Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

January, 2013:

Good News Story of the Week.

Oh dear, how sad, heh heh, never mind.

Another one bites the dust, rather than bats and birdies. Those ones in the Irish boglands are looking like a sound investment aren’t they?

Mali

So what are we up to in Mali?

I have never seen a more rapid and openly disingenuous escaltion ever. First it is a couple transport planes, then it’s a surveillance plane (but no boots on the ground – honest), then it’s “training” and it’s allowing tankers to operate from British airfields but still we’re “not going to be combatant”. It beggars belief. Finally all the pundit’s of Jane’s Fighting Armchairs are talking of a long-term commitment. I suppose that’s kinda like marriage. Except marriage is nice and being shot at by ragheads until HS2 is completed* (or for the duration) isn’t.

So why the interest?

iDave has annoyed the French with all this referendum on the EU nonce-sense. Helping out Hollande is some quid pro EU. He’s blotted his copy book but is now trying to get himself back in the good books by playing teacher’s pet.

Which of course begs the question. Why are the French getting involved? Could it just be that 80% of French electricity is nuclear and France buys 80% of it’s Uranium from Niger which is beginning to look almost surrounded by Islamist insurgencies…

If that domino falls to the beards France is up a gum-tree without an electric paddle.

Oh, and of course it’s back to the Caliphate. And not the future. To dark age tyranny over all of North Africa in the C21st. And boat people across the Med in huge numbers. Not that I’d blame them.

And if that happens expect the domino (I think that game is haram BTW) next to be Nigeria where we do have interests. Yet more refugees. Not that I’d blame them either. It’s not that I hate refugees – I don’t at all and they should be afforded our help, if it comes to that – but I hate the reasons for them which are universally vile – like polio better prevention than remedy (Yes, I did see Bill Gates at the RI last night – and he pussy-footed about saying polio would be no more if it wasn’t for Islamic fundamentalism – not that we can be too proud following the MMR fiasco). Politicians (by and large) do hate refugees because the Daily Wail can whip up an election killing stink over ‘em.

But there is another thing – returning to the energy issue** – and that is we have got into a position where these places matter to us.

So I suggest if iDave hadn’t engaged in a cockamamie grand-standing over the EU (the price of which is helping out France in a war that at first blush has nothing to do with us) and we hadn’t put ourselves in a situation where we simply can’t generate electricity sufficiently (I’m talking base-load here) we wouldn’t be embroiled in this utter mess.

I mean the sensible thing is to just get fracking! And of course build nuke plants. And yes, I’m calling Johnnie Porridge out on this. And all the bally rest of ‘em such as Chucles the Lugs all because they dream of their deranged visions of The Shire. Deranged because unlike the Hobbits we have the tech (sadly less advanced than it ought to be due to their meddlesome obstruction) and also deranged because they dream of sitting at the high-table and lording it over the rest of us. Oddly enough I don’t get the impression (and I am a Tolkienista) that was how Hobbits actually lived. They didn’t have a Central Committee of the Righteous.

Oh, well, it’s all going to pot. But I would warn them we’re only three power cuts from bloody revolution. I hope we do not go gentle into that last dark night.

*Why is that taking so long to build. Isambard Kingdom Brunel would have reached for the smelling salts on hearing the time-scale. I mean 20-odd years to build a railway not quite as good as that the French or Japanese, or… have had for decades. It’s like me being charged through the nose for a Ford Escort to be delivered just in time for turning 60. I’m 39 BTW. Yes, that is the time-scale!

**It would appear the Cumbrians have voted against a major nuclear waste storage facility so that is British nuclear power buggered and we’re stuck with playing with whirly-gigs and importing real power from France via the Channel cables. So in that sense Niger matters to us and therefore Mali does. How it should come to this is of course a sequence of unfortunate events. And of course the oil and gas from Nigeria.

Richard Epstein: Natural Law in Ancient and Modern Guise

As good an introduction as any to Prof. Richard A. Epstein, who has latterly called himself a Classic Liberal, having moved along that spectrum from “pretty libertarian” (and who was and largely still is known as a libertarian) to “pretty Utilitiarian, depending on just what’s meant by that”). He taught for some 30 years at the University of Chicago Law School, and has now moved to the NYU Law School, while retaining a position as Lecturer at UC.

This is a rather unusual take on Natural Law, I think. I imagine few will agree with all his points, but just when you think he’s strayed so far from any reasonably libertarian position (his are basically Chicago School economics, for instance, with lots of stuff about Pareto improvements), he hits you (by “you” I mean me *g*) with a new and intriguing point. You also get to see him in the full range from Serious Lecturer to Comedian Making a Serious Point (at the end, where he discusses animal “rights”). He is electric with intelligence and enthusiasm.

The talk, by the way, refers a great deal to Roman Law. Prof. Epstein chose to start college at Oxford, where his first courses were in that field.

The event is introduced by libertarian Prof. Randy Barnett, Professor of Legal Theory at Georgetown Law School.

1:20 min. at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=R_ge4tYI8Vk

–J.

Natural Law In Ancient and Modern Guise
4-1-10 — TheFederalistSociety

The Federalist Society’s Georgetown Student Chapter presented its Seventh Annual Lifetime Service Award to Professor Richard A. Epstein on April 1, 2010. Prof. Randy Barnett of the Georgetown University Law Center opened the event and Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz also of the Georgetown University Law Center introduced Prof. Epstein. Prof. Epstein’s address was titled “Natural Law in Ancient and Modern Guise”.

One law for us…

…and another for them.

A muslim who raped a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook has been spared a prison sentence after a judge heard he went to an Islamic faith school where he  was taught that women are worthless.

I don’t recall that being included in the national curriculum.

Adil Rashid, 18, claimed he was not aware that it was illegal for him to have sex with the girl because his education left him ignorant of British law.

Where’s he been living?  Under a rock?  In some dark cave?  Has he never watched TV or read a newspaper?

Yesterday Judge Michael Stokes handed Rashid a suspended sentence, saying: ‘Although chronologically 18, it is quite clear from the reports that you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.’

As mitigating circumstances go this one is thinner than a stick insect’s todger.  Worked like a charm though, didn’t it.

Earlier Nottingham Crown Court heard that such crimes usually result in a four to seven-year prison sentence.

Used to result in a four to seven-year prison sentence.  The precedent this moron of a judge has just set into law has handed paedos of a particular hue a get out of jail free card.  What the Scammel happened to ignorance is no defence?  What happened to justice?  I’ll tell you what’s happened to it.  Our wonderful judiciary just cut off the blind old biddy’s head with that sword of hers and shoved the scales down the hole in her neck!

But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’.

I guess Rashid dressing up to look like a schoolboy and standing in the dock clasping his hands in front and staring contritely at his feet did the trick, eh?

Rashid, from Birmingham, admitted he had sex with the girl, saying he had been ‘tempted by her’ after they met online.

It was all the girl’s fault.  She wasn’t done up in a tent like a human letterbox so Rashid didn’t have a choice.

Gimme a frigging break!  This is Britain we’re talking about, not some medieval shithole.  We don’t have Sharia courts here.

Oh, wait…

They initially exchanged messages on Facebook before sending texts and chatting on the phone over a two-month period.

They then met up in Nottingham, where Rashid had booked a room at a Premier Inn.

Yeah, he was so naive, passive and lacking assertiveness he had the forethought to pre-book a room in the hotel.

The girl told police they stayed at the hotel for two hours and had sex after Rashid went to the bathroom and emerged wearing a condom.

Wait.  What the…?

Let’s perform a little re-wind.

…you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.

Not so naive and immature he didn’t know about condoms and what they are for.  Clearly not much of a lily-white ingénue then.  Yet the judge chose to ignore that this paragon of Islamic values went equipped.

I’d say the only naive and immature tosser in the courtroom was Judge Stokes because he’s been had over good and proper.

Rashid then returned home and went straight to a mosque to pray.

Because praying to a Dark Ages warlord who had a nine year old bride is what you do after having sex with a child in a country that locks up paedophiles.  Or at least used to.

He was arrested the following week after the girl confessed what had happened to a school friend, who informed one of her teachers.

It’s a pity the silly girl didn’t confide to her very sensible friend before she met Rashid in the flesh, so to speak.

He told police he knew the girl was 13 but said he was initially reluctant to have sex before relenting after being seduced.

The accused was so reluctant he went to the expense of booking a room and nipping into a chemist for a pack of three. I say chemist since I’m assuming that procuring johnnies from a dispenser in the hotel lavvy is haram.  Or he could have got them from a third party of course.

Earlier the court heard how Rashid had ‘little experience of women’ due to his education at an Islamic school in the UK, which cannot be named for legal reasons.

The name of a school that labels a seven year old a racist for asking another child an innocent question about his skin colour gets splashed all over the papers.  So how come the name of the “school” that teaches its male pupils that women are scum and can be treated as scum gets a pass?  Surely this poison should be weeded out, not protected?

After his arrest, he told a psychologist that he did not know having sex with a 13-year-old was against the law. The court heard he found it was illegal only when he was informed by a family member.

At which point he was so full of remorse for breaking the law he gave himself up to the police.  Oh, wait.  No he didn’t.

In other interviews with psychologists, Rashid claimed he had been taught in his school that ‘women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground’.

I’d just love to see the last Ofstead report on this school.  I wonder if it was a glowing, politically correct one?  I can’t wait to see Ofstead explain how rampant Islamic misogyny passed under their radar, accepting, like the judge did, that Rashid isn’t a lying little scrote.  I take it that these Islamic schools are inspected like other faith schools are.  If what Rashid said is true, how many more madrassas in the UK wipe their arses with the national curriculum while under Ofstead’s purview?

When Judge Stokes said Rashid ‘must have known it was illegal, unless he was going round with his eyes shut’, defence lawyer Laban Leake said reports suggested Rashid had a ‘degree of sexual naivety’.

Clearly, Rashid wasn’t the only one going round with his eyes shut…

The school he attended, it is not going too far to say, can be described as a closed community and on this occasion this was perpetuated by his home life.

No shit, Sherlock!  Are we going to see the same largesse handed out to a boy, formerly cloistered in a Catholic school, grooming thirteen year olds and having sex with them?

No?

Then why has Rashid been allowed to get away with it?

‘It is not too far to say that he may not have known that having sex with a 13-year-old girl was illegal.’ Judge Stokes sentenced Rashid to nine months youth custody, suspended for two years, along with a two-year probation supervision order.

But apparently it’s too far to say that Rashid had a mobile phone and a Facebook account which means he had access to the internet.  With all the news about Muslim child grooming gangs and teachers running off abroad with underage pupils being splashed around the media and internet how can he not have known?

Describing Rashid, the judge said: ‘He’s had an unusual education, certainly in terms of the sexual education provided. Comparing women to lollipops is a very curious way of teaching young men about sex.’

Bangs head on table.  It’s not “curious” shit-for-brains, it’s scammelling scandalous!  All those frigging gender equality laws the legal profession print money from vigorously support are being trodden into the mud and all Stokes can say is that it’s curious?  Is he high on crack cocaine or something?  Is he so blinded by political correctness that he can’t see where this will lead?

But he said that Rashid knew what he was doing was wrong.

Then why isn’t Rashid busy avoiding dropping the soap in a prison bathroom?  He groomed and had sex with an underage girl.  That is a prisonable offence.

‘It was made clear to you at the school you attended that having sexual relations with a woman before marriage was contrary to the precepts of Islam,’ he said.

So Rashid is being given this outrageously lenient sentenced for ignoring madrassa teaching?

Addressing Rashid, the judge said: ‘I accept this was a case where the girl was quite willing to have sexual activity with you. But the law is there to protect young girls, even though they are perfectly happy to engage in sexual activity.’

Unless some dhimmified Judge is willing to make an exception when it suits him?

The law my left buttock!  British law has become a travesty, a joke, a sham.  It is unfit for purpose.  Judge Stokes should hang up his wig and gown in shame. Letting a paedophile go because he went to the wrong school is an unacceptable defence. and the sentence handed down has no place in any civilised society.

Eleven questions with James Higham

James Higham is the host of the ‘nourishing obscurity blog and a regular contributor to Orphans of Liberty.  He describes himself as having a background in education but also a former storeman, DJ, builder, screenprinter, gardener, shop assistant, thespian, stage manager, military and various other ventures.

His main addictions are sailing, wimmin and dark chocolate, in no particular order.  James was kind enough to answer the eleven questions.

http://nourishingobscurity.com

1. Who was the greatest political leader in the Western world?

Jesus of Nazareth – most influence on billions

2. If you could change, introduce or abolish one law, what would it be?

Any stemming from political correctness or the EU.

3. What advice would you give to a sixteen year-old today?

Don’t trust the bastards.  They’re not your friends.  Don’t let them walk over you.

4. Who do you most admire?

Bloggers like Single Acts, Captain Ranty, Leg-Iron, Angry Exile, Julia M, Longrider, any who take  it up to the PTB.

5. Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of your country?

Pessimistic – they’re trying to kill the middle to working class and ruin good relations between people.

6. If you think voting for establishment parties changes little or nothing, what is the one thing we can do as individuals to cause real change?

Vote for anyone but the major parties to start with – that should cripple parliament in the short term, then we can do non-compliance.

7. When will we finally say good-bye to the state?

When it becomes unworkable [see 6] and it’s given a final shove.

8. Should free people have the right to keep and bear arms openly or covertly without government permission, sanction or registration?

Absolutely the right to bear arms.

9. What annoys you most about current politics?

No direct democracy – the PTB are such lowlifes as people.

10. Gold standard or fiat currency and interest rate control?

Maybe neither – I’m in learning mode on this one.

11. Do we have an obligation to help the poor?

I think as people – yes and we do give, not via the State though.

Victor Davis Hanson: Why Study War?

Why Study War?
Victor Davis Hanson

In case anybody doesn’t know Victor Davis Hanson, he’s a military historian and classicist; former Prof. of Classics at California State U., Fresno; farmer; current Fellow of the Hoover Institution; and essayist, columnist, pundit. He’s very highly regarded over here as a military historian.

The essay is longish (but only one page), and ends with an armload of books for beginners to read.

–J.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_military_history.html

…[T]he sixties had ushered in a utopian view of society antithetical to serious thinking about war. Government, the military, business, religion, and the family had conspired, the new Rousseauians believed, to warp the naturally peace-loving individual. Conformity and coercion smothered our innately pacifist selves.

. . .

Military history is as often the story of appeasement as of warmongering.

. . .

Military history teaches us, contrary to popular belief these days, that wars aren’t necessarily the most costly of human calamities. The first Gulf War took few lives in getting Saddam out of Kuwait; doing nothing in Rwanda allowed savage gangs and militias to murder hundreds of thousands with impunity. Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin killed far more off the battlefield than on it.

I think most everyone will find at least one paragraph to argue with, but I also think on the whole the piece is sound.

Windy Miller – Irish edition – it’s like a Leprechaun rotisserie!

UK and Irish ministers will today sign an agreement that could see some of the world’s largest wind turbines built across the Irish midlands.

Stretching more than 600 feet (180 metres) in the air, the towers are set to generate energy for millions of UK homes from 2017.

The companies involved say the Irish power is a cheaper form of renewable than UK offshore wind.

Note cheaper form of “renewables” and no mention is made of burning coal or oil or gas or trash or uranium.

But environmentalists have described the scheme as “crazy”.

They say it risks damaging Ireland’s landscape.

Well, for once I’m with the Greens here. I mean Mr Magoo himself would manage to spot a 180m tower. That is roughly the height of the BT tower in London. Apparently they don’t look so big if you look at them from a long way away. Neither does Jupiter.

BTW that is an explicit ref to “Father Ted” and cows. And he was trying to explain scale and such to his dim-witted curate Dougal.

Under the plan, a number of companies are seeking to erect hundreds of wind turbines across the boggy midlands of Ireland. The power generated would be transferred to the UK via undersea cables that would join the grid at two points in Wales.

“Boggy midlands”. Dear Gods! Have people been on the Poitín? I mean building a 180m tower in a bog? What could possibly go wrong?

One of the developers, Element Power, says the plan would save UK consumers around £7bn over 15 years compared to other renewable sources.

Again with the renewables Moriaty! Electricity is the life-blood of modernity. Without the electricity we might as well dig-up Jimmy Maxwell and bugger the remains. I mean for fuck’s sake! Let’s make the most important thing in the World – the thing that separates us from the brutes in the most half-arsed manner imaginable! But that’s OK because this utter fuckeration is happening in Paddyshire. And they are stonier than an Old Testament execution.

The developers also say that thousands of jobs will be created in Ireland and the economy as a whole will benefit.

But it creates jobs! What Keynesian madness is that? You might as well just pay Pat to dig a hole in the bog and Mick to fill it in. I hate this. It is the key fail of BBC News. Always with the jobs Moriaty! Economic development is about destroying jobs not make-work for the sake of it. I mean how many dung-chewers or pig-pokers do you know? We had this thing called an “Industrial Revolution”. This meant we made things quicker, cheaper, faster and with less general effort. We might as well climb up a 180m tower and piss on the grave of Lord Armstrong. And yes, his gaff was the first home in the world with electricity. He had a hydro station because he wasn’t a numpty.

But concerns are now growing that the turbines needed to provide the power will be of a size and scale not seen in Britain or Ireland before.

Because the bog lands are relatively windless, the company behind the scheme says they will need to stretch high into the sky to catch sufficient wind to generate power.

Some old-time buggers in Babylon had a similar idea. That’s in fucking Genesis. Do we ever learn?

“We felt it was better to built slightly larger turbines but fewer of them and that’s the best way to minimise the impact on the local area.”

180m is slightly larger. I am a former student of astrophysics so I have a technical term for 180m, “fucking enormous”.

But opponents say that local people have not been consulted and few actually realise just what an impact the turbines will have on the landscape.

“People don’t actually understand the scale of them,” said Andrew Duncan, an auctioneer and spokesman for the Lakelands Wind Information group, who are opposed to the plan.

Is Mr Duncan lobbying for windy milling in the Lakes. Because if so he can fuck off too. Cumbria has a major role in power generation – it’s called Sellafield.

“Putting up the largest turbines in the world without consultation – I think it is ludicrous, to be honest.”

Yeah, well I live in a grade II listed building and technically I’m not allowed a Sky dish. And that is less than a metre across! It was hidden round the back of the chimney by the Sky-man. Of course in order to get “council telly” I could perfectly legally erect a monstrance of a 5 metre Yagi dipole which is odd because just down the road from me is a fucking ginormous dish. We call it Jodrell Bank. Oddly enough that is also a grade II listed building. A few years back it was faced with closure for the want of GBP 3.5 million. I almost did an MSc there but I also had an offer from Queen Mary in London and I kinda figured Stepney would be more fun than Macclesfield which is (in a weird way) is how I wound-up in Cheshire anyway. In the end though London was fun – as ever.

Jodrell Bank is fucking awesome. I go there when they have does. I go there because it is the future, not the past. I recall being disgusted when it was to be scrapped and folk were on about what an iconic thing on the Cheshire skyline it was. Yes, it is but is that the point of it? There’s a Universe out there and that is our telephone. It is not about being cute. It’s about being an enormous steerable array. It’s about astronomy, not heritage. This is Britain. This is the birthplace of the industrial age and the nation of Newton and Darwin. We are not a fucking museum. My boss at Nottingham University won the Nobel Prize for inventing the MRI scanner. There is no blue plaque on the door. We are now going for the Blue Paque and twinning with Hobbiton. I have stood on the reactor plate of the first ever nuclear power station at Calder Hall in Cumbria as a kid (A-Level Physics school trip) and I shall be buggered if I’m giving up that to build cunting windmills in Irish bogs. You couldn’t get Fathers Ted, Jack and Dougal to come up with something more half-witted! And at least Craggy Island was windy.

Oh for God’s sake electricity, the motor car and heavier than air flight are like cool. They are the second industrial revolution. They are the reason I can get fro Manchester Airport to Paris in just over an hour or to Istanbul in like four. It is the reason I don’t go into the stream and bang my washing with rocks like some medieval cunt but stick it in the electric machine instead. Dear sweet Jesus! Do I want to live like my grandparents? No. And they appreciated new stuff too. My Grandad went to primary school without shoes. I went to university in Nike Airs. I’d say that was an improvement and so would he if he was still with us.

But not everything has been cured yet.

Eleven questions with Adam Kokesh

Adam Kokesh is an American activist and talk radio host as well as a U S Marine veteran who was involved in the Iraq War.  He hosts a talk radio show called “Adam vs the Man” which is thought provoking, insightful and sometimes very funny.  You can listen to the show here.  Adam was kind enough to answer the eleven questions.

http://www.youtube.com/user/adamkokesh

1. Who was the greatest political leader in the Western world?

There is no such thing as a great political leader.

2. If you could change, introduce or abolish one law, what would it be?

All human interactions shall be free of coercion.

3. What advice would you give to a sixteen year-old today?

Tell your parents to get/keep you out of government schools.

4. Who do you most admire?

Stefan Molyneux

5. Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of your country?

I’m pessimistic about the future of countries, and optimistic about the future of humanity.

6. If you think voting for establishment parties changes little or nothing, what is the one thing we can do as individuals to cause real change?

Practice agorism, spread liberty, assert self-ownership.

7. When will we finally say good-bye to the state?

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-50 years.

8. Should free people have the right to keep and bear arms openly or covertly without government permission, sanction or registration?

Absolutely.

9. What annoys you most about current politics?

The current politics part.

10. Gold standard or fiat currency and interest rate control?

Doesn’t matter as long as people get to choose their medium of exchange without coercion.

11. Do we have an obligation to help the poor?

Who is “we” and who is “the poor?” We have opportunities to enrich the lives of others, but not an obligation.

Nothing Changes

February 5th

Today we had a meeting about the Europass. This was a completely new development. I’d never even heard of it. … It seems that [it] is a new European Identity Card, to be carried by all citizens of the EEC. The FCO, according to Humphrey, is willing to go along with the idea as a quid pro quo for a settlement over the butter mountain, the wine lake, the milk ocean, the lamb war, and the cod stink.

Apparently, the PM wants me to introduce the necessary legislation.

I’m horrified by this.

Sir Humphrey was surprised by my reaction. He thought it was a good idea, as I’m known to be pro-Europe, and he thinks that a Europass will simplify administration in the long run.

Frank and I tried to explain to the officials that for me to introduce such a scheme would be political suicide. The British people don’t want to carry compulsory identification papers. I’ll be accused of trying to bring in a police state [...]

I asked Humphrey if the Foreign Office doesn’t realise how damaging this would be to the European ideal?

“I’m sure they do, minister. That’s why they support it.”

This was even more puzzling, since I’d always been under the impression that the FO is pro-Europe. “Is it, or isn’t it?” I asked Humphrey.

“Yes and no,” he replied of course, “if you’ll pardon the expression. The Foreign Office is pro-Europe because it is really anti-Europe. In fact, the Civil Service was united in its desire to make sure the Common Market didn’t work. That’s why we went into it. Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for the last five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought wars with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule.”

“But that’s all ancient history!”

“Yes, minister, but it is, in fact, current policy. It is necessary to break up the EEC, so we had to get inside. We had previously tried to break it up from the outside, but that didn’t work. Now that we’re in, we are able to make a complete pig’s breakfast of it. We can set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch… the Foreign Office is terribly happy. It’s just like old times.”

Yes, Minister, “The Writing on the Wall”

ID cards, lies and duplicity over Europe… the book from which I’ve taken the bulk of this quote was published in 1981. The TV series which I’ve been re-watching and inspired me to post it first aired in 1979. Both are as relevant today as they were then (another episode is about an austerity drive). They’ve aged far, far, better than the highly celebrated – and much more recent – The Thick of It, for example: it was about the Blair administration; Yes, Minister is about the delusion that these here-today-gone-tomorrow administrations make a blind bit of difference in the face of our real government, the Civil Service.

If you’ve never encountered Jim Hacker, Sir Humphrey, and the Ministry of Administrative Affairs, I highly recommend you remedy the defect. The first series in particular is exceptional. Think of it as an education. Johnathan Lynn and Anthony Jay were – are – both political animals, and had contacts who were even closer to the centre of the permanent government; they weren’t making it up. Maraget Thatcher, when she met them, is reported to have said, “It’s very good. How did you know?”.

Sally Not-So-Bright

Why women may just keep Britain in the EU

What?  I thought it was the LibLabCons who were hell bent on keeping the UK in the EU.  Not according to Cathy Newman though.

As Sally Albright explains in When Harry Met Sally, “Women are very practical.” It’s why, she says, Ingrid Bergman gets on the plane at the end of Casablanca to return to her husband. Harry thinks she should have stuck around to enjoy the greatest sex of her life, but Sally knows any woman with her head firmly screwed on her shoulders would baulk at taking a risk on a man who runs a bar “and that’s all he does”.

And so it may be with the EU.

Cathy love, let me spell this out in simple terms that even you can understand – Hollywood isn’t real!  Shocking, I know but it’s a harsh fact of life.  We are dealing with real world problems here and this particular female doesn’t give a flying Scammel about the words some scriptwriter put into the mouth of a fictional character like Sally Albright.  They bear zero relevance to whether or not we stay in the EU.

Women are risk-averse, and as David Cameron bets the house on an “in-out” referendum, he may find himself counting on them to deliver the safe result – to stay in the EU – that he says he wants. (So it might be an idea for his team to really start appealing to women – in light of today’s figures).

Bollocks!  Women are just as prepared to take risks as men are, especially when the chips are down.  History is littered with heroines, both sung and unsung, and I’m not talking about the sporting variety of the recent Olympics.  Any female worth her salt will protect her own and devil take the hindmost because we can be ruthless as well as practical.  Quite a lot of us have noticed that the EU is a threat to our way of life and adversely affects our families as well at the nation.  You only need to go shopping and watch the folding stuff fly out of your purse faster each week to see that.   That our own government are complicit makes it worse.  So don’t give me any blinkered ordure about women being risk-averse.  Some may be risk-averse just like some men can be but don’t you bloody well count me in that demographic.  Don’t you frigging dare!

The pollsters will tell you why.

Maybe a thousand people polled, who aren’t all women, out of sixty odd million?  This is your evidence?  Oh, puhleeeeeese.

In YouGov’s last polling, both men and women are far more interested in more pressing issues such as the economy than Europe. Only nine per cent of men, and seven per cent of women say it’s the most important issue facing their family. If you ask them, though, what matters most to the country, the figure – and the gender gap is bigger – with 24 per cent of men singling it out as an issue, and 17 per cent of women. For women, but not men, domestic concerns like childcare and education are almost as crucial: seven per cent of men but 15 per cent of women care most about childcare; 11 per cent of men but 15 per cent of women are bothered about education.

I am a member of the YouGov pollsters.  I know how these questions are put across.  This is usually a multi-choice question so it isn’t surprising that subjects like the economy and NHS trump the EU.  That’s because the economy and NHS are immediately relevant to and affect the ordinary man and woman in the street.  The question is a loaded one.  Extrapolating any real meaning about how ordinary people feel about the EU from such a poll is going to be pure spin.  Just like your article, Cathy.

I asked YouGov’s boss Peter Kellner whether this is because Sally was right: they’re practical about the issues concerning them and their families. He agreed. “Women are more concerned with safety and security and that includes social and financial security. They don’t want to send their sons to fight in foreign wars and they like to know the food bills are going to get paid,” he said.

Peter Kellner is an unapologetic socialist EUphile.  Sally is a figment of a Hollywood writer’s imagination.  Kellner’s comment is a blatant strawman or is that straw woman?  Senior members of the EU got us involved in Libya.  They want us involved in Mali and Syria.  The Labour Party got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Mothers who don’t want their sons sent off to fight foreign wars should be spitting in the EU’s ugly face and punching Tony Blair in his even uglier one.

He thinks that’s why women polled now are marginally more Eurosceptic than men – because they see the EU, with its welter of directives and interfering officials, as in some vague way a “threat” to their way of life.

What Kellner thinks is irrelevant.  And wrong.  Women are more than capable of recognising the threat the EU makes to our way of life.   And let me tell you, the threat isn’t even remotely vague.  It’s real, it’s nasty and it’s pushing itself down our throats.

Women by a nine per cent margin say they would vote ‘No’ rather than ‘Yes’ in the forthcoming referendum. Men by a two per cent margin are more likely to vote ‘Yes’ than ‘No’.

Tell people the truth about what the EU really is and there won’t be anything marginal about the revulsion ordinary folks will display.  Just walk down any high street and listen to the undercurrent of dissatisfaction.  But the truth is drowned beneath an ocean of pro-EU spin.  Newman’s article is just another drop in that vast ocean.  And a grossly insulting one too.

However, intriguingly, he believes the very same focus on safety and security will prompt women to change their minds as a referendum approaches. “In a referendum I think that will flip over because the risk option will be to leave.”

That’s odd.  Most of the people I know, both male and female, see staying in the EU as the greater risk.  They weren’t polled though and only our parents got to vote in the EEC referendum (mine voted no because, living for a time in Germany, they saw the common market at first hand and found it repellent).  But then the likes of Kellner and iDave are banking on the soft, third option to IN/OUT – renegotiation.  This is fraudulence on a national scale not seen since the traitor Heath, with the complicity of the media, lied the UK’s way into the EEC and onto the path of a federalised EU.  Tell enough lies about renegotiation being the best of both words, get enough people to believe it and Bob’s your uncle, we are all EU citizens and no amount of wannabe renegotiation will alter that.  Fool us once, shame on you.  Fool us twice, shame on us.  You can bet there won’t be a third referendum.  If you don’t believe me go and ask the Irish.

As Ben Page, chief executive of Ipsos Mori, puts it: “Rather than looking at macro economics they [women] will be a bit more likely to be thinking: ‘does it mean the price of goods will go up?’”

Another patronising SOB.  Here’s what I have to say about Page’s shallow view: rearrange the following words into a metaphorical phrase or saying -  off, Scammel.

So like Sally, with her days-of-the-week knickers, or Ilsa Lund’s (aka Ingrid Bergman) decision to stay with her husband, many women voters might think twice if leaving the EU means running off with someone who promises them an uncertain future. “Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life”.

But then, if Cathy Newman is the measure by which these poll-it-bureau twonks gauge female mental capacity, perhaps they have a point.

China Prepares the People’s Liberation Army for War

So much for the deluded
businessmen/economists/capitalists/free-marketers/”libertarians” who think that a country that still enshrines Mao is on the path to “freedom” just because the regime has allowed graft and fascistic enterprise in order to “build up the economy.”

The Chinese Dragon is far from dead. Jim Rogers (who ought to have known better! All excited about freedom in China in ****1988!!!****) and suchlike fools take note.

Fairly detailed article, a couple of photos, a “must-read” if it’s correct. (I know nothing about this “Generational Dynamics” business, but there are other sources given in the story.)

From the article, at

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/01/18/19-Jan-13-World-View-China-s-directive-to-the-People-s-Liberation-Army-Get-Ready-for-War

WORLD VIEW: CHINA PREPARES THE PEOPLE’S LIBERATION ARMY FOR WAR

by John J. Xenakis 19 Jan 2013

China’s General Staff Headquarters issued a harsh directive on Wednesday to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to prepare for war:

In 2013, the goal set for the entire army and the People’s Armed Police force is to bolster their capabilities to fight and their ability to win a war… to be well-prepared for a war by subjecting the army to hard and rigorous training on an actual combat basis.

Although past directives have directed soldiers to be prepared in case of war, this year’s directive, for the first time, uses the Chinese word “dazhang,” which means “fighting war,” and uses it 10 times in the 1000 word directive.

Last month, China announced plans to board and seize foreign ships in the South China Sea, starting in 2013, and has been conducting naval drills with warships in preparation.

While the official directive does not mention Japan, various commentaries makes clear that Japan is the would-be adversary. VOA, South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), China Military Online (Beijing), and People’s Daily Online / Military (Beijing)

China steps up nationalistic war-like rhetoric

… Dai Xu, a Chinese Air Force Colonel, is arguing for a short, decisive war with one of China’s neighbors–Vietnam, the Philippines, or Japan–in order to establish sovereignty over the Pacific region without risking war with the United States. This is the “kill a chicken to scare the monkeys” philosophy. According to this theory, America will NOT honor its mutual defense agreements with any of these countries, because the U.S. will not want to risk having its cities destroyed by Chinese ballistic missiles.

(Story continues) ….

And one of the 185 comments to the story:

bigmaq1980

Agree. The only reason the Chinese might think “Americans will ‘run like rabbits.’” is because of this administration’s recent weak performance in the middle east, and because of the tenuous U.S. (and Western) economy (both WH admins are to blame here).

Whatever one thinks about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear to all foreign entities that America shows neither a principled and goal oriented interaction nor a policy engaged from a position of confidence (exerted quietly or visibly).

For example, killing Osama bin Laden (which the current WH is hanging their hat on) was largely symbolic rather than meaningful – a case of too little too late. Hardly a “resounding success” to base a withdrawal upon. Not to say that incompetently prosecuting a war aimed at ObLn and his cabal was any better (in the prior WH).

Instead, America’s foreign strength/ability/stance/goals/principles appear fumbled and jumbled. This emboldens pariahs every time – just check history.

Eleven questions with Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux is the founder of freedomainradio.com which is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web.  I find the show consistently interesting and well thought out.  Stefan and others got me from Minarchy to Voluntaryism in about six weeks of listening to the show.  He also has some really good ideas on child-rearing and how this links in with our political future.  It’s worth subscribing to his youtube channel and his website is here.  Stefan was kind enough to answer the eleven questions.

www.freedomainradio.com

1. Who was the greatest political leader in the Western world?

Bigfoot.

2. If you could change, introduce or abolish one law, what would it be?

Abolish taxation.

3. What advice would you give to a sixteen year-old today?

Get ready for the fight of your life.

4. Who do you most admire?

My wife and daughter.

5. Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of your country?

I am optimistic that the concept ‘country’ has no future.

6. If you think voting for establishment parties changes little or nothing, what is the one thing we can do as individuals to cause real change?

Parent peacefully.

7. When will we finally say good-bye to the state?

When we stop attacking each other for asking rational questions.

8. Should free people have the right to keep and bear arms openly or covertly without government permission, sanction or registration?

There should be no such thing as government permission, since the government to a violation of permission to begin with.

9. What annoys you most about current politics?

People’s interest in it.

10. Gold standard or fiat currency and interest rate control?

Voluntarism. Let the market decide.

11. Do we have an obligation to help the poor?

It depends whether or not they have chosen poverty. Monks and artists don’t need charity.

Harry, England and St George…

So Prince Harry has killed some fellas in the ‘stan. Well, that’s his job innit? Put a fellow in a GBP65mill choper and expect them to pootle then that is an obscene waste of money. He was there to stick 30mm chain-gun rounds up beards. Have you seen what one of those does to a personage? They cut you in half. And then there are the Hellfire missiles and Hydra rockets and that is DNA if you are lucky. You’re still well dead mind.

An aside: I’m glad the BBC has finally admitted Harry ain’t a pilot. He’s a gunner. I knew that months ago because I saw him get into the front seat of an Apache.

Well, it’s good Harry is back and in one piece (unlike so many of our lads and lasses that get C-17ed back in bits). God and Captain Wales possibly know. I don’t. After 9/11 we should have gone in done an epic stomp, bagged bin Laden and got the fuck out by January at the latest. Afghanistan is an unmitigated and unmitagetable shit-hole of the first water. I saw an interview a year or so back with a US Army officer. He’d been to meet the twinkly ol’ tribal elders and they’d given him tea and all. But when (he was an engineer) suggested building a bridge to this Allah-forsaken shit-hole which would create jobs and work and all the rest they were like nay! For all the young fellows were a-Talebaning. Well, fuck ‘em I say! Post being nice to the locals this US Army officer didn’t say but gave every impression what he was really thinking. Which was basically, “Beam me up Scotty!” We could spend the next hundred years “nation-building” in the ‘stan and we would get nowhere. The gaff is undefuckable. It doesn’t even look medieval. It looks Jurassic. Either we get the eff out like now or we take the Lt Ripley option but this buggering about in what is Britain’s 4th (count ‘em!) Afghan War is just an inglorious waste of blood and treasure.

You know how the Taleban came to power? Two warlords fought a duel in Central Kabul over the rights to the bottom of a young lad. They fought it in ex-Soviet tanks. I mean as you do. Most natural thing in the World – to get in your T-72 to claim your buggery rights. And that is how the Taleban came to power. People saw them as a stabilizing force. Obviously they were very evil but a choice between Islamist repression and complete anarchy isn’t much of a choice.

I’m just glad I don’t live there. I will be grimly curious as to what the female literacy rate is ten years from now.

I’m not hopeful.

Eleven questions

I take the libertarian come voluntaryist position in politics and philosophy in general. There are a number of activists on the internet and elsewhere who have some most interesting views and have produced some great blogs, podcasts and books on the wider concept.

So I wrote eleven questions that I thought pertinent and contacted some people I find thought-provoking to see if they would share their thoughts. To my great surprise, one or two have agreed, and in the coming weeks I will be posting their answers as part of an “Eleven questions” series.

Hopefully you will find it interesting and if there are any suggestions as to who you would like me to contact, please let me know. Be sensible, President Obama isn’t going to take time out, but it is surprising who will reply.

Israeli Elections 2013.

The balance of power will be held by a political party headed by a television presenter (the son of a another media type) who has promised everything (education, health, housing) to everybody – and who is known (even to his actual supporters) as “Pretty Boy”.

Anyone want to explain how Representative Democracy is a good thing?

%d bloggers like this: