Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

January 24th, 2013:

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


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:


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 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.

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


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.

%d bloggers like this: