Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Evil

North of the DMZ and beyond the pale.

There has been some crazy news out of everyone’s favourite totalitarian heckhole recently.

First I heard this nugget…

Doctor Who, Top Gear and Teletubbies have apparently passed the suitability test to be shown on North Korea’s tightly-controlled state TV.

After months of negotiation with the BBC, the three shows have been deemed worthy of consideration for broadcasting in the totalitarian state.

The country’s state broadcaster, Korean Central Television, is only on air for six-and-a-half hours every day.

Odd choices. Skipping over the tubbies the sight of that Bellendius Maximus Clarkson whizzing around in a Bugatti is almost torture to the poor buggers up there who feel lucky to get a puncture repair kit for their bike. And the Doctor is a rather anti-authority figure which probably wouldn’t fit with the rest of KCT’s output… Although I guesss the Cybermen might go down well with the Kimocracy.

At least a third of the output is spent praising the government of Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, while another third extols workers to toil harder for the good of the country.

And I thought endless repeats of “Last of the Summer Wine” was soul-crushing.

But wait…

The weekly television highlight is ‘It’s So Funny’, a long-running comedy show in which two uniformed soldiers perform slapstick sketches in between propaganda lectures about the greatness of North Korea.

Now that’s what I call entertainment! That’s better than Cannon & Ball that is and they were fucking terrible beyond my comprehension. Here’s a modest proposal. We parachute Piers Morgan into the Pyongyang. He’s without a berth and it is a win-win if you ask me. I feel so sorry for the North Koreans.

This speaks volumes…

Likewise, there is no fundamental difference between the way in which North and South Koreans look [The entire peninsula is very ethnically homogeneous in the World and this is an ancient civilization - Nick]. Having said that, however, 60-plus years is not a short amount of time, and the two Koreas did live through two very different worlds. South Koreans now live in one of the world’s wealthiest countries, North Koreans one of the poorest. In particular, the crushing famine that North Korea suffered in the mid-1990s has left a visible impact on North Korean people’s physique. While the average height of adult South Korean men is 171.5 cm (~5′ 7.5″), the average height of adult North Korean men is 165.4 cm (~5′ 5″). Because North Korean youths have become so malnourished, North Korea had to lower the minimum height requirement for its soldiers from 140 cm (~4′ 7″) to 137 cm (~4′ 6″) in 2010. (In contrast, South Korea recently had to extend the maximum height requirement from 196 cm (~6′ 5″) to 204 cm (~6′ 8″) for its conscripts.)

And that is not unrelated to the TV on my wall (Samsung) and the fact I have never bought a single item from North of the DMZ. I mean if they can’t get enough food they ain’t going to break the mould in tech are they? (More on that later). But this isn’t even the end-point of socialism as we understand it and as the socialist Eric Blair understood it. This is not Sweden with toothsome murder mysteries and beer you need a mortgage for. This is Hell run by an insane Satan. This is the prison state as envisaged by Vasily Grossman as the end of Stalinism.

But they have drones you know. Things that sound like they were built in a shed. I have spoken to hobbyists who can do better. At least it ain’t the grotesquely over-budget, under-performing and over-time F-35. I mean that camera… I have a better camera and I’m not on a defence budget here.

But before we simply regard the Kimocracy as risible buffoons it would be be wise to consider this. And also to consider that it is entirely possible to laugh and be revolted at the same time. They are profoundly risible but also profoundly evil. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Was it worth it?

We go to war for reasons. For resources, for land, for the hell of it. Sometimes for the very survival of civilization.

The last is the only one I fully back. Now Saddam was vile bastard beyond all possible redemption. Am I sad that he isn’t walking this goodly Earth? No. But…

Iraq (twinned with Iran and Irate) is planning to allow 8 year old girls to get married and also to abolish marital rape.

Nigh on 5000 US personnel have died* for the great task of enabling the freedom of preverts in Iraq to shag girls who haven’t had their first menstrual period. Eight year old girls want to play with dollies** and Lego and stuff. In my country (and the US and all the others) if you have sex with an eight year old girl you go to jail. You get put in the Sir Jimmy Saville Memorial Wing for a very long time. Rightly so.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not a pacifist. If my land was under threat you’d have to drag me kicking and screaming from the seat of a Typhoon fighter. And, well everywhere I go I visit war memorials. I know my family members have killed and died so basically I can mooch around Europe without a rifle and bayonet. Now that was an appalling cost but it achieved something worthwhile. The legalisation of rape and kiddie-fiddling is not such a cause. It is not one for me or any right thinking person to get their boots on for.

And what right-minded person wants to have sex with a girl that age anyway? Utter sick bastards. They require treatment. I prescribe two spoons and a rusty farming implement. I mean if you don’t and can’t regard the man or woman you have sex with as an equal with absolute agency then what is the point?

We have enabled utter barbarism at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives either wiped out or maimed.

Or to misquote from the end speech at the end of the movie “300″, “We haven’t – at enormous financial, material and human cost singularly failed to ‘rescue a World from mysticism and tyranny’”.

*And a load of Brits and others and God knows how many wounded. And I have recently been watching Prince Harry taking a team of wounded soldiers across the Antarctic. Good on the fella but the wounds are tragic. On folks so young. It is heartbreaking.

**There is a very specific reason I mention this. Aisha was 8 when married to the middle-aged Muhammed.

Pregnant? Don’t visit the UK then!

“A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers. Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.”

Telegraph (link)

As usual, these draconian actions were carried out in secret almost 15-months ago, supported by the UK’s much maligned Court of Protection. The unbelieveable behaviour of Essex social working scum has only been revealed due to the parliamentary privilege of John Hemming MP, one of the few parliamentarians that seems prepared to stand-up for families caught in the judicial nightmare of dealing with the UK’s predatory social workers and the Court of Protection.

I wish Anna Raccoon were still well enough to comment as she would be even more scathing.

Year in, year out, we read of social workers behaving in a manner that would shame the Gestapo and yet despite all of the bland mutterings about “Children being our primary concern” or “The council cannot comment on individual cases”, such abominations continue.

As my Malaysian wife often says of the UK, “…and you call this the first world?”. Too bloody right.

The Court of Protection needs to be either stripped of it’s power to hush-up such matters or disbanded entirely. This sort of reprehensible behaviour by social workers will continue until we remove the veils of secrecy behind which they hide. The only way to stop such abuses is to shine the light of the media in the dark recesses and throw social workers in jail.

Obviously, none of this will ever happen as social workers are a fundamental pillar of the leftist collective. Indeed it is fear of them coming in and seizing “young Tarquin” on some pretext that keeps a lot of the middle class in line and compliant.

Words fail to express how angry I am at this…

Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato (“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”)

Benito Mussolini in his address to the Italian Chamber of Deputies 26th May 1927

Father of two pays the price for TSA arrogance

TSA - Dont Touch my Junk

Despite my repugnance for the TSA, my heart goes out to the family of Gerardo Hernandez, because it does not matter that I have no love for his employers, no-one deserves to die because of the job they do.

His killer, Paul Ciancia may well have had a grudge against the federal government, but that is not AND CAN NEVER BE an excuse for mindless violence.

The TSA itself cannot remain blameless in this matter, as their aggressive posture and refusal to acknowledge or moderate their policies has led to them being cited as one of the most repulsive aspects of modern life in the US, to such an extent that they have become a target for anti-government extremists.

The events at LAX may result in a hardening of hearts at the TSA (which would be understandable), but the reality is that the public travelling through the US would be much more secure with a policy which was more about genuine security and less about security theatre.

The creation of a “Them and Us” culture between the general public and the TSA does not aid the experience of travelling or the security of the general public and it does not aid the stated goals of the TSA itself, specifically the Security of Transportation!

I do not wish to make political capital from the death of anyone, but if the death of Mr. Hernandez is to teach any lessons, it should be that an overly aggressive posture towards the mundanity of travelling is unnecessary and counter-productive.

It is long past time to shrink the TSA to a regulatory body more concerned with the general threat of terrorism and let airports handle security in a way that is both human and appropriate to the reality of terrorism in the US, which means that it is a concern that should be carefully monitored and supported by intelligence, but which acknowledges that not every 6-year old should be treated as if their smelly nappy is an unexploded bomb.

If the TSA need any guidance in this then the security around Israeli airports is a paranoid, but excellent example, yielding exceptional results over 40-years despite ongoing and genuine terrorist threats.

R.I.P. Gerardo I. Hernandez

The Rumble in the Ryton Jungle.

Remember when you were at school and the finest entertainment on offer was either a ZX-Spectrum or a fight?

This wasn’t a fight as such. It was more of a clinical chinning carried out with strength and skill.

Side note – the chinner, N, I subsequently had a fight with over a complete misunderstanding and we both escaped unscathed because I guess his heart wasn’t in it, I’m good defensively and he fought like a gentleman (as did I). I once had the greasy acne ridden face of the vile D in my hands and just couldn’t bring myself to use my advantage and push those thumbs into his eye-sockets. I guess I learned then I’m not a fighter. I’m nowhere near dirty enough.

Anyway, onto the subject. Or object? Hawthorne was a vile piece of work. He was only at Ryton Comp because he’d been kicked-out of everywhere else. We took a lot of them. Anyway he wandered the school invariably with with his concubines each under an arm in an ape-like progression and wearing knock-off Raybans. He was an amoral cunt of the first water. I mean utterly amoral. And utterly a cunt. He used his size to intimidate and the fact that he very clearly didn’t give a tinker’s for anything good or decent and set himself-up as a sort of spectre of menace on the corridors of the school. I mean like most of us wanted to just get through school with qualifications for jobs or university or the military or something. Hawthorne didn’t give a toss about anything. Even the girls he “squired” were a rotating smorgasbord of slags.

One day though he got too artistic. N had come into the school yard after running training (he was a county sprinter) and put his sports bag down (Head bag – standard issue in the ’80s) with all his stuff in it. Now N was widely regarded as the hardest lad in the year, if not the school and I bet this riled Hawthorne who coveted this “prize” (I use the quotes because N never sort fame or domination or such) so Hawthorne in what can only be described as an “Imp of the Perverse” moment urinated into N’s open bag.

What happened next ought to have been filmed Matrix style with a cool soundtrack. N got the mist and it was red. All his PE kit, his books, everything had been pissed on. I don’t know the time of this action but I can still guess at the distance and it was probably less than 10m. N went into overdrive and Hawthorne went continually backwards under a hail of blows that would shame Jackie Chan. He lost consciousness and also bladder control just against the chainlink around the yard. The teacher on yard duty kept on sucking sweets the whole time – which wasn’t long. A number of things resulted from this…

Hawthorne’s attempt at behaving as an object of menace ceased. I mean after several hundred kids had seen him comatose and spread-eagled with wet trousers his stock as a gangster had diminished.

Nothing happened to N. It was generally seen as a Good Thing.

The chainlink had to be fixed. This is because it partially collapsed due to the crush of kids wanting to see the action.

N continued his athletics and it held him in good stead because the next time after leaving school I saw him was on TV being interviewed by ITN. He had joined the merchant navy and was a junior officer on a tanker that collided with another vessel in the Channel. He got off sharpish when it burst into flames and was one of the few (the only?) survivor on the ship. He ran the length of the deck and leaped to safety into the briny and swam like hell. I suspect if anyone had been there to time it Usain Bolt would be looking a bit sheepish now. I saw him in a local pub shortly after (he’d been given leave) and bought him a pint. A lot of people did.

What happened to Hawthorne I neither know nor care.

But that was an epic fight.

5.56mm abortions

Unless you have a very good reason it is wrong to shoot someone but deliberately targeting women and shooting them in the uterus to kill their unborn child is… Well, I’ve lived 40 years and seen and heard of some vile things in my time but this is atrocious. Particularly because shooting heavily pregnant women offers no conceivable military advantage. Apparently the scrotes doing this are betting cigarettes on it. I saw this on the BBC Morning News and was appalled. I knew bad things were going on in Syria but I could live to be a thousand years old and such a caper would not occur to me. For ciggies I go to the shop and exchange money for them – like normal folk.

Don’t believe me? What about this guy?. He’s a surgeon who did pro-bono work in Syria which included C-sections to remove dead babies from the wombs of women who had been heavily pregnant and they did target heavily pregnant women because they’re like more obvious through a sniper scope. I lack the technical skills to do that but I also lack the moral skills not to go off my rocker doing that.

Evil, true, pure Sauronic evil, exists. And if Dr Nott’s testimony has any reality (and I suspect it does) this is evil.

What is the name of Muhammad’s mother?

An Indian man came forward and they said, ‘What is the name of Muhammad’s mother?’ When he couldn’t answer they just shot him,” said Hakim who owes his survival to his last name which sounds like that of a Muslim.

Zee News India

So finally we reach the point of catharsis familiar to the residents of Beirut and Belfast during their sectarian civil wars where the Dhimmī are separated from the Ummah so that they can be culled like the fatted calf.

As a sometime resident of a Muslim country and thereby self-confessed in my dhimmitude it does give me cause for concern. Will I face a Muslim gunman in Queensbay Mall, Penang questioning me on the ancestry of the prophet or simply face a bullet in the back of the head for being an obvious unbeliever? With the red hair and pale skin it is hard to pass as anything else in Malaysia.

For myself, rather than bow down to the oppression of fundamentalist Islam I’d rather take the view that I’m more likely to die falling off my moped riding around Georgetown, so fuck the terrorists and their inquiries into the genealogy of the prophet. If I do win the lottery and end up with a bullet in the back of the head behind Starbucks at least I will have earned it through my defiance of their medieval barbarism.

On a separate note, I’ve just finished binging on seasons 1 and 2 of Homeland and it’s bloody good, I recommend it.

Quote of the Week.

Never underestimate the willingness of powerful people to ignore the evidence they find inconvenient. Never underestimate their willingness to appease industrial lobbyists by repeating the nonsense they generate. Never underestimate their readiness to sacrifice the common interests of humankind for the sake of a belief they refuse to abandon.

George Monbiot.

He thinks he’s talking about Deniers, but it can equally be attributed to Watermelons and greedy greeny rentseekers like Gore et al, and er… George himself, can’t it?

Hoist upon one’s own…

A man who has been jailed for raping a woman is waiting to find out whether he has contracted HIV from her.

Richard Thomas was sentenced to five years and four months after admitting raping the woman at her home in Leigh, Greater Manchester.

He knew she was ill but did not know she had HIV and collapsed when police told him, Liverpool Crown Court heard.

Words fail. Raping someone you know to be ill is about the definition of “despicable”.

The sentence does seem insufficient. But the dying swan act must have been an hilarity for the coppers. As to the perp, well I could well play a concerto on this instrument.

Wreck the Casbah. Again.

Ooer, Missus.  Someone really has got his knickers in a knot.

Britain has stepped through the looking glass into a weird and distorting new world, and one from which I fear she will never step back. By refusing to punish a foreign dictator for his despicable use of poison gas on unarmed civilians, we have deliberately relinquished our once-cherished role as one of the world’s foremost moral policemen, and joined the ranks of global spectators, merely tut-tutting from the sidelines rather than taking an active part in defending decency.

It seems that Andrew Roberts would have us believe that Cameron is a shining beacon of masterful statesmanship rather than the vacillating and incompetent spiv we know he really is.  It was the Assad regime wot dunnit because that is the direction in which the Prime Ministerial finger has been told to point.   Others beg to differ.  Our masters are demanding that we discriminate between two evils, despite the lack of any substantiated evidence, when it is far from clear which evil, if any, is the lesser. The only decent thing we can do in such circumstances is to not bomb the crap out of Damascus and kill even more civilians in the name of defending a questionable sense of “decency”.

A huge cultural shift has taken place in our country and historians of the future will focus on Thursday night, in the House of Commons, as the time that the new Britain emerged in all its hideous, amoral selfishness.

If future historians display the blind stupidity Andrew Roberts appears to possess who gives a Scammel Truck what they think?

The Britain we have lost is the one that took its historic responsibilities as a former Great Power seriously and sought to enforce international agreements, such as those banning the use of chemical weapons.

I think the operative word in that sentence is former, everything else is hyperventilated twaddle.  We are a small group of islands.  We are broke.  We no longer have the military might we once possessed.  We can’t even equip an aircraft carrier without the assistance of the French.  Our responsibility is to supply humanitarian aid and nothing more.  Let the Arabs sort their own mess out.  They’re going to blame us for the outcome whether we send in the missiles or not.

The Britain we must now look forward to is the one exemplified by Danny Boyle’s Olympics opening ceremony, where everything socialistic, feel-goody, hipster and ‘progressive’ was glorified, whereas the things we should really be proud about Britain for – such as her place in the front lines of the struggles against Fascism, Communism, Islamofascism and other totalitarian ideologies – were entirely ignored.

Because everyone who came out against bombing Damascus without the benefit of proof is a tofu-eating, Guardian reading surrender marmoset?  Because what we are all required to be are trained acceptance monkeys who swallow every morsel of posturing bollocks fed to us by our political effete, no questions asked?

Where were the references to Winston Churchill, 1940 or the Battle of Britain? They were replaced by children jumping up and down on NHS beds.

STOP PRESS! World War II ends in 1945.  Shift forwards sixty-eight years and the dumb as rocks legacy media runs stories about trampolining kiddies as Syria descends deeper into sectarian violence.   Meanwhile a so called academic jumps up and down on the spot, making a weapons grade prat of himself over something he clearly doesn’t have much of a clue about other than what Cameron says is true because his pal Barry told him so.  And all this before the UN investigation team have even begun to write their report.

I don’t recognise this culturally, socially and morally very different country. On Thursday night the majority of our Parliament knew that they had nothing to fear from their constituents if they indulged in a gross display of Little Englandism, in stark contrast to centuries of traditionally supporting the victims of monstrous oppression.

I don’t recall reading Roberts’ moral outrage about our non-intervention in Rwanda.  Or is genocide not as monstrously oppressive as CWs in Big Academia’s view?

And nothing qualifies as worse oppression than having at least 1,429 innocents slaughtered – 400 of those children – with a weapon so obscene that the world came together in Geneva in 1925 to outlaw it. The only people to have used this monstrous weapon since then have been Benito Mussolini against the Ethiopians in the 1930s, Adolf Hitler in his war against the Jews in the 1940s, and Saddam Hussein in his massacre of the Kurds in the 1980s.

How about the fanatical religious terrorists, Aum Shinriyko, who released Sarin gas into Tokyo’s subway in 1995?  Don’t they count because they were an evil cult rather than an evil regime?

The re-emergence of this foul weapon in the Damascus suburb ought to have – especially as we prepare to commemorate the centenary of the outbreak of the Great War – brought together the House of Commons in solemn support of the Prime Minister’s commendable efforts to punish Assad for taking it out of history’s Pandora’s Box and unleashing it on his own people.

The Prime Minister’s commendable efforts to punish someone whose guilt has only been proven in the court of Australian giant marsupialism Obama his opinion?  For once the HoC did the right thing.  There is nothing commendable about Cameron’s efforts to push us into a war where both sides are as evil as each other.

Yet instead Mr Cameron’s initiative, which stood foursquare in the historical tradition of previous prime ministers faced with such a crime, was voted down. Have we really been so traumatised by the decision to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 that we cannot even fire a few missiles at a vicious dictator like Assad? If so, Britain’s days as a power that deserves its prominent position in Nato and the United Nations Security Council are going to come to an end.

But we won’t be firing them at Assad.  We’ll be firing them at a city where people live.  And we will be doing it in support of Sunni terrorists rebels who are every bit as vicious as Assad and are as equally capable of using Sarin gas.  For all we know they may already have.

Our ineptitude is compounded by U.S president Barack Obama’s decisive statement last night that military strikes are needed. Yes, he is seeking congressional authority. But he has also declared that he will take unilateral action and ‘confront the menace’ alone.

Obama, no matter how tumescent for war he becomes, is going to have to consult Congress first and Congress seems so concerned about the urgency of the situation it isn’t going to convene and discuss the matter until 9th September when hopefully the information regarding the identity of the guilty parties will be more robust.  If Congress follows the UK’s lead and says no will that make the Yanks global spectating, bagel-eating surrender monkeys in Roberts’ gimlet eyes?

And what of the quality of Obama’s leadership?  This is the man who took fourteen days to admit the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, that took the lives of four American citizens including the US ambassador, was a planned and efficiently executed terrorist attack and not due to a mob enraged by by a pathetic film called Innocence of Muslims.  Suddenly he knows exactly who the Syrian CW culprits are before anyone has had a chance to actually investigate what happened?  And we are all yoghurt knitting traitors for not bowing down to The One’s prescience on all matters Middle East?

Of course there are plenty of Britons who would love to see Britain relegated to the sidelines of world history, and simply opt for the quiet life. All too often, we see on Twitter, Facebook, and blogs, a new generation who want Britain to become just another minor power that watches events from the sidelines: another Norway, Japan, Sweden or Ireland. Somewhere that likes to be liked. Lovely countries all, but they do not matter on the world stage like Britain did – until Thursday night.

That’s bollocks on steroids.  The people of this country will fight tooth and nail to protect their own against invasion no matter what bilge they spout on Twatter or Farcebook.  What we are sick to death of is brain-dead, glory hunting, self-aggrandising politicians getting us involved in wars we have no business poking our noses into especially when we don’t have an ice crystal’s chance in hell of either winning or improving the situation by bombing stuff and hoping for the best.  We already know from bitter experience that this strategy doesn’t work.

I could continue to fisk Roberts’ dross but what would be the point?  It seems that Roberts’ main gripe is that the so called, very one-sided “special relationship” has been fatally compromised.  He thinks that because the majority of people in Britain are against intervention in Syria, with or without proof, its because we are all traitors in the Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden mould.  He fails to consider that we’re Scammelling sick of bankrolling and fighting foreign wars that improve nothing, solve nothing, achieve nothing and come at a cost in lives politicians and their families rarely, if ever, have to pay.

Ever since the initial footage of an unconfirmed CW attack was released onto YouTube the US and UK governments have been arguing the case for “punishing” Assad because the “rebels” couldn’t possibly have obtained a CW (Sarin gas) and deployed it. If Sarin gas is so hard to obtain, unless you are a tyrannical government, how did the religious fanatics of Aum Shinrikyo managed to get hold of enough of the stuff to launch not one but two attacks before they were caught?

The first attack, in 1994 killed seven people and injured five hundred.  The second attack came in 1995, when Sarin gas was released into the Tokyo subway during the morning rush hour.  Eight people died  and thousands were injured, many critically.  It remains the worst terrorist atrocity to take place on Japanese soil.  So who supplied the cult with CW?  Some rogue state?  No.  They manufactured it themselves in a laboratory.  Is it such a huge leap to believe that Islamic terrorists, who we know can manufacture Ricin, also have the knowledge to manufacture Sarin gas?  After all, the poison has been around since 1938 so the procedure can’t be that complicated.

To point the finger at Assad alone is disingenuous.  It is a dangerous lie to insist that only the Assad regime has the capability to possess and deploy CWs in Syria.  To go ahead and launch missiles using this deeply suspect presumption as a justification  is nothing less than a war crime.

Hysterical warmongering aside, no must mean no.  We’ve had enough of this false prospectus, interventionist BS.  End of.

 

To conjure a dark illusion

“In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda. Whilst the 20th century was dominated by a conflict between a free-market Right and a socialist Left, even though both of those outlooks had their limitations and their problems, at least they believed in something, whereas what we are seeing now is a society that believes in nothing. And a society that believes in nothing is particularly frightened by people who believe in anything, and, therefore, we label those people as fundamentalists or fanatics, and they have much greater purchase in terms of the fear that they instill in society than they truly deserve. But that’s a measure of how much we have become isolated and atomised rather than of their inherent strength.”

Dr Bill Durodié is an Associate Fellow of the International Security Programme (ISP) for Chatham House

The above quote is a brief excerpt from Adam Curtis‘ 2004 classic documentary The Power of Nightmares on how black propaganda can create a fantasy of self-delusion which ultimately seduces the body-politic of its producer. This is a compelling interpretation of the history of the creation of Al Qaeda as a phantom enemy to fill the gap caused by the fall of the Soviet Union.

The US Networks have refused to show it, so while it may be familiar to our UK readers, it has probably not received the audience it deserves outside of the UK.

The Power of Nightmares

The Power of Nightmares – The Rise of the Politics of Fear

Regardless of whether you believe his interpretation is correct, it is an interesting analysis of the road to Baghdad.

To prevent Cats from accusations of copyright infringement, I will not post links, but I watched all three episodes this afternoon courtesy of Google.

Killing the Good Samaritan

Wendy McElroy is a long-time activist within the American libertarian community. Her piece here uses the example of an innocent young man accused of stalking to make her point and to particularize it to the dangers of being found living while male, or indeed while being a member of any number of suspect “classes.”

But the principle applies much more broadly, to the fact that private snooping, spying, and snitching to The Authorities seem to be more and more common in our U.S. society at least. This kind of thing can destroy a person: his bank account, his job or career, his family relationships, his friendships, his reputation, his very sense of himself…. And some of these people are so eager to find fault and, in some cases, to just plain make trouble, that they will not take the simplest, safest steps to see if there are valid grounds for their suspicion.

Herewith what I consider the meat of the article. (The boldface is mine.)  Better yet, read the whole thing (kidney basin in hand) at

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1021.html

Killing the Good Samaritan

October 21, 2003
by Wendy McElroy, mac@ifeminists.net

The incident reflects how paranoid our culture has becomeafter decades of political correctness that defines and divides us into categories eternally at war: female against male, whites against minorities, heterosexual against gay.

I was once asked to describe the devil. (I interpreted the question to be about the general nature of evil in man rather than about religion.)

I replied: If the devil is the living flesh of evil, then here is who I think he is. …[H]e is the average-looking person who walks into a room and shakes your hand with a smile. By the time he leaves, the standards of decency of everyone within that room have been lowered ever so slightly.

Perhaps he offers general statistics on divorce or child abuse to convince you to suspect your husband of infidelity or your neighbor of molestation. No evidence of specific wrongdoing is offered, of course. But since such “crimes” do occur, you are advised to be vigilantly on guard against them in your personal life. And so, you begin to view your spouse and neighbors with a bit more suspicion, a little less trust and with the tendency to interpret every action as possible evidence of wrongdoing. The very possibility of an offense is taken as evidence of its presence.

…[Y]our co-worker is no longer an individual….

Slowly, you come to view the world through the eyes of the devil. People are guilty until proven innocent. Acts of kindness and common decency are meticulously dissected for hidden motives and agendas. People are not individuals but categories. Those closest to you — family, friends and neighbors — do not receive the benefit of the doubt; they receive the “benefit” of your suspicion.

With no religious implication, I say: a devil is at large. He tells us that acts of kindness and common decency do not exist; the worst possible interpretation should be placed on acts that appear to embody those values….

In short, the Devil is the one who is selling us on the evil of others.

Phil Ossify

Phil Plait (sic), an astronomer and climate alarmist who bizarrely states to possess The entire universe in blog form is a self confessed zombie slayer. His zombies are very scary because they take the shape of ideas of climate change denial. Because climate change deniers and their heretical ideas are born from the festering boils on Satan’s scaly backside and it is the bounden duty of the righteous to kill dissent the facts evil unbelievers.

Thus he tilts at his own personal windmill wind turbine when he attempts to slay this anti-AGW beast 0f an idea, armed only with a Warmist approved crib sheet and a small group of sycophants acolytes.

As someone who speaks out against those who deny climate change…

But he doesn’t mean climate change, does he. He means Anthropogenic Global Warming. Only an imbecile denies the existence of climate change. AGW sceptics don’t deny climate change. They do, however, question the extent to which human activity affects the climate. And that gets right up Phil’s nose.

again

Oh, those wacky professional climate change deniers! Once again, they’ve banded together a passel of people, 90 percent of whom aren’t even climatologists…

Clearly Phil doesn’t do irony well. Or perhaps understand it either since he’s an astronomer and not a climatologist. He obligingly supplies a link to the offending document but doesn’t go quite so far as to pointing out which parts of the nearly fact free opinion piece are bilge and which parts are nonsense. Or, for that matter, which fact or facts he considers to be correct. Given his in-your-face, post normal science credentials I’m assuming the facts he’s happy with are the very facts under dispute by the signatories. After all, who wants to read about the claims of that international relations and public administration guru august scientist, Ban Ki-Moon, a world renown climatologist, being being brought into disrepute by all those upstart physicists, chemists, geologists, engineers and meteorologists?

And then there is that pesky “cherry-picked” graph that David Rose, a Daily Mail journalist, used to demonstrate the ongoing lack of warming that came to a halt in 1997.

The first graph clearly incenses Phil.  Not because the data is wrong, which it isn’t, but because it begins in 1997.  You see it is difficult to put a nice, straight, upwardly trending line through truncated data that clearly shows a flat line.  So Phil helpfully supplies a second graph, one whose plotted data begins somewhere in the mid seventies, so he can draw his neat, upwardly mobile line.

But wait.  Didn’t the previous cool period end sometime in the mid seventies?  You know, the same cool period that had climatology Cassandras predicting an imminent ice age?  Wouldn’t the exclusion of that data give the false impression that the climate was warming prior to the vague starting date of Phil’s preferred graph?  Did he think no one would notice his own cherry-picking?

…and again

Ah, yes. Hot from the University of Consensus, Not Facts.  It seems that I am forced to repeat myself so here goes.

Fact: CAGW sceptics do not deny the reality existence of global warming.

Fact: CAGW sceptics do not deny that man does alter the climate in a certain way, albeit in a mostly localised way (UHI, agriculture, pastoralism etc) and has done for thousands of years. It is interesting that Phil uses the word reality rather than existence because clearly his reality does not inhabit the realm of real world data. Even his own alarmist side has finally acknowledged that global surface temperature stopped rising sixteen years ago. Phil desperately needs to keep up to speed on the recent developments otherwise he could end up sounding like a fool.

Uh oh.  Too late.

…and again

Apparently a burning issue within the alarmist camp Phil’s reality is who labelled what.

Seriously…

…and again….

Carbon dioxide is eeeeeeevil! And Mariana Ashley agrees.

Mariana Who?

Oh, that Mariana Ashley.

Mariana Ashley is a freelance blogger who primarily writes about how online education and technology are transforming academia as we know it. Having spent a good portion of her professional career trying to reform high schools in East St. Louis, Mariana is particularly interested in how online colleges in Missouri make higher education a possibility for students of all backgrounds.

I see she’s very shy about touting her degree in climatology.  Or Phil is a shameless hypocrite.

I knew exactly what Marshall Shepherd, the 2013 president of the American Meteorological Society, meant the moment he talked about having to slay the “zombie theories of climate science.

Strangely enough AGW sceptics have the same problem. As for zombie slaying, it seems that Marshall received the idea first. Phil borrowed his slayership from Marshall just like he’s borrowed the rest of his warmist mantra from fellow alarmists.  I have yet to encounter an original idea in Phil’s posts.  All his arguments are from discredited, climate groupthink authority.

These are ideas that cannot be killed, no matter how thoroughly they are debunked. They always rise to shamble again, reanimated by the deniosphere.

Yes, the idea that honest data and falsifiable empirical evidence trumps climate modelling and name-calling does have that peculiar undead quality. It simply refuses to lie down and die in the face of stupidity.

The Hockey Stick is broken.

True.

…the world hasn’t warmed in 16 years…

Also true.

Antarctic ice is growing.

At a rapid rate.

These ideas are all wrong, demonstrably so, but they are still walking the countryside, looking to eat innocent people’s brains.

These facts are all correct, demonstrably so. Even the most senior of warmists have conceded that warming has ceased. They are all deniers now. Except Phil and his cheerleaders of course.

The only way to slay these undead specters is to keep hammering them, repeating the facts, getting the word out there, and making the message palatable to the folks who may not have all the information they need to make an informed decision on global warming.

Phil’s problem is that people are discovering the information they need to make an informed decision on global warming. Unfortunately for Phil it isn’t the right kind of information. Hysteria and alarmism tend not to make any kind of message palatable especially when it is becoming increasingly expensive to keep warm in winter. I award Phil an F for his communication skills.

Which brings us back to Shepherd. He gave a great TEDxAtlanta talk where he takes on the teeming mass of climate change denial zombie ideas.

The science has moved on, even for the warmists. Watch the video and decide for yourselves which side owns the teeming mass of climate change zombie ideas.

I love this guy. He’s reasoned, genial, and calm.

A veritable paragon of warmist virtue, I’m sure.

My favorite part was at 11:34 into his talk, when he says weather is your mood, but climate is your personality.

Which is as meaningless as saying weather is your toast but climate is a full English breakfast. But hey, Phil was impressed so you should be too.

This one is important because the deniers love to say, “what global warming?” every time it snows. Incredibly, though, this type of claim seems to work; people tend to believe more in global warming after a hot summer and less after it’s cold. Slaying that particular zombie would go a long way toward more folks accepting that global warming is real.

Yes, how silly of people to point out the bleeding obvious mistake  summer and winter for regular seasons rather than what they really are; runaway global warming.

Tied to this is the idea that we can’t be certain what the future holds. Climate models aren’t perfect, so we can’t be 100 percent sure how much the world is warming.

Because the climate models predicted more snow, not less. They predicted that temperature is not driven by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. And they also predicted the ongoing sixteen year halt in warming. Except no, they didn’t predict any of those things.  They can’t even simulate past climate.  We might be able to guess what the future holds but in truth we have no idea really. Nor do climate models. The only certainty is uncertainty and guesswork.  You’d think that Phil would understand that.

However, when it comes to knowing that climate change is real and we’re in for trouble, the models are already good enough.

Hardly.

The hockey-stick graph is quite real and has withstood years of slings and arrows flung at it by the deniers.

Right up until the moment it was defenestrated by the corrupt and biased UN IPCC for being too embarrassingly wrong for even it to stomach.

And in fact the models are getting better all the time; it’s getting hotter, and in the next few decades we’re in for a hell of a time.

The only thing getting hotter is Phil’s warmist fever.

We need to be doing something about this, and now.

Think of the cheeeeldren!

We need to be investigating nonfossil fuel energy sources far more, really leaning in on finding more efficient uses of the fossil fuels we do have to use, and legislating ways of making sure there are incentives for people and companies to do so.

Using fossil fuels more efficiently will benefit everyone. Making them unaffordable in order to fund unreliable renewable energy that needs fossil fuel back-up is insane. State “incentives” to replace reliable fossil fuels with hideously expensive and inadequate green energy is killing people and industry. Bad idea. Very bad idea.

But instead we have to waste our time fighting the horde of zombie denials and trying to be heard above the well-funded and very loud groups who rely on distraction and false doubt to spread their viral ideas. This is the zombie apocalypse, and, unfortunately, it’s all too real.

And Phil calls himself a scientist…

F**K You Obama…

…and the wilfully blind donkey you boomeranged back in on.

That goes double for our Westminster village idiots who for years have been turning sinister somersaults [see what I did there?], while waving the flag of anti-terrorism, to grab a piece of this fascist action.

Oh, a final word for our unelected EU puppet-masters just in case you’re listening – f**k you too!

Cartoon of the Week…

%d bloggers like this: