Category Archives: Politics

Did Jacinda Ardern react appropriately? (Thursday poll)


 

Jacinda Ardern, making two “khamsah” signs with her hands, one turned to the crowd, the other pressed to her chest.

Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, found herself in the limelight in the wake of the murder of 50 Muslims in two Christchurch mosques two weeks ago.

Among her reactions were:

– a refusal to stay the name of the lone-wolf psychopath white supremacist Tarrant who committed these acts and filmed himself doing it. In doing so she went against the advice of Dumbledore to Harry Potter not to be afriad to name Voldemort, as failing to be willing to say the name of evil gives it more power. “Fear of the name increases fear of the thing itself” is the relevant quote, which will enable anyone wishing to to research this farther to Google for more info.

– an insistence on calling him a “terrorist”. This graces a criminal psycho with being “another man’s freedom fighter”.  The man was simply a nutjob whackjob. Don’t make a martyr out of him.

–  Curtailing civil liberties to buy guns. It would have been sufficient to enable NZ citizens who had local driving licences and a background check to buy them, to avert this happening. The slow reaction time of the police shows that a larger amount of gun carrying by the NZ community rather than less availibility might have saved lives. Villains will always get guns. Rogue state operatives, and operatives of rogue states will always get guns.

– Asking women to wear the symbol of submission, whereby in Islam they admit that they are less than men and are only worth half of what a man is worth, as their scripture says. In doing so, Arden also played to the crowd and made significant hand signs in her hijab, namely the Khamsah sign, or “Hand of Fatima” associated with Fatima the mother of Mohammed, Mary the Mother of Jesus, Diana, Isis and Tanit, all the way back to Ishtar in Sumeria, hence it is also known as “the hand of the Goddess” and it was banned in the Holy Roman Empire by Emperor Charles IV.  Not content to make it with one hand, Jacinda (named for one of the breastplate materials in Revelation 9:17, of the horses that issued fire, smoke and brimstone from their mouths), makes it with both, and places one towards the crowd and the other on her OWN  CHEST as if to say I am your Goddess, I am your Protector.

She has successfully managed to make the murder of 50 Muslims all about her in twhat must be the most disgusting hijacking of a tragedy by a left-wing politician to occur this century so far.

She failed, however, to wear clogs in solidarity with the victims of the Utrecht shooting by a muslim some days later, or to say anything about it. When one of the Mosque Leaders in Christchurch in the last two weeks was recorded in public blaming the Jewish business owners and the Mossad for Tarrant, she had nothing to say about it and nobody came to that imam’s house investigating him for hate speech.

Now I made it fairly clear what I think about her. What about you, the gentle reader. Will you be more charitable towards this rictus bearing harbinger of cultural suicide?

As ever, comments are encouraged below.  Please also vote in our other polls, which are all in the “polls” section of the navigation in the right hand panel.

What is Macron trying to do? (Thursday poll)


Whatever is he up to now?

Emmanuel Macron, who has about as much to do with the real Emmanuel as I do with a … well actually it defies comparison, has been the hard man against the UK coming out as the leader (cough) least in favour of granting any A50 extensions to the UK, although finally the group after four hours of closed discussion from which May and the media were all excluded did grant an extension but a lot shorter than we asked for, at the same time telling us they want to help us if they know what we want.

Why is Macron trying to push us into an impasse cordiale at this point?

Please tick all the reasons you think apply to motivate Macron’s behaviour.

As ever, comments are encouraged below.  Please also vote in our other polls, which are all in the “polls” section of the navigation in the right hand panel.

Dublin 1 Lisbon 0 (June Rant – Huliganov ft Paddy O Donahue)


Original YT playout date: 13 June 2008
Duration: 11:05

Here’s something that became topical again, commenting the initial rejection of the Lisbon Treaty – of course we all know what happened next – they were told they got that wrong and were told to vote again. In the mean time, they were told that their economy was ruined because of their vote, although of course it was about to go south because of the coing recession anyway, and they started to get scared and vote again.
Read the rest of this entry

Are the McCanns in the right? (Thursday poll)


The small but loyal group of supporters of this blog and its Thursday Polls might well, after last night’s performance, the night before that and no doubt coming up also in the UK Parliament be expecting me to make an EU-related poll today, but as we have had so much of this now, enough to almost drive a nation and a continental mental, i thought we could think about something else. For tose who want to think about the EU then the question I asked two weeks ago has become more relevant now than it even was then, and that poll is still open and I am watching carefully how the weight of answers is changing as we progress through this process, as indeed can you. That poll is right here.

Beyond that you can shortcut to all the existant polls here, and feel free to add your voice to any of them, as I tend to keep them open for a while in most cases.

For today, we look in fact not for the first time in my content (those who have been following the Play UK talk shows will know that this unhappy family is an inevitable topic of conversation in talk radio, and the Not The Tommy Boyd Show and James Whale show were no exceptions. James Whale in particular has been very supportive of Madeleine’s parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, pictured).

Now it emerges in today’s news that Netflix is going to release a film about Madeleine’s Disappearance called “The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann”.  Gerry and Kate McCann have been critical of the film, saying that it might hiner the police investigation.

I would have thought the stronger argument would be that this tragedy is not supposed to be for the idle entertainment of the masses and the profit of a media organisation, but then really one has to wonder how many newspapers and associated advertising have already been sold on this story over the last 12 years.  Gerry and Kate have been through a lot, not only through the loss of their child but also through being suspected themselves, even formally held as arguidos in the death of their child. Now I have been in a similar position as them, only thankfully for 12 minutes and not for 12 years, but even that was enough to tell you that this is not a pleasant experience, although my joy when the French police found George (who had run away, being autistic and adventurous, a dangerous pairing of traits) safe and well more than made for the evident suspicion of me by the French detective when he spotted the blood on the lintel (which happened to have been left over from George’s nosebleed the previous day – my explanation that it was his, but we thought we had managed to clean it all up was obviously not the best choice of words under the circumstances, as the detective’s “remain in my sight, please” indicated).  For the record I personally believe Gerry and Kate are innocent, not because of my own experiecnes and not because it is impossible for them to have done such a deed in a moment of anger or through self medication and then covered it up through fear, but because deception specialists are really very good and they would be able to pinpoint leakage and would have got to the truth of the issue by now in such a high profile case if Kate and Gerry were not being truthful.  So, despite being very naturally and by dint of being an auditor a rather unpleasantly skeptical person about human nature, I am with the McCanns, be sure of that.

I still wonder if they are right in saying that such a film will hinder the investigation. I am far from sure that the police alone, given all the cuts in manpower and the increasing reliance on technocracy which is not retrospective, is going to be enough to solve this case.  I believe that, tasteless and unsavoury as this film may be, and I probably will not watch it myself, keeping the image of Medeleine and the whole story in the public eye may be exactly what it takes to wring some truth or even a confession out of a person who has managed to keep everything quiet. Or maybe, hopefully, one day a young woman with one bicoloured iris is noticed by a young neighbour who only knows about Madeleine because it was kept in the public eye. These days the police are not resourced but the ordinary public are greatly resourced. That is why I don’t think the McCanns are right to be against the film, even though I fully sympathise with their feelings about it.

What do you think?

To extend or not to extend? (Thursday poll)


BBThBobWell, this week we read the not entirely unexpected news that we have wasted the two year and seven month period between voting and supposed to be leaving without managing a deal, and we were lways told that that meant we would leave without a deal. As usual it seems we were told lies and they now seem, both the UK leadership (horse laugh) and the EU, intent on extending the Article 50 period, which seems that the impossible is possible after all.

Interesting.

In a short time we will in fact know whether there is going to be an extension or not, but Theresa May is really leaving it till the last minute, two weeks before the final deadline, to ask for the extension.

The EU is then placed in a position of power, and will call the shots of whether they accept this or not, apparently all the states must agree and already one gerontophilic gnome who is the unpopular dictator of one of the less meaningful of the European countries has said his country (which incidentally we went to war to defend on two occasions) will veto the extension of we don’t have a plan.

Of course Macron won’t see it that way. He will think he is saving the British from themselves, and many British may well agree with him.

He will think he is doing the UK a “grande service de reconnaissance” for our co-operation with France putting blood on the ground against Nazi Germany.  He will be thinking that he can leverage a second referendum in which the British people will decide that they do love the federalist vision after all, and “come back and stay for good this time”, as political commentator Paul Young puts it. Oh that we might indeed vote to stay, but to stay and fight the globalists and federalists, aligning ourselves with the Eurosceptic governments which include the Eastern side and Greece, Italy, Denmark, increasingly Holland. We will see after the next round of Euro-elections just how far the discontent has spread and in fact we are still only at the begiining of the resistance.

Corbyn has already been forced to say he will supposrt a second referendum, although how this makes him less Anti-Semitic is beyond me. Now May, who has discounted the Second Referendum all along, can pull the excuse that “Macron made me do it”.

Today’s poll won’t be open for long as it is a prediction poll and there won’t be any sense in it once we know the results, so please hurry up and vote and share this. The idea is to try to predict if there will be an extension, how long, and if there will be the condition of the UK having a second referendum.

There are so many variables that it is impossible to catch all, please just vote for which of the scenarios you think most likely. Not what you want to happen.

 

From “Mariam El-Bobini”, the new Disney Musical about an ISIS bride who flew in by means of a magic burqa.


Pwacticawwy perfect in evewwy way?

Super Caliphatalistic Fragile Ego Lupus
All these women went off freely now they want to dupe us
If they say it loud enough the media’ll join their stupors
Super Caliphatalistic Fragile Ego Lupus

Umm diddle iddle iddle um diddle ISIS
Umm diddle iddle iddle um diddle ISIS

They travelled half way round the world, and everywhere they went
They got seduced by terrorists in a desert tent
They got to watch beheadings and girls sent to slavery
While they had tasty kebabs and a lovely cuppa tea – whooh!

Super Caliph etc.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sham Shamima Sham Shamima Sham Sham Sherie,
I think myself lucky you’re not my mummy
Sham Shamima Sham Shamima Sham Sham Sheroo
Good luck will rub off when they prosecute you.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And a tankful of NATO makes the ISIS fall down
ISIS fall down, the ISIS fall down
Yes a tankful of NATO makes the ISIS fall down
In a most delightful way.

Baghdadi feathering his nest had very little time for rest
While dodging missiles aimed right at his lair
And every task he undertook, inspired by that book
Became undone, as we all had our fun,

for a
Tankful of NATO makes the ISIS fall down
The ISIS fall down, yes the ISIS fall down
Yes a tankful of NATO makes the ISIS fall down
In a most delightful way.

Would anyone like to suggest further re-edited Mary Poppins lyrics to suit the Shamima Begum case? Your poetic efforts welcomed in the comments below. Or maybe suggestions on how to adapt the screenplay of Mary Poppins to suit the ISIS Brides situation. Instead of the Suffragettes campaigning for women’s votes as in the original, there could be a campaign by woman demanding not to be allowed to vote. Instead of a run on the bank, maybe something to do with the price of Brent Crude? Your creative ideas, please!

How much should Nicholas Sandman win off the Wishywashington Post? (Thursday poll)


Now is the Sandman of our discontent turned glorious Runner by this son of York.

Well, this week we read the welcome news that Covington student Nick “the Smirk” will be suing the wishy-washy wibberal Washington “Oh Father I cannot tell anything other than a lie, Trump chopped down your cherry tree” soon-to-be Ex-Post. The sum he is playing for is 250 million dollars. One can but laugh. If he gets anything close to that, of course, it will cause tremendous sea-changes in the way the media work in similar cases in the future.

Maybe if it goes too far newspapers will be too scared to write anything that is not bland, and already old news and fully substantiated.

Now you can be the Judge in that trial.  Here are some possible awards you can make in favour of Nick Sandmann, all in multiples of 25, to be consistent with what they are bidding for.

 

Odes of Odium


1. Ode to Nancy Pelosi

Drain drain drain
This cold gray swamp
Let them feel the pain
Administered by Trump
Make it clean again
With that drainage pump.

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy,
Don’t think we are nosey
But your tastes look too fancy
We are not so dozy
As to give public finances
For private costs of Pelosi…

2. Ode to Diane Abbott:

O come, thou Bob Mugabe, come
To England’s humble shores
And take thine erring sister home
Back to yours.

Sir Simon Schama tried to shame her
Party for its views
But they carry on to blame the
Schoah on the Jews.

Abbott takes enormous fees
When telling students “hello”
Her comedy begs the question, “Please,
Abbott, where’s Costello?”

She has a great command of figures
A la Dr Evil
And all the population sniggers
Although I doubt that she will.

So Bob, please come and get her
Before she does more harm
And you in charge can set her
Of some stolen farm.

3. Ode to David Lammy

The enemy within.
It’s not his skin
At fault you’ll find
It’s just his mind.

 

More odes of odium and prose of opprobrium to come.

Open Letter to Sara Khan, Lead Commissar for Countering Extremism


Dear Sara,

Responding to your article in todays Daily Telegraph.

The polarisation of opinion is destabilising and will lead to more unrest and personal injuries and deaths. but the ones driving this are the Left and not the Right. In fact the hard left are treating people who have what used to be a centrist and mainstream view as if they were right-wing fascists and making ordinary members of society, especially those who are male, white, Christian and taxpaying, feel as though they are being made pariahs and being made to pay for the privilege, to use the word they normally use to oppress us and make it look like we’re the oppressor.

We need to get back to a code of what is and what is not acceptable as mainstream, and the key parameter that nobody seems to be talking about is respecting the issue of freedom of choice.

If a person has the freedom to choose something, then they also have the responsibility for their choice, and maybe can be called upon to justify it. Where someone doesn’t have a choice, they did not exercise a freedom and therefore people should not expect them to justify it, that seems to me to be the most important aspect people never think of. In my own philosophy it stands next to the so-called “golden rule” of doing to others what you would like them to do to you. Because even that golden rule refers to things where people still have free agency.

If someone does to me something I don’t like but did not choose to do it, let us say that they bump into me but only because they were pushed unexpectedly by someone else, then I cannot blame them. They did to me probably something that they wouldn’t want me to do to them, but they didn’t choose it, hence the agency rule overrides the golden rule.

Taking this as a guide, Sara, one could begin to make a code which gradually replaces what we see as Neo-Marxist political correctness into a code based on chivalry, good-manners and that good-old Christian concept of neighbourly love. If you are the Commissioner for countering extremism, then what you need to do first if you will pardon me telling you your job (which is something I admittedly don’t like when someone does to me, but it does happen all the time and this is for the greater good) is to DEFINE what is extreme and what is not extreme by reference to adherence to these high-level principles.

What is fashionable and unfashionable in terms of specific doctrine can change over time, but certain ideas like fairness to all, or that he who pays the piper calls the tune, therefore people paying taxes should not be pushed away from the front line of access to the benefits bought by those taxes, in case of need. You need to consider defining what the traits are of something that could be described as extreme and anything which can justify itself with motherhood concepts ought not to be so defined.

As a final note, anyone who has 100 Muslim organisations braying to have them removed from office must be doing something right. Rather a lot right, even. So I’m hoping to hear of your successes in the future.

Yours faithfully,

David J. James

What’s the difference between…?


I say, I say, I say: what’s the difference between a social worker and a Rottweiler
I don’t know, what IS the difference between a social worker and a Rottweiler?
You get your kids back off a Rottweiler.

I say I say I say: what’s the difference between the Soviet Union and the European Union?
I don’t know, what IS the difference between the Soviet Union and the Euopean Union?
You get your countries back off the Soviet one.

 

Chats between Guv and Peeps #1. Leaving the EU.


Guv: Hey, Peeps, shall we remain in the European Union or shall we leave?

Peeps: Well, you know what, Guv, in view of what Merkel is doing and how Obama threatened us with the end of the queue for trade deals, I suppose, marginally, we’d better go, hadn’t we? I am sure we’ll find a way to be independent.

Guv: OK, that’s what we’ll do, then.

Peeps: OK, Good luck. Sie schaffen das, hur hur hur.

Two and a half years later:

Guv: Well, Peeps, it’s now nearly three years later, Obama is long gone, Merkel’s on her way out, there’s lots of countries in the EU that would be our allies these days for a less federalist Europe. The guy in charge of the USA is all infavour of our leaving now, but for his own benefit. It’s clear that the whole business of leaving has a lot more issues than we knew about before, and you’ve got 5% more young people who wanted to stay in the electorate now, so are you QUITE SURE you still want to leave?

Peeps: How dare you ask us again? We gave you a clear signal? Wanna go undermining our demotrachic rights?! Disgusting!!!!

Are some animals more viable for exploitation than others?


Christopher Lewis asked me on Facebook:

I am interesting on understanding your scale for judging an animal’s suffering. How do we know killing one animal is fine, another is wrong. Torturing one animal ok, hunting another to extinction not.

Here’s my answer:

Christopher Lewis It’s an excellent question.

I would formulate my thoughts this way:

  1. Vulnerability to extinction.
    First, we have to protect species against extinction. I believe it is a massive sin to cause any extinction of species, a total blasphemy against the Creator as we cannot create a single species. And also the loss of the genetic material robs future human generations of the opportunity to experience this life form. So I make the same point here for animals, plants, fungi and without regard to size or complexity. We cannot replace them, and don’t destroy what you cannot create is an excellent maxim for life.
  2. Controllability of habitat and numbers
    Second, given the first point, we need to take more care with regard to animals or plants where the slide to extinction is less controllable by us. So at the moment marine life has a bigger call on protection because we have certainly placed plastics into the oceans at measurable amounts and this is completely and guaranteedly anthropogenic and there is no debate about it, unlike the debates that can be made in the case of greenhouse gases and global warming. I am in two minds about GW but I am not in two minds at all about the plastic issue, to the degree where I jumped up and down and got everyone in a small chain of stores I do things with to abandon plastic bags entirely. I have been talking about the plastic issue for fifteen years in fact, and finally people are starting to take the issue seriously and hopefully not too late, but we still don’t know how good the clean up can be and how fast. So I put animals in the line of threat from plastics into a degree of priority.
  3. Strength of links to others of the species
    It does appear that certain animals, even from their behaviour, have empathy to each other and interact with each other and some have interactions with their offspring which are related to love and tenderness in the human. For animals where the loss of one causes distress to others, I give more consideration than for the ones which do not have such a case. There are many species of bird, for example, that could be domesticated but humans have not chosen for the farmyard those which have lifelong pairbonds and which pine away when their loved one is taken. Take a chicken from the rooster and he happily carries on with his existing harem and the other chickens also don’t tend to look around for the missing hen. Do this to penguins, storks, swans and many other birds and mammals and you have a node of suffering. So I give priority not to eat the animals which show tenderness to one another and which demonstrate meaning to one another. In “The Time Machine”, for example, H.G.Wells Morlocks have taken the trouble to breed out of the Eloi race of humans they are farming any kind of empathy for each other. As indeed the powers that be do to us today, replacing Christ’s call to love our neighbour with the empty husk of political “correctness”.
  4. Intelligence regardless of sociability
    Fourthly, the above point doesn’t mean that vertebrates are always preferred over invertebrates. It appears that shrimp which people eat in great numbers are social and that the octopus, which is pretty anti-social really, is a startling intelligence and deserves a bit more respect than your typical invertebrate. All of this is subordinate to the first and second point, anyway.
  5. Deaths per kilogramme of useable protein
    This leads on to the fifth and this is an important point. If we are turning a living, sentient animal into amino acids for our own digestion, it seems to me to be more moral to take one animal that will feed many families over many meals than to take an animal which it takes many of to feed one person one meal. This is one of the reasons why I try to avoid shrimps. It takes maybe 10 shrimps to make a meal for one person, whereas a cow might make a hundred meals so the relationship of shrimps to cattle to give you a tonne of protein is at least a thousand (maybe closer to ten thousand) shrimps to one cow. This is an extreme example. Now if we placed the intelligence and value of the life of the shrimp at only one thousandth of that of the cow, maybe that would be justifiable. But if you look at shrimps in an aquarium for any length of time you’ll see probably just as much different activity and expression going on as you’ll see on a cow’s face as it stands around chewing cud, and maybe even more. So for me it’s disturbing to think that we could be making a virtual holocaust of these crustaceans just to produce the kilos of a single slaughtered cow. Likewise when it comes to fish is it not a bit disturbing to take a thousand capelin to give us the equivalent flesh of one tuna? Worth a thought.
  6. Naturally predated
    And then we have the sixth issue. Prey animals. Animals are by nature divided into hunter and hunted. The hunted tend to be thise which are naturally in the niche of proviing meat to other species and to a degree they evolved into it. It is part of being a sheep that you get eaten by a tiger, it is part of being a tiger that you don’t get eaten by anything. Human agriculture fit into this natural division in that we usually don’t eat tigers (some do) and usually do eat sheep (some don’t).
  7. Substitutability.
    If an animal or plant can be substituted with another in order to give the necessary thing we are looking for (example tortoiseshell now largely replaced by plastics) then it is best to take the version of the product with the least offences against these other points. If there is no substitute then all the more we need to take care that the species is protected from extinction. Usually this involves careful cultivation over a number of different sites.
  8. Farmability
    Given the last point, an animal or plant which can actually be farmed is a better candidate for use than a wild species that cannot be kept and cultivated under human control. Those which can be kept ought to be kept in a proper way, with regard to diet, housing and enrichment. The use of battery farms and similar is becoming thankfully a thing of the past, and this trend should continue. We are making a one way trade with these animals, they feed us and give us food and fibres, plants render to us all their nutrients and chemicals and of course it is not a deal any of them signed up to. The least we can do is give them a reasonable time of quality life with as low suffering as possible prior to sacrificing that life, again with the minimum possible suffering. Not all species lend themselves to farming, on the other hand those species which do also seem to lend themselves to adaptation into numerous breeds with varying characteristics.
  9. Multiple products.
    It is maybe good in view of the above to use synthetic fur rather than real fur, however if synthetic fur becomes unviable for any reason, it is better to farm fur animals which are also edible, such as rabbits, rather than mink which are only there to provide fur and which by the way require the sacrifice of numerous other animals to nourish them, although they can of course be fed on foods made from spent hens and dairy cows not usually sold for human cuisine. If we are going to sacrifice an animal, we should at least waste as little of it as possible. It is good to keep sheep as they provide milk and wool in addition to the produce of their carcase. Cattle produce leather in addition to their milk and blood products taken during their lives but this, like their meat and unlike wool, is a one off event at their death.
  10. Utilisation of inedible food. Humans cannot eat grass which is the easy crop. Cattle, sheep and camels do eat these as they are cellulose metabolised, thanks to their microbiota hosted in special chambers of their alimentary canal. Pigs can eat acorns and scraps which humans cannot eat. Via these animals, oak forests and grasslands have a use to us which might make the difference between keeping them going with their additional biodiversity, which you wouldn’t find in say a wheatfield. Hence farming them has advantages which vegetarians tend to overlook.

    Now let’s apply all the above to the issue of whales. They for sure let themselves down on the size issue – one whale will feed more than one of almost anything else, and given that we cannot eat plankton they let themselves down in the acorn argument too, but on the other arguments we shouldn’t be taking them.

%d bloggers like this: