Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Canada

Educational Item of the Day

Mustaches are racist.

—-Ralph Haddad, Student editor of The McGill [University] Daily

Student Paper Editor Claims Mustaches are Racist
November 29, 2013 by Daniel Greenfield

In case you don’t recognize “Daniel Greenfield,” he also posts good stuff to his weblog, under the nom de guerre of “Sultan Knish.” His piece, linked above, links also to the column “Movember declared ‘sexist, racist, transphobic’ at Canada’s sorry imitation of Harvard” at The Daily Caller.

Free

Not as in speech, but as in beer.

But only for Canadians.

Grab the Popcorn folks!

Keep Calm and wear your hijab

Imagine the scenario, a guy studying at a university asks his professor not to share study groups with any females (why? “because…penis”, obviously). This being a university in a modern western democracy obviously he was told “No”, because that would be sexist, and obviously no male, liberal college professor is going to risk his tenure against the massed hoards of feminists that exist in pretty much every western university.

The problem comes when the student says “because I’m a Muslim”, then all of a sudden the whole liberal ideology comes crashing down around their ankles because two pets of liberalism (feminism and Islam) are now crashing together with their respective demands.

Now, fair play to Professor Paul Grayson of York University in Toronto, because he told the student “No” straight out and in fairness to the student he said “Oh, OK”. The fun part is that the university itself is now telling the Professor that it is not okay and he has to respect the students religious beliefs.

Cue rapidly escalating liberal apocalypse as the inherent contradictions of their support for feminism comes into direct conflict with Muslim totalitarianism, chickens coming home to roost seems an apt metaphor.

Link to CBS Canada Report

*crunch* *crunch* – Hmm! Tasty!

Ottawa Citizen: The Afghan War was not a Debacle. Full stop.

Excerpts from a fascinating Ottawa Citizen piece which paints a picture of Afghanistan today that we won’t get from The New York Times nor (I imagine) the BBC. 

The Afghan war was not a debacle. Full stop.

By Terry Glavin, Ottawa Citizen December 6, 2013

 

The 2013 school year in Afghanistan started with more than eight million children enrolled in classes, including 2.6 million girls. During the Taliban time, fewer than a million children were in school, almost none of them girls.

The 2013 school year in Afghanistan started with more than eight million children enrolled in classes, including 2.6 million girls. During the Taliban time, fewer than a million children were in school, almost none of them girls.
Photograph by: FARSHAD USYAN , AFP/Getty Images

The very instant that the good guys won, gunfire erupted in a deafening roar of all over Kabul in a staccato chorus of handguns, rifles and AK47s being emptied into the heavens. Tens of thousands of joyous people thronged the streets. It was this past Sept. 11, a Wednesday, the 12th anniversary of 9/11. The Afghan National Soccer team, in Kathmandu, had just clinched the South Asia cup in a 2-1 victory over India. The celebration isn’t quite over even now.

Neither the Sept. 11 win nor the delirious outpourings that followed were wholly unexpected. Even though its players had been plucked only in July from the country’s just-established premier league, the Afghan team was blessed with outstanding and determined talent. On Aug. 20 in Kabul, in its first encounter with Pakistan on a soccer field in 37 years, Afghanistan triumphed 3-0. More than 12 million of Afghanistan’s 32 million people watched the match on television that day. The country went a little bit crazy.

. . .

The sweet ironies involved are not lost on the Afghan people.

During the Taliban time, kite-flying was banned, musical instruments were forbidden and even card games were outlawed. Soccer was occasionally tolerated, but only in order to bookend the main-attraction stadium halftime show of executions and handchopping mutilations. Those days were so, so over.

There are deeper ironies.

Afghanistan is supposed to be an incorrigibly backward Central Asian backwater and burial ground for the armies of empires. And yet you can draw a line from the Syrian seaport of Latakia on the Mediterranean coast all the way to India’s Kashmiri frontier, only a stone’s throw from the headwaters of the Ganges, and Kabul is easily the happiest place along the way.

There are sorrowful ironies.

Damascus is now merely the Baathist stronghold in a failed-state open air mortuary consisting of scattered warlord principalities and heavily-armed al-Qaida emirates. More than six million Syrians are homeless, at least 120,000 are dead, and all that remains of Syria is a failed-state testament to the catastrophe of Barack Obama’s doctrine of abstention and capitulation. Baghdad, meanwhile, is a nightmare terrain of tit-for-tat suicide-bomb campaigns waged by vampire cults embedded on both sides of the Iraqi divide in the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam.

. . .

Then there are ironies of the funhouse-mirror kind.

. . .

A couple of doozies that have already become quite faddish warrant some attention.

One is the claim that by some organic and perennially obscene aspect of the civilian-military relationship, Canadians were more or less tricked into sending soldiers to Afghanistan by the Canadian Forces’ brass. Another is a kind of theorem to the effect that Afghanistan is actually worse than it was back in the day, and this is in no small part the fault of the Canadian Forces — and oh, by the way, “we lost the war.”    [ . . . ]

 

Further down, the pronouncements of various pundits come in for a bit of demolition.

It’s encouraging to know that not everybody thinks that everybody in the Coalition is a cohort of the Forces of Darkness.  At least, Canada isn’t.

Greenwald and Canada?

The headline speaks for itself. –Speaking of Leaking, Var. Newspaperiensis, did you-all know Mr. Bernstein (of Watergate, Woodward-&-Bernstein fame) was also a red-diaper baby?

Glenn Greenwald’s Next Spy Leak Target: Canada

Today’s Quote — 7/3/13

[You capture] the ambivalence of liberty–not easy, not for everyone, not an institution to take for granted.

–Commenter Dave Conley, in response to a comment about the story ‘Canada in landmark move to strike out “hate speech” law’ at

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3878/canada_in_landmark_move_to_strike_out_hate_speech_law

H/T, RAB.

Good News…

Canada’s Senate has passed a Bill striking down the use of “Hate Speech” as a weapon to silence critics of… well whatever.

Now can we see something similar in striking out Section 5 of the Public Order Act iDave? You potato two-faced twat?

No I will not be holding my breath.

Ezra on Free Speech

Key phrase: “Free speech enables the power of scrutiny.

Update: Pat Caddell, a Democrat on the media destruction of democracy.

H/T Catallaxy Files

Selective policing

Since when is it the position of the police to police insensivity?

Since when do the police get to invent new laws? Such as: Possession of a dog in the presence of a Muslim?

A dog can render a Muslim ritually unclean, since when is it the role of the police to enforce some groups religious ritual on the rest of us?

Your ritual requirements are my stuff and nonsense. Your freedom to practice your religion also equates to my freedom not to practice it. Maybe the coppers need to be a little more sensitive to the rest of us….

Crimes of Moral Turpitude.

I have been to USA several times. I like Americans. I don’t like American government. Now I thought nothing came close to the sheer mendacity of the UK’s Home Office and it’s immigration and nationality directorate. But I looked something up last night. You see as a UK citizen I don’t need a visa to enter the USA. I fill in a visa waiver form which asks bizarre questions like, “Did you work for the government of Germany between 1933 and 1945″. Who actually freely admits to being a NAZI war criminal? But the one that always got me was “crimes of moral turpitude”. They sound fun.

Wikipedia has a list of things you can be denied entry to the USA over. It is staggeringly long. Here are some of the highlights and trust me you will have done something on the list. Or indeed even accused of it.

Rape (including “Statutory rape” by virtue of the victim’s age)

Would that make you guilty because the age of consent in the USA is considerably higher than in most everywhere? Personally I find the US concept of statutory rape vile. At a house party in the USA a few years back the captain of the football team gets a blow-job from the chief cheerleader and he gets 10 years in chokey because she’s like a year younger. There was no hint of coercion and she was 16. Get a grip USA!

I haven’t done that one but I bet a few readers are technically guilty. I would have been if I had half the chance.

Possessing burglar tools (without intent to commit burglary)

Not actually a crime of Moral Turpitude but enough to have you barred. But correct me if I am wrong. Isn’t the USA supposed to run on Common Law so Mens Rea does matter. Earlier this week we had a plumber round and he had a piratical selection of tools. He is technically guilty. That he only used them to replace a sink and work on a gas-fire would be no defense because that looks strict liability to me. Christ almighty I carry tools that can do lethal harm but if you want me to take the side of your computer to see what’s wrong with it you are going to have to trust me not to smite you under the fifth rib. I suspect that is the liver and the application of the jawbone of an ass to that area probs causes massive blood loss and generally death in short order. And what about locksmiths?

I very rarely carry the jawbone of an ass. A set of posidrives is generally more useful.

But this is storming…

Taking part in a conspiracy (or attempting to take part in a conspiracy) to commit a crime involving moral turpitude where the attempted crime would not itself constitute moral turpitude.

That is unbelievably vague. Just read it again. That could be anything from jay-walking to sending the prime minister of Canada a human foot in the post. What precisely is “attempting to take part in a conspiracy” anyway? Is it a crime to be really bad at attempting to conspire?

I love the USA but only after you get out of the airport and like meet pukka Americans. I mean if they genuinely imposed those laws with no fear or favour Congress would be lead to Dulles under armed guard and Bill Clinton would be doing 4-figures of jail time. And I mean years there. But laws are only for the little people.

Get rid of these people

The British deserves better than this drivel

But what I found most offensive of all is that World War II is to be described as "the European Civil War".

As an Australian, who’s father fought in North Africa and the Pacific, I doubt he finds this any less offensive than I do.

In truth the proposal to redesignate World War II as the European Civil War shows Europhiles to be "little Europeans" – insular, arrogant and inward-looking.

Modern conservatives

An American view of Conservatism in the Anglosphere. Stephen Harper and Tony Abbott shape up well, but David Cameron? Not so good.

Article title of the day

Polar bears to die from harmless trace gas and hail of hot lead, but mostly hail of hot lead

Fractional Reserve Banking is not what most people think it is.

This is not a technical post. This is a basic post intended to clear up an important point of confusion that, I believe, exists in the minds of many people.

When people hear the term “fractional reserve banking” they think (if they think about the term at all) something like the following……

“I see – a bank takes in savings and lends out a proportion of them (perhaps as high as 90% of them) for interest, and keeps the rest as a reserve (a “fractional” reserve of, say, 10% if it is lending out 90% of the savings) to deal with people comming for the money they entrusted to the bank”.

A risky line of business (if a lot of people, all at once, want the money they have entrusted to the bank), but an understandable line of business. Certainly it would be absurd to suggest that such “fractional reserve banks” created massive credit money bubbles [please note that I say "credit" money bubbles - I am NOT claiming that banks create real money], totally distorted the capital structure of an economy, and created boom-busts. Only a silly person could suggest any such thing.

The trouble is that the above is not a description of how “fractional reserve banking” really works.

If you want the historical and legal background (as well as economic theory) then read de Soto’s “Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles”, and if you want what is happening (in some depth) right now then read “Paper Money Collapse” by Detlev Schlihter – but there is something basic that many writers from Ludwig Von Mises (“Theory of Money and Credit” – 1912) to Murry Rothbard (“The Mystery of Banking” – 1983, if my memory is correct) have tried to get to the public – but the public, for the most part, has still not got the message. The following is, again, not a technical account – it is an effort to get a basic truth in a form that people can understand it.

Banks do not lend out a “fraction” of savings, they lend out far more than real savings. That is how real savings can be very low – but lending (borrowing) very high. For example, a bank may have 100 Pounds (in real savings) put in it – so a 10% franctional reserve means that 90 Pounds will be lent out? NO – it means that 1000 Pounds will be lend out.

How can this be possible?

It is possible because a bank (and other such) does not treat a “loan” as a transfer of money between real saver and borrower.

Please think about that. The fundemental principles of basic economics (such as time preference determining interest rates) depend on loans being a transfer of money from savers to borrowers (either directly – or via a bank or other such). Yet that is NOT how the “finance economy” defines a “loan” (or other such).

So what do they think a loan is? They think a loan is the creation of NEW MONEY (from NOTHING). One  way of doing this is to “credit to the account of borrower” the amount of the loan.  [People have objected to this on the grounds that banks prefer such book keeping tricks as treating cheques, from other banks, as if they were deposites (without waiting for notes and coins to be physically moved from the other banks) - and crediting this "deposit money" to the account of the borrower. I could not care less what form of book keeping tricks are most popular with the credit bubble bankers at the moment, what I care about is that the bankers create credit bubble boom/bust events - but people have complained so here you are].

“And that means that money is transfered to his or her account” NO it NEED NOT.

No notes or coins will be moved to the account of the borrower (unless they specifically ask for notes and coins) – no account of any saver will be held to be any less because of the loan. The loan is considered “new money”.

This is why “broad money” – bank credit (loans and other such) can and does become much bigger than “the monetary base”. And this (NOT the banks lending out most savings and keeping a “fraction” in reserve) is the cause of boom-bust events.

OF COURSE (in reply to possible objections) I know that banks can NOT create a long term increase in the money supply on their own (I have known that for DECADES) – but banks can (and do) create increases in the credit money supply (they create credit bubble boom/bust events) thus giving governments a choice of allowing the “bust” to run its course (i.e.  for bank credit to fall back down towards the monetary base), or increasing the REAL money supply to back up the credit money. Thus creating the vast inflation (the increse in the real money supply, not just temporary credit bubbles in boom/bust events) that we have seen in the 20th an 21st centuries.

It is why, for example, there can be boom-bust events without any Central Bank – for example the United States had no Central Bank before 1913 (had not had one since the early 19th century) – yet it still had, terrible, boom-bust events which brought “captialism” into disrepute and led to demands for various forms of government interventionism (just as boom-bust events do now).

Canada had no Central Bank till after 1935 – yet it still had a credit money “boom” in the late 1920s and a terrible “bust” at the end.

Was this just due to trade with the United States suddenly collapsing? No – it was due to a credit money expansion in Canada itself.

Defenders of Canadian banking, quite rightly, point out that no Canadian banks went bankrupt in the Great Depression (unlike American banks – and unlike Canada itself only a few years before when there had been the real bankruptcies) – but this misses the basic point.

Why were Canadian banks so unpopular in the 1930s? Why was there a vast political movement for “Social Credit” (and other crackbrained monetary crank ideas)?

This was because Canadian banks had called in a lot of their loans (and they were right to do so – otherwise the banks would have collapsed) – indivduals and business enterprises found themselves having to pay lots of money, or lose their home or their business.

This is the answer to the question that so many people ask during a bust. “Where did the money go?” (people confuse money and real wealth – in spite of the efforts of the Classical Economists to deal with this fallacy – both the fallacy that money is real wealth, and the related fallacy that increasing the money supply leads to a long term increase in real wealth).

When people cry out “where did the money go” (and then go on to blame “the Jews” or whoever is the local hate target – and, yes, antisemitism did greatly increase, even though very few of the leading bankers were Jews) they never ask themselves DID IT EVER EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Because, of course, IT DID NOT EXIST.

It was an ILLUSION of prosperty – based on a credit bubble (“crediting to the account” and other book keeping tricks) which was bound to collapse.

This does NOT mean that the Great Depression was inevitable – the Great Depression was mostly not a credit money bubble collapse (such as the one that happened in the United States in 1921 and many other times) it was mostly the POLICY RESPONSE to the credit money collapse – preventing markets (particularly labour markets) clearing by preventing the free movement of prices and wage rates.

For example, if someone says “nominal incomes must never be allowed to fall” because “demand” (or some such thing) will be damaged. What they are really saying in the conditions of a credit money bust is “mass unemployment must be maintained – markets must not be allowed to clear”. People such as Herbert, The Forgotten Progressive, Hoover (who, contrary to the myth, was an interventionist – indeed a fanatical one) may not know that what they are doing will create and maintain mass unemployment – but that is the effect their actions will have. Whether it is done by pro union laws (see W.H. Hutt “The Strike Threat System” for how this system is really the result of the undermining of the Common Law), or by direct government interventionism (as with Herbert Hoover) if wages are MADE “sticky downwards” then, in a time of a credit money bust, mass unemployment will be the result.

And the credit money bust is INEVITABLE once the credit money “boom” has been created – the false prosperity can not last (it is based on book keeping tricks – smoke and mirrors) it is an illusion (a fairy castle in the air) and must come crashing down.

The “broad money” (the book keeping trick created bank credit) must come back down towards the “monetary base” – with a massive liquidation of the “malinvestments” generated by the credit money bubble. And efforts to prevent such a correction (including the correction of wage rates) turn a bust into a catastrophe. No quick recovery (as with the bust of 1921) – but a prolonged period of MASS UNEMPLOYMENT.

It is much the same with goods as it is with human services. Preventing prices going down (dramatically down) means that one has such terrible things as hundreds of thousands of houses and apartments standing empty (neither sold or rented) whilst (at the same time) great numbers of people are homeless (even sleeping in the streets).

Markets only clear, a price system only works – if it is ALLOWED to do so. Otherwise you get houses standing empty (and decaying), goods (including food) rotting unsold – and, at the same time, vast numbers of people without work and without shelter (and so on).

All of this is driectly related to fractional reserve banking (in the real sense of the term – not what people think the term means). The panic response to the bust is due to people NOT UNDERTANDING WHAT IS HAPPENING.

They do not know that there was an inflationary increase in the money supply (especially if prices were not “going up in the shops” – as they were not, much, in the late 1920s and in the 1990s and 2000s the basic truth that the word “inflation” does NOT mean “price rises”, as the false books claim, is unknown to most people). So when the, inevitable, bust comes they scream “where has the money gone?” – not understanding that it was a credit money bubble (the money did not exist). And then they panic – as do politicians and so on.

Prices should FALL in a period of real prosperity (i.e. if people really are finding better ways of doing things). If prices are NOT falling, and yet everyone is saying it is a period of prosperity……. Then something is very, very wrong. There is an inflation of the money supply – and people saying “but prices are not going up in the shops” is to miss the point.

The Role of Central Banking.

Whilst the true cause of credit bubble boom-busts is fractional reserve banking itself – Central Banking does indeed have a very important role. It MAGNIFIES and EXTENDS the size and scope of the credit mony bubble.

For example, J.P. Morgan (back in the early 20th century) is said to have lent out about three Dollars for every one Dollar in real savings he had (entrusted to banks he controlled) – and the other New York based “National Banks” (so named because of the national banking Acts of the Civil War era). This lending out of more money than he really had caused Morgan sleepless nights – he knew he was riding a tiger and sometimes has to resort to desperate methods to prevent everything collapsing around his ears.

There days J.P. Morgan would be considered a wimp. Two to one? Three to one? How about ten to one or a hundred to one? Of course no one really knows – because trying to follow the insanely complicated modern banking system (with all the “credit default swaps” and on and on) would drive anyone insane. For example, modern “capital requirements” are largely meaningless – because very clever (but very unwise) bankers have found lots of complicated ways round them.

And modern bankers do not know that their basic principles are in any way unsound. Things have got so extended and complex that they have lost sight of simple things. They understand complex things (that would make the head of an ordinary person explode). But simple basic principles (things that J.P. Morgan privately understood – i.e. he understood he was playing a “shell game”) modern bankers have not got a clue about such things. So everything comes as a surprise to them – everthing apart from their vast incomes (agreed by friendly “remuneration committees”) of course. When things come crashing down bankers follow anyone who promises (privately) to save them – for example Barack Obama (see the book “Bought and Paid For” for how much financial support financial industy people gave Comrade Barack).

Indeed bankers develop relationships with friendly politicians in order to keep things running smoothly even in good times. And they actually concentrate their attentions on policitians who might be “anti business” (in the United States Senate not just Comrade Barack – but also former Senator Chris Dodd, and in the House the fairly open socialist Congressman Barney Frank).  Such a policy of subsidy does mean that very bad people (“Progressives” – as Americans call them) gain great political power (leading to orgies of regulations – such as Barney Frank’s support both for the Community Reinvestment Acts and for the government controlled “private” entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all of which pushed money into the housing bubble), but bankers do not see that far ahead. As long as the subsides (the “Discount Window” and the friendly loaning out of [freshly created] money and borrowing the money back again (at a higher rate of interest)  continue , they do not look further (why should they?). And so they are totally astonished when someone like Comrade Barack Obama (and his political associates) organizes mobs to shout for their blood. “But he is our friend – he talked so nicely to us (in private) and we gave him so much money……” Perhaps they will continue the bankers will continue to be astonished till Comrade Barack has them (and their families) hacked to pieces, or perhaps they will switch their support to Mitt Romney (the Republican candidate who is most flexible when it comes to ethical matters), who knows?  I have to get back to what I am trying to explain.

Every step of the way in the late 1990s and 2000s (indeed in 1987 also) Alan Greenspan PREVENTED the credit money bubble antics comming to an end. Every time there looked like there might be a serious “correction” he came in with extra credit money to “save the world” – i.e. to make the credit money bubble BIGGER, to delay the bust but also to make it WORSE.

This is why modern fractional reserve bankers are able to do things that J.P. Morgan would neve even have considered. Indeed if someone working for him had done them, Morgan would most likely have killed them – with his own hands (like most of his generation – Morgan was no stranger to physical violence). Yet modern bankers do not even know they are doing anything wrong (and have not got a clue of how violent human beings can be) – because Central Banks encourage them (every step of the way). Including the European Central Bank – which people demand should be buying debt (with money it creates from NOTHING) – as if the “ECB” has not already been doing that (and it has been).

All this is not understood. For example,politicians demand that the Central Bank do something to prevent “bubbles”, not understanding that the basic point of Central Banks (why they were created in the first place – not just the Federal Reserve in 1913 with the meeting on the island, but also the Bank of England in 1694, and all the other Central Banks) is to INCREASE lending (for example – to governments) – to make credit money bubbles BIGGER than they would be otherwise.

A related absurdity is to demand that “regulations” prevent money going into a certain “bubble” area (such as housing) – this ignores both the fact that regulations tend to push the credit money INTO the bubble area, and that even if the extra money did not go into that area, it would go somewhere else. Another area of the economy would be hit by malinvestments – the capital structure would still be twisted.

If you want to prevent the bust you must prevent the credit money boom. A basic truth – but one that is totally ignored. People love the “boom” – and they do not see that it (not “the Jews”, one third of Europeans are said to believe “the Jews” are at least partly to blame, or “deregulation” the endless claim of the British and American left – even though regulations, as Peter Schiff and others have pointed out, have never been worse) is the cause of the bust.

I hope the above (which, yet again, I repeat is not a techical account) has cleared up some confusion, but I must make a final point.

One must be careful not to say any of the above is “fraud” – as court judgements and statutes clearly mean that none of the above is legal “fraud”. Which is why I have not used the term.

Honest dealing is still illegal

When the Canadian Stasi went after Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn the censors hadn’t considered that they had taken on two of the loudest mouths the Dominion possessed, and who kicked up such a stink that the faux courts fell over themselves concocting reason not to convict. These days Levant and Steyn are in enviable positions, they are untouchable and can pretty much say whatever they wish knowing that the thought police are too scared to go after them.

Well, others are not in the same position. Speech control is alive and well in Canada, and truth still no defence.

%d bloggers like this: