’ve fudged the rules as far as they were able to undermine Jeremy Corbyn’s support base, but have underestimated the lengths his supporters will go to in order to save their valiant leader (and adding £4.5 million in new subs to the Labour Party is a surprisingly long way).

I know that some of you have concerns about Jezza being accidentally thrust into Downing Street and I admit that is a possibility, but the greater probability is that his re-election will lead to a significant split in the Parliamentary Labour Party with the majority of Labour MP’s either forming a new centre-left party (possibly with the piss-poor remnants of the Liberal Democrats) or just plain sitting as independent Labour MP’s without the whip.

The chance to destroy Labour once and for all is too great to miss, so I’m voting again for Jezza as the Lord of Misrule. “Io Saturnalia!

Jeremy Corbyn - JezWeCan

Quote of the Day, June 6, 2016

All of my life I have heard the left suggest that conservatives want to control what goes on in my bedroom. Meanwhile the left has infiltrated every room of my house as well as my garage.

–Commenter “czechlist,” at WUWT

German taxpayer funded

Seriously, this paen of hatred towards Germans was funded by their own cash.

I truly don’t get it, this obsession so many progressives have with spitting hatred and abuse towards those they disagree with, while at the same time preaching tolerance and diversity.

As far as honesty in their presentation goes, I am sure that most Jews, en mass, would be happy to take the hand of friendship with Arabs, en mass, but unless there is a major change in Arab kulcha it ain’t gunna happen.

Cultural appropriation

From the Fairfax womens pages:

Namaste is my way of greeting Hindi speaking elders in my hometown Melbourne or a way of saying hello to most people back in India. But hearing namaste chanted by the white yoga instructor to a predominantly white class was unsettling. Really? If the yoga class itself wasn’t white-centric enough, she really had to place the appropriative cherry on top.”

An Indian immigrant in Australia, clearly speaks English, and presumably uses machine woven artificial fibres, electronics, communications equipment and modern transport.

What truly fascinates me about her, and her ilk, is the apparent complete absence of introspection. No evidence she has any concept of how self absorbed, ignorant, irrational, racist or xenophobic this article shows her to be – she uses ‘white’ thirteen times, making it clear skin colour is a decisive factor in her thinking.

I thought, in a multicultural society, we were supposed to learn from one another. What possible value would such learning be if we are not permitted to make use of anything we do absorb?

After my father died Lee, my mothers new partner, was Burgher from Sri Lanka. Was that cultural appropriation on her part? His extended family, their friends, and their extended families, were a range of colours, and all the women, brown through white, wore sari or western clothes as the mood or circumstances dictated – the men very seldom wore sarongs. As to their colour, am I going to give you some nonsense about how we were all colour blind? No, of course not. How could you not be aware of the colour of the person you were talking to? We just didn’t give a flying monkeys.

Lee introduced us to Sri Lankan style cooking, and I still prepare it, nearly 40 years later. Was that, and is that currently, cultural appropriation? If it isn’t, why isn’t it? And if it is, why should I care? Should I cease cooking mas ismoru (beef pot roast simmered in curry spices and coconut milk)? How about curried cashew nuts, kiri bath cooked with cinnamon sticks or stringhoppers?

My wife is Chinese, and her entire wardrobe is western style, as is that of both her sister and her friends. Should I get all hoity-toity and demand she show respect to my kulcha and wear only Chinese style clothing?

Really, what a whiney human being this woman is. Can’t she see any real problems in this world?

H/T Andrew Bolt

Progressive hypocrisy

 

Ok, so I was right, the bloke is an asshole.

He has drunk the kool aid, and drunk it deep; young Cory Goldstein is fully in accord with this whole cultural appropriation schtick. He makes it clear in the first few sentences he has no problem with the principle behind the racist assault he was subject to yesterday, he simply objects to personally being the target. What he does is different, see, because more peoples than American blacks have sported dreadlocks, therefore he is entitled to a free pass, although others aren’t.

One would have hoped the experience would have helped him see how rotten the whole concept is, but no, not yet.

Oh well, slowly slowly catchee monkey. (Was that racist?)

This is what white privilege is worth

Apparently, her name is Bonita Tindle and some reports claim she is an employee of the University.

Things to be concerned about here, she was using an accusation of ‘cultural appropriation’ to bully some poor bloke. I don’t care if he, personally, was a complete asshole, in this context she was the bully, and the one abusing her power over him.

Power over him? Yep. She was black, and the one whose ‘culture’ was being so called appropriated, and in the febrile atmosphere permeating some Universities today if he had reacted in any way other than as he did he was dead meat… Anything else he did would have had him excoriated as a racist, and possibly expelled. She was also a woman, and he was a male, putting him in the same position as black v. white. Again, anything other than a pacific response makes him dead meat.

Look at her face throughout this, she knew her power in this context, and she was loving it.

Thing is, if this had escalated in any way she could have reported him to the university authorities, accusing him of any number of offences against the progressive orthodoxy. In that event his career at the university would be over, and his future would be blighted – and she just didn’t care, she simply kept pushing.

The bloke, Cory Goldstein, was facing the possibility of personal destruction, and she was playing with him like a cat with a mouse. To the cat it is fun, to the mouse it is life and death.

She comes across as a pleasant, beautiful, and unspeakably vile young woman. She is arrogant, she is ignorant, she is racially bigoted, and she is vicious in her abuse of the tiny quantum of power her sex and skin colour gives her over her victim.

As we see here, cultural appropriation is nothing but a weapon which is used to beat ‘the other’ into submission. And what about the power of his white privilege? In this dispute his race and gender put him at the bottom of the power structure, and she knew it. So did he.

Should she be sacked? My instincts say no, just ridiculed, but it was progressives wot made the rules. If a conservative, or a white male, had behaved in this manner the uproar would be deafening, and they would be out the door post haste. Progressives have to get used to the idea that the rules they have created apply to them no less than they do to others. So, like Melissa Click,this woman must go. Like Melissa Click, I have no doubt this result will be every ones fault bar hers alone, but so what? Let her moan.

Dear Troll: “America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem”

A few weeks back, some Ignorant Person saw fit to put up on Samizdata a short comment implying, snarkily, that the U.S. is the worst of all possible worlds when it comes to the gun-murder rate.

A few of us took issue with that; I rather think the rest thought the remark not worth dignifying with a response.

However, “Sultan Knish,” a.k.a. Daniel Greenfield, who writes columns for various anti-Left online mags and has his own website at sultanknish.com, put up a doozy on the subject today; although I wish he’d found some other adjective than “Democrat,” because not all Dems are Dim on the issue. In fact some of the “gun-rights” activist-scholars are, or were, themselves Democrats*; and the excerpt below makes the point that not all cities of Obama-voters have these appalling murder rates.

But the fact remains that the worst cities certainly are run by lefty and/or race-baiting Democrats. So here is a mere excerpt (but note: YrsTrly has not verified the stats for herself). Suggest reading the whole thing….

[SNIP ...]
Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.

Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle. So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell?

A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago in one year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.

Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That’s why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It’s why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence.

America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom the media profiles after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in urban areas controlled by Democrats. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.

[SNIP]

*For instance, Eric Raymond has an interesting page, Eric’s Gun Nut Page, that describes criminologist Gary Kleck’s work and political stance. More good stuff for those who think guns might be part of the solution, with links, too.

The Turkeys have voted for Christmas…

Comrade Corbyn

So they’ve only gone and done it and by a landslide of 59.5% of the vote Jezza Corbyn has been thrust from the back benches to the leader of the opposition. The looks on the faces of the Blairites, especially Andy Burnham were worth their weight in gold, a collective of “How the fuck did this happen?”.

Well, it’s going to be a roller coaster ride, that’s for sure and nobody is quite sure where the living embodiment of Wolfie Smith, erstwhile leader of the Tooting Popular Front is going to lead this very real incarnation of Old Labour (‘cos it certainly ain’t new), some say the Houses of Parliament, but I strongly suspect the correct answer is down the toilet with a monumental flush.

Indeed the strength of the comrades party unity is already showing with shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt and shadow health minister Jamie Reed both trouncing out of the shadow cabinet, presumably taking their balls with them. Similarly, Yvette Cooper aka Mrs. Ed Balls has decided to spend more time with her family, err, return to the back benches. Well it’s certainly better than spending time at home with Ed Balls drowning his sorrows at home after being firmly rejected by the Leeds electorate.

So wither next for the Blairites and indeed the moderates and centrists of the Labour Party? I suspect they will similarly retreat into the shadows and lick their wounds while waiting for Jezza Corbyn to demonstrate his teen Trot credentials and cause rift after rift amongst the Parliamentary Labour Party.

There is an old American saying “Rattlesnakes don’t commit suicide”. I think, indeed I hope and pray that we are witnessing the death throes of this vile and repulsive collective. I give him 3-years at the most and when they do realise that Jezza Corbyn is an electoral liability they will eject him, but without sufficient time to pick some new idiot to be Head Boy (Tom Watson? Don’t make me laugh) and get them up to speed for the next election in 2020.

So Gideon Osbourn for PM in 2020 looks like a shoe-in, which is a shame really, because the guy is a upper class twat and doesn’t deserve to get handed the country on a platter, just because the opposition have had a sudden attack of electoral irrelevance.

Stephen Colbert eating popcorn

Is she accepting the consequences though?

“EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who plans to tour the damage personally, said Tuesday in Washington, D.C., that she takes full responsibility for the spill

Does this mean she will accept being bankrupted by the millions in fines, and willingly go to prison, or is this meaningless hyperbole?

Ya think she will even resign?

Want to make book on that?

For Fox Sake!

Rod Liddle, Sun columnist, goes off on one.

TALLY Ho! No sooner are the Conservatives back in office than they’ve decided to have a go at the poor foxes once again.

Actually I am of the opinion that they are trying to fix a half-arsed law that does little for either camp.  Trying to turn it into a Toffs or Us campaign because it suits your townie tunnel vision is unworthy of decent journalism.  But then, this is the Sun we are talking about.

Probably because there’s not much important going on in the world, is there?

When trying to repeal bad laws you have to begin somewhere.  The fox hunting travesty is as good a place to start as any.

Just the EU falling to bits and jihadi maniacs chopping heads off all over the place and Britain swamped by more and more immigration.

More bad laws to repeal, yes?

The Prime Minister wanted to waste some parliamentary time loosening the laws on fox hunting.

I assume this was David Cameron’s gift to his local pals — the Cotswold Posse.

All those rich monkeys in his constituency who enjoy nothing more than ripping a defenceless animal to bits.

But wait! Riding to the rescue are the Scottish nationalists!

Because Toffs on horseback are far more dangerous than the SNP interfering in English matters that should not concern them?  Your priorities are as skewed as the perceived ones you are whinging about, Ron.

They’ve said they will vote against any Tory proposals to relax the hunting ban. Despite the fact that they shouldn’t have anything to do with the matter because the rules don’t apply to Scotland.

But Ron agrees with them so it’s okay for the SNP to gang up in the House of Commons in precisely the way they promised not to.  The English faction of Parliament should interfere right back and give the SNP a bloody nose.  Oh, wait.  We don’t get to practice that privilege.  But that’s okay because foxes are cute and cuddly and never kill livestock.  Evah!

Opportunistic hypocrites, says Mr Cameron. But the foxes don’t care where salvation comes from — any port in a storm.

I despise Cameron but he has a point.  As for any port in a storm, it depends what is waiting for you on the dock.  In the foxes case it’s poison, lethal gas or a spade over the head.  At least they have a chance to escape horse and hounds.

My own guess is that the SNP are furiously against fox hunting because most members of the party have the same coloured fur as a fox.

Waaaaaycist!  That’s waaaaycist against gingers that is.  To presume they have fur and not hair.  Tut tut.

They’re worried the hunters might get confused. The toffs out on horseback spending the entire day pursuing what they think is a fox — and then they find the hounds have just eaten Nicola Sturgeon.

Ron thinks Nicola is a fox.  Does he kiss her picture every night before he goes to bed?

Still, at least the Nats are on the right side for once.

No, they’re not.  This is political interference on steroids. Will you still feel the same way if they join the Guardianista inspired witch hunt against Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid journalists?  Only stupid turkeys vote for Christmas.

The British public is hugely opposed to fox hunting, according to every opinion poll carried out on the matter.

According the opinion polls we were going to have another hung Parliament.  How is Coalition 2.0 going for you Ron?

Rightly, they consider it a horrible and barbaric business.

So was the invasion of Iraq but that didn’t stop New Labour did it?  They believed that foxes were more deserving of protection than the civilians who died during the ousting of Saddam.  They are still dying because IS filled the void.  Save your indignation for them, Ron.  Let’s have some honest perspective here.

Every bit as barbaric as all those other sports we’ve banned over the years — bear baiting, for example. Or cock fights, or dog fights.

Which take place in pits with no chance of escape.

Just because fox hunting is undertaken, in the main, by posh people, it doesn’t make it any less barbaric. A psychopath wearing a pink jacket is still a psychopath.

Where to begin?  Foxes are an apex predator and are culled because they kill livestock.  You know, all those cute and fluffy lambs, chickens and ducklings.  Dressing up in costume and riding to hounds, in Ron’s world, is psychotic because it is mostly done by toffs even though, in reality, it isn’t.  Bashing an animal’s brains out with the back of a shovel gets no mention, presumably because the deed is done by salt of the earth common man and is therefore not psychotic at all.  This is pure hypocrisy.  It is bare-faced, townie lefty, no nowt bollocks.

But there’s something about the Conservatives that revels in ripping an animal to bits.

I seem to recall a few Conservatives voting for the ban.  Must have slipped Ron’s mind.

If they’re not trying to bring back fox hunting they’re gassing badgers — for no sane reason whatsoever.

Because TB infected badgers don’t exist and neither does Bovine TB.

Mr Cameron and his well-bred cronies have no time for our wildlife, as they show time and time again.

There’s an awful lot of Labour voting farmers and country folk in my part of the world who regularly shoot rabbits and crows.  Aren’t they wildlife too?

If it’s furry and it’s got a pulse, kill it. If it’s a bird of prey, let the gamekeepers shoot it or poison it.

Your PETA-coat is showing, Ron.

And yet I thought the Conservatives were sick of being portrayed as the “nasty party”?

It’s all Fatcha’s fault.

Here’s the deal, Dave. Sort out the economy. Try to raise the wages of our poorest people a little bit, huh?

Nine quid an hour isn’t enough then?   What do you suppose this piece of Tory socialist insanity is going to do for the economy?

Decide what we’re going to do about IS and all those refugees trying to get into the country.

With all those bleeding hearts and EUphiles voting against him?  Not a chance.

And leave the foxes alone.

If you saw what a fox does to livestock it would make you puke, Ron.  But since you are a townie you keep yourself insulated against red blooded reality and arrogantly insist that you know what the scamelling hell you are talking about.

“Draw Mohammed”: Summary

In this fight to retain our freedom, which is the root of the Garland flap, Shari’ah Law and Islamicisation of the West are the adversary. But the principles for which we fight are just as much if not more at risk in the project to Fundamentally Transform the Whole World into some Marxist-Leninist-Progressivist nightmare, and the means by which we fight Islamicisation are to be applied also in this other, all-encompassing fight.

As for the present instance: If we held such events as “Draw Mohammed” every month (but responsibly, as the Garland event was held); if we met every attempt at intimidation by being unimpressed, for instance if our own papers had published the Danish cartoons; such actions would show our enemies that we mean what we say, we will stick by it, we will stand by our principles and defend them in word and deed. If the enemy then wants to impose his will on us by force, by terrorism and war, he will have at least some evidence that we will not run from the fight, fearfully and virtuously clucking our disapproval of it.

With luck he might conjecture that while we would prefer not to meet force with force, we certainly will do so if it is necessary in order for us to live our lives as free men and women and not as serfs or slaves who are at the disposal of other human beings and who are allowed to exist only at their pleasure; and that if we are forced to war in self-defense, we have more than enough strength of will to prevail.

In the ’30′s, Britain and France telegraphed their reluctance to face the facts and to defend themselves against force with force. The guy with the moustache picked up the message and calculated that he could get away with it…and almost did.

How many times must we repeat the same mistake!

“Draw Mohammed,” Part 6: Closing Arguments

The following points have been made by the Prosecution against Pamela Geller (hereinafter, “P.G.”). Each point is followed by rebuttal from the Defense.

1. P.G. held the event specifically to provoke Muslims.

She did not. The underlying point of the event was to EXERCISE freedom of speech in a way that would show that Americans are serious about protecting it. I point out that this is true regardless of whether that freedom is under attack by Islam, the PC crowd, or anybody else … and there are lots of “anybody else’s,” as I hope the various video clips have shown.

But in particular, we in the West are being undermined by capitulating to various strictures of Shari’ah, in this case that one must not even draw the Prophet, let alone criticize, let alone mock him. P.G.’s direct and immediate point in the event was to show that we are determined NOT to “submit” to that stricture.

There is a second point to the event that is equally important, and that is to bring the situation of “creeping Shari’ah,” in this case Shari’ah against Freedom of Speech, into broad public awareness, so that “we” will become not just a few hundred thousand or a few million resisters, but the bulk of the American people: hundreds of millions of resisters.

2. The event predictably invited and incited violence against AFDI, the attendees, and the American public generally. P.G. should, must, have known this, and therefore should not have put others at risk by holding it.

P.G. was well aware that there might be a violent response. That is why she provided additional security forces to the tune of some $37,000 – $ 50,000, according to different published claims.

But in fact no Muslims were forced to respond violently. They chose to do so of their own free will. Miss Geller responds, “This is the same argument as the one claiming that the rape victim is responsible for her being raped because she wore a short skirt.”

(This argument has actually been made often enough against those who claim to have been raped, but the fact is that is both illegal and morally wrong to rape anybody for any reason, even if the victim did intentionally wear a short skirt in a dangerous neighbourhood. We rightly hold the rapist accountable just the same.)

3a. P.G. has the right, specifically the legal, First-Amendment right, to hold the event and say what she wants, but she should not have done it [this may be express or only implied, by the question "…but should she have?"].

This amounts to devaluing all previous statements of defense. It’s like “damning by faint praise.”

(Look for a posting about this line of thought at some point, because there is a good impulse behind it as well as the cowardly refusal to give a fully-committed defense in public.)

3b. Besides, this type of speech, this type of event, “even if it’s allowed, it shouldn’t be done, because it has no value, this type of discussion at this type of event.” Megyn Kelly asks Eugene Volokh to comment on this claim, at 7:09 in their video in Part 5.

Prof. Volokh replies [boldface mine]:

“Well, surely this kind of discussion does have value, it has value in debate about Islam and about the role of Islam and about the action of some Muslims, fortunately only a small portion of Muslims to these kinds of things.

But beyond that, it has value as a re-affirmation of our free-speech rights, it has value as an act of defiance, it has value as people saying “look, we are not going to be shut up. When you tell us that we cannot draw pictures of Mohammed, when you tell us that we cannot say these things or else you’ll kill us, that just means we’re gonna [sic] do it again and again to show that you can not threaten Americans into submission. …. The whole point of this was to say, “You cannot tell Americans, you cannot tell a free people what [they] can and cannot say.” And that’s a very important message to say, especially in times like these.”

I have heard people saying … it’s too provocative. Well, look, there are times when First Amendment rights have to be defended. And they have to be defended by saying [we're] going to say these things even though we realize there’s a risk of violence, even though we realize there’s a risk of attack. The only way we can protect our free-speech rights is by re-asserting our free-speech rights.

By “re-asserting,” Prof. Volokh means showing the existence of the right by using it.

I note that it is up to the Courts through their rulings, and up to us as American (and Western) individuals through our words and actions, to confirm publically the existence of the right and our insistence on not being intimidated into being silenced, on this or any other issue.

4. The event shows that P.G. is “racist,” an Islamophobe, and hates all Muslims.

Horsefeathers. It shows that Miss Geller is aware of the threat from jihadists of both the violent sort and the lawfare/public-condemnation-public-opinion sort, and is fully committed to resisting both.

5. Cartoons at the event clearly are obscene and mock the Prophet.

I haven’t seen any of the cartoons from the contest except Bosch Fawstin’s winning one, which is certainly not obscene in any way. It does call attention to the fact that Mohammed lacks the power to enforce obedience to his command, and I suppose that might be a form of “mockery” in that shows him as “full of sound and fury,” but powerless.

The Socialist Revolt that America Forgot

Now this, on relatively recent American History.

You Brits aren’t the only ones who play the Election Game, y’know. Ours comes up in about 18 months, and at Salon some unrepentant underminer of liberty named Eric Lee has seen fit to write “A Lesson for Bernie Sanders” on the topic.

For those who are going, “Bernie Sanders — Who He?”: He is the avowedly Socialist Senator from Vermont who has decided to run for the Presidency next year.

So why should Zanzibarians, or even Americans for that matter, care about Bernie Sanders’ political ambitions? No particular reason, except that we all have a liberty interest in seeing that such ambitions die like a beached flounder, but with less fuss.

(Although Sanders has annoyed many by refusing to get with the gun-control program. In fact Slate throws its toys out of the pram over his non-compliance with the Democratic-Progressive required stance on the issue.

(Additionally, many find Sanders far more honest than Shrill, not terribly difficult of course.)

I wouldn’t lose any sleep over this one, but the history is interesting.

Mr. Lee’s “Lesson” describes Michael Harrington’s insinuation of socialism into the ideology and agenda of the Democratic Party, with its successful shoving of the Party leftward, and the result (as Mr. Lee believes, anyhow) of Mr. Harrington’s being persuaded not to run for the Presidency himself in 1980.

For a fuller account, see Dr. Ron Radosh’s book Divided They Fell.

The column commences:

The socialist revolt that America forgot: A history lesson for Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders is a singular figure in modern U.S. politics, the lone self-identified socialist to serve in Congress, at a time when mainstream American attitudes, if not actively violent towards socialism as they have been in the past, remain nonetheless fundamentally suspicious. As such, his plans to run against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primaries represent something of an anomaly. What bears mentioning about Sanders’ run, however, is that it is not the first time a prominent socialist has considered a bid for the Democratic nomination. To understand the significance of Sanders’ candidacy, it’s worth flashing back to the summer of 1978, as liberal Democrats were growing increasingly disillusioned with Jimmy Carter’s presidency.

[SNIP]

SNP to Scots electorate – Wrong answer..vote again

Vote Krankie 2016

Nicola Sturgeon was booed in the first Scottish leaders’ debate when she refused to rule out a second independence referendum.

The First Minister said the general election was not about separation when she was challenged on Alex Salmond’s claim after Scotland voted No that it was a “once in a generation” event.

But the audience reacted with boos and groans when she refused to rule out including another vote on breaking up Britain in her party’s manifesto for the 2016 Holyrood election.

Sturgeon booed as she hints at second independence referendum

(more…)

Time for an honest debate about rape statistics

UVA Rape Protests

I’m sure we’ve all heard about the bogus statistics touted by Radical Feminists about 1-in-5 college students being raped and thought “That’s bullshit”, but as good rationalists, who prefer to make their arguments based upon evidence, didn’t have up-to-date data on which to reject the Rad Fem narrative.

Well – the US Department of Justice have recently published updated data and even with the distortions of modern rape reporting basically says “That’s bullshit”.

new report on sexual assault released today by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data. And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.

The full study, which was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division within DOJ, found that rather than one in five female college students becoming victims of sexual assault, the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5). For non-students, the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people.

College Students Are Actually Less Likely To Be Victimized

Actual rape is a terrible crime which I condemn utterly, but the divisive way that Rad Fem’s are using rape to push their false narrative of rape culture is quite literally tearing Western society apart, to such an extent that even when actual rapes occur and a woman’s life is destroyed, a growing portion of the male population is increasingly suspicious, due to the “Cry Wolf” problem.

College reactions to criticism and political interference from the Obama Whitehouse are only exacerbating matters, specifically when you have “targets for dealing with on campus rape” and it is already in reality as rare as hens teeth, you inevitably end up creating a McCarthyist environment in which all males are treated with suspicion and College Kangaroo Courts hold inquiries which would put Stalin to shame.

If this continues, then we will see US Colleges, which are already overwhelmingly female,  become virtual deserts of male presence, some of which is exacerbated by the ever increasing costs of a US university education and the fact that there are far more programs and scholarships available to women and especially minority women than there are men.

Is this how the US finally goes into decline, because of a false narrative proposed by people like Anita Sarkeesian and supported by the Obama Whitehouse? Will the 2020′s return segregation to the US in the form of mandated male and female colleges?

I certainly hope not.

The DOJ Report in Full

%d bloggers like this: