Friday, 31 October 2008

I do my bit for Halloween


How do you think I look?

Bearak Obama


Animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democratic Party...

They have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance.

This photo is a Black Bear in Montana, a Democrat, and recently nicknamed 'Bearack Obama'

It's a bat's life

Thursday, 30 October 2008

Blue states secede!

This following shock announcement has been issued by New California:


Dear Red States:

We've decided we're leaving.

We intend to form our own country, andwe're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes California , Hawaii , Oregon , Washington , Minnesota ,Wisconsin , Michigan , Illinois and all the Northeast.

We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.To sum up briefly: You get Texas , Oklahoma and all the slave states.

* We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

*We get the Statue of Liberty - You get Dollywood.

*We get Intel and Microsoft - You get WorldCom.

*We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.

*We get 85 percent of America 's venture capital and entrepreneurs.You get Alabama .

*We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Stanford , Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University , Clemson and the University of Georgia .

We get Hollywood and Yosemite , thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

Finally, we're taking the good pot, too.

Peace out,

Blue States

Don't blame liberalism

Some time ago I wrote that GW Bush was in no way a true conservative, and the term ‘liberal’ has become equally distorted in recent decades. When we look at the disaster befalling Western countries, the blame has been applied to ‘liberals’, well, liberally. I think this is wrong. Now you might need to get hold of something solid here, as I'm about to tell you that I consider myself a liberal! Now before you delete this link from your Favourites list, hear me out.

To me being liberal in essence means that anyone can do what he wants so long as it doesn’t impinge on the freedoms of others. Ok, that's a broad definition and practicalities will always pose challenges. The best illustration to my mind relates to sexual conduct. Liberals would say that anything is permissible if it’s between consenting adults and done in private. Note the emphases. Conservatives, by way of contrast, want to poke a flashlight under every blanket to check out what said consenting adults are up to. It’s not that long ago that anal sex between married people carried the death penalty!

What's liberal?

Here’s how Encarta defines liberal

(1) broad-minded: “tolerant of different views and standards of behaviour in others” Isn’t that me, down to the ground? (quiet there at the back, please)

progressive politically or socially: favouring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

Doesn’t sound too bad, does it?

Let me give you a few more examples of how liberalism appeals to me:

They allow everyone to believe and practice whatever religious mumbo jumbo they want, but not to enforce it on the general public

They’re deeply unenthusiastic over the nation state, which, together with organized religion, its malevolent doppelganger, has been responsible for 90% of the wars on this earth. Unfortunately this particular baby has been well and truly thrown out with the bathwater, but more of that anon.

They don't like killing animals for entertainment, nor the state killing its own citizens (a.k.a. judicial executions)

Liberals made us face up to the acceptance of The Other, and not to demonise him, thus creating the conditions for peaceful co-existence. (Again, this baby has well and truly disappeared with the bathwater).

And a true liberal would allow voluntary societies such as golf clubs and political parties restrict membership based on any criteria they want, including gender, race etc. Their position would be ‘women can have their own clubs, so can men, so can whites so can blacks. So can any or all mixtures of the same. If that’s what they want’.

Now here’s my point. Liberals, as defined above, are not our problem, or what's undermining western society. All of the things we complain about are deeply illiberal.

So………

It’s not liberal to force ‘diversity’ ratios.

It’s not liberal to prohibit discussion on any subject, still less a whole range of topics as is the case today. It most certainly isn’t liberal to support Muslims in threatening violence against ‘offensive’ writers. The liberal position is ‘everything’s up for discussion’

Liberalism tries to use rationality and scientific knowledge, rather than the ravings of self-professed prophets, to address the human condition and provide the required supporting legislation

It’s not liberal to force some community to take down a statue of the Ten Commandments. Liberals would say, ‘it’s not causing any problem, so what is the problem?’

Liberals wouldn’t force private march organizers to include gays and lesbians in their parades. If they want heterosexual males only, that’s their prerogative. If gays want to hold a parade comprised only of dykes and benders, that’s their prerogative

Provided they didn’t call for violence or weren’t libellous, liberals would allow the bad guys such as racists or Holocaust-deniers to freely air their views in public.

I could go on, but you get my drift.

Now here’s my thesis: When we rage at ‘liberals’ we’re really raging at, not liberalism, but at a New Secular Religion (NSR).

The New Secular Religion

Think about it. The Post Modern, peecee, multi-cultural, moral relativist, violent opposition to free speech movement is a classical religion:

It’s got its own body of orthodoxies which they believe in despite all evidence to the contrary. (‘All races are equal’, ‘men and women are equal in every way’, ‘multi-culturalism is good’, ‘whites bad, non-whites good’, ‘the state knows best’, ‘equality over fairness’, ‘black backwardness is the fault of whites’ etc.

Its adherents refuse to enter into any meaningful discourse with those outside the faith, instead forcing their views on the unfaithful by any means possible. If you look at the ‘contra’ comments to this blog (most recently St. Catherine, bless you, Catherine) they’re all point and splutter, never engage with the evidence.

It has its own pantheon of Gods: multiculturalism, racial equality, diversity, feminism, homosexuality, to which we must genuflect and never ever question

It even has its own liturgy, Peecee Speak, containing a range of sacred code words (‘equality’, ‘diversity’, ‘offensive’, ‘Islamophobia’, ‘hate speech’, ‘victimhood’), just like any other religion.

So let’s recognise the enemy for what it really is – another irrational religion of the kind that has blighted the earth since the dawn of man. True liberalism is our friend. Because usurpers have hijacked the term (just as Bush and the Neocons hijacked conservatism) doesn’t make this any the less true.

Remember the oldest of all war adages – ‘know thine enemy’.

Wednesday, 29 October 2008

Oh Jesus - here we go again



Congolese government forces and citizens are fleeing the eastern capital of Goma as Rwandan-backed rebels press towards the town, threatening a lethal confrontation with United Nations peacekeepers and the prospect of all out regional war.

The London Times described scenes of mayhem in the streets as columns of government tanks and military vehicles streamed out of the city and panicking civilians fled for cover, fearing an imminent rebel onslaught.

“There is absolute panic,” Karl Steinacker, an official with the UN refugee agency told The Times. “As of ten minutes ago, the war has arrived in the streets. There are columns of army running away. They are basically abandoning the city.”

All this happening in Africa? Amazing.

The flight of government forces leaves an already overstretched UN peacekeeping forces the only bulwark between Goma and forces loyal to the ethnic Tutsi guerrilla leader, General Laurent Nkunda. The Times adds “UN commanders today appealed to the Security Council for reinforcements to their 17,000 strong peacekeeping force in eastern Congo to try and prevent a return to all out war.”

Wrong! Let them at it. As I pointed out in this post, it’s the only way. As long as the West and the UN keep interfering the problem will never be solved. These people simply have to arrive at some form of modus vivendi amongst themselves. If that turns out to be tribalistic and violent, then so be it.

Tuesday, 28 October 2008

Saints above!

Yesterday was a momentous occasion for this blog. We’ve had no less than a saint posting a comment on ‘IQ is the key’! The only downside is that St. Catherine, for it was she, is not pleased with your Savant. Not one little bit. Given that God is definitely on her side, I've taken the time out to respond, in a respectful way of course, to the main issues raised.

Now Catherine – may I call you Catherine? - you begin with a mistake. She asks ‘how can you spew such hurtful opinions based on discredited science?’ The idea that IQ research is discredited has assumed the status of urban legend. But it’s in fact totally wrong. I've cited the various sources, so let’s hear how they’ve been discredited, by whom, and when. And when I say discredited I don't mean a ‘ya boo racist, Nazi' name-calling.

She then makes gives another airing to the ‘Irish used to be the blacks in the UK’ excuse. ‘You know that the Irish are looked down on as stupid in the UK’

This is an important point and I've responded here. In essence my position is that England’s impression of the Irish was formed largely by our export of

a) Criminals (‘go to England or go to jail’)
b) Social welfare dependents with huge families traveling over to claim better benefits in the UK
c) Raw labourers unemployable in Ireland.

Not surprisingly they weren’t impressed, especially when we also took to periodically blowing them up. However, the Irish always had the capability of rising to the top there as we did elsewhere, and that's what we’ve done. The Brits don't look down on us now, which would be rather silly of them anyway given that Ireland now has a significantly higher per capita income than the UK.

Ok, I know and accept that there are very many intelligent, good, hard-working blacks. But there’s nowhere near enough of them. Fact is, as all available evidence conclusively demonstrates, blacks will bring vastly disproportionate increases in crime, violence, welfare dependency and all other forms of social malaise. It doesn’t mean you hate them to say this, it just means that they’re bad for any country.

Then Catherine concludes with…… my goodness, ‘I want to apologise (to African commentator) for this asshole’. Well, I never! Catherine, you’re a very naughty saint!

I'm going to tell God about this in my prayers tonight. That's the last time you'll call me an asshole.

Saturday, 25 October 2008

A ray of hope?


Spoke with a Swedish professor today, working for the United Nations in the Arab region. Being free of the Scandinavian Thought Police, he revealed his despair at the destruction of his country by mass immigration. He confirmed that it was a taboo subject in polite company.
Nonetheless he gave me hope with this information. He said that whereas there is a vast immigrant population there, the Swedish (and presumably this applies to the broader Scandinavian population) do not mix and certainly don't inter-marry with African or Muslim immigrants. This surprised me, I must say, but he assured me it was correct.

While this would of course drive a coach and four through the multi-culti myth, it surely holds hope - great hope - for the future. Not sure why I think this way, but my bones tell me it's good.


Wednesday, 22 October 2008

The worst of them all..

On a number of accasions I've suggested that Somalis are the worst of all immigrants, combining as they do the worst qualities of Africa: tribalism, violence and povery, with the worst qualities of Islam: poverty, violence and tribalism.

We have the word of no less an authority than Hirsi Ali for that:

"As a child I was taught to suspect the stranger, to assume anybody will attack you, to fight for yourself since nobody else will, to support your own clan above anybody else's and see the others as the enemy. These are needed skills in Somali society."

Now we have this update from The Peninsula newspaper (Qatar). They quote a girl interviewed at a pirate's wedding in Garowe "Marrying a pirate is every girl's dream. He has power, money, immunity, the weapons to defend the tribe and the funds for the militias in civil war"

Lovely. The tens of thousands of them swarming into Sweden must provide an interesting experience for that society. However, they'd be fully at home in Limerick.

Monday, 20 October 2008

No sex please - we're British

The more perceptive readers of this blog will have spotted that I'm not exactly a fan of the Religion Of Peace. Nor have I any particular objection to al fresco sex. Which is just as well, given that no nocturnal stroll in Ireland would be complete without hearing rustling in the undergrowth and accompanying squeals of delight.

None of this means I have the slightest sympathy for those egregious fools, Michelle Palmer (from Rutland – is that Freudian, or what?) and Vince (“Vince Charming”) Acors, caught having sex on the beach in Dubai some months ago. Foreigners residents in the West should adhere to our norms, and Westerners in foreign countries should adhere to their norms.

Trouble is, of course, too many foreigners in the West want, and are encouraged by us fools, to retain their quaint ‘cultural’ practices. You know, things like honour killings and genital mutilation.

No such soft-cockery in the Middle East.

This brings me to the interesting cultural situation in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. These places give pause for thought as to how Islam and ‘The West’ could co-exist. There you can see burka-clad females (presumably they are females) rubbing shoulders, literally, with scantily clad European women in the street. And, unlike in the West, these women are in almost zero danger of getting raped by Muslim gangs.

Why? Well, the main factor is that immediate and terrible punishment awaits any such offender. At a minimum a lengthy jail term followed by immediate repatriation, flogging or even capital punishment for extremely serious offences. (And for the very worst offences of all, victims are subjected to Mariah Carey caterwauling non-stop for days on end).

The rulers of these emirates have made a Faustian Pact. With unlimited money and a tiny local population, the need foreigners to do the essential work. Technology and professional skills from the West, prostitutes from Russia, admin and clerical from India, and slave labourers from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

But the system works, in so far as it goes. People of all creeds, colours, ethnicity all peaceably mingle and interact. (Mind you, it’s noticeable that outside of the immediate work context, they all revert to their own at the first opportunity). Again, crime is very rare. You’re not going to be mugged or burgled.

Does this mean multiculturalism can work after all?

Well, yes, up to a point. It can work where there are:

* Ferocious penalties for transgressions

* No social welfare – work or starve, or get sent back to Pakistan.

* Minimal legal recourse for non-natives, especially the poorer ones

* Little or no democracy or democratic accountability - where natives are in the minority

* Heavy censorship and media control.

* No pesky human rights legislation

Not a runner for the West, that's for sure. But pause for thought nonetheless. I've never been of the hang-and-flog ‘em persuasion, but it certainly seems that the thought of punishment that is almost certain, and definitely severe, seems to be highly persuasive.

Friday, 17 October 2008

Stupid prick

I'm deeply annoyed right now, having suffered again from a recurring problem when I take a piss. I grasp my prick in the approved manner and aim at the dead centre of the receptacle. But for some unknown reason, the jet shoots sharply off to the left, sprinkling my left foot. This happens most often during the first piss of the day but is highly unpre'dic'table. The interesting thing is that after a couple of seconds it reverts to the correct trajectory of its own accord.

It sometimes seems as if my prick is, well, taking the piss. And I could understand its pique: only one eye, hair a mess, nearest relative a bollocks, nearest neighbour an asshole.

Still, I need some sound advice. For the record, I'm a cavalier, not a roundhead.

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Wednesday, 15 October 2008

Budget blues

Hubble bubble, toil and trouble. What a budget we’ve had, truly apt for our Titanic-like economy.

* Income tax increased

*New tax on air travel - €10 per flight

*College registration fees to jump from €900 to €1,500 next year.

*Medical Cards for over-70s are to be means-tested..

*Child benefit reduced

*Hospital charges increased
* VAT increased

*Excise duty on fags, drink and petrol increased

*Levy on Second Homes and Holiday Homes introduced

*Motor Tax increased

*Mortgage Interest Relief reduced


Even the President has taken a 10% pay cut. It seems that anything that will yield a few bob has been shaken down. No stone has been left unturned.

But wait! I see one. Our padding of African dictators’ bank accounts foreign aid budget has largely escaped the scythe. We will still this year be throwing away spending, wait for it, almost €900 million.

Well, good to see someone’s happy, even if it’s only African dictators.

Penny drops for the MSM

What's that tinkling noise in the background? It’s the heartening sound the sound of the penny dropping on the realities of black rule. It’s dawning on the leading lights of the MSM (is that an oxymoron?) that black rule in South Africa is turning out to be a disaster. Now, God love them, don't be too hard on them - in 1994 I also held high hopes for the Rainbow Nation. And if I could get it wrong, what hope had the MSM journeymen?






Let’s start with The Economist, a bastion of correct, balanced, sensible analysis – according to themselves.

A decade-and-a-half after the end of apartheid, violent crime is pushing more and more whites out of South Africa. Exactly how many are leaving is impossible to say. Few admit that they are quitting for good, and the government does not [will not?] collect the necessary statistics. But large white South African diasporas, both English- and Afrikaans-speaking, have sprouted in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and many cities of North America.

The South African Institute of Race Relations, a think-tank, guesses that 800,000 or more whites have emigrated since 1995, out of the 4m-plus who were there when apartheid formally ended the year before. Robert Crawford, a research fellow at King’s College in London, reckons that around 550,000 South Africans live in Britain alone.

As for that model constitution and the separation of powers, Desmond Tutu, the retired Anglican archbishop of Cape Town, was moved this week to describe the sordid battle between Jacob Zuma, Thabo Mbeki, the party, government, prosecuting authority and courts as suggestive of a “banana republic”. As well as being appalled by events at home this past year, whites have watched Robert Mugabe’s pauperisation of neighbouring Zimbabwe and wonder whether South Africa will be next to descend into the same spiral.

Besides, fear of crime cannot be separated from the other factors that make South Africans consider emigration. One white entrepreneur about to leave for New York says that it was not being held up twice at gunpoint that upset him most: it was the lack of interest the police showed afterwards. Tony Leon, the former leader of the opposition Democratic Alliance, claims that policing has been devastated by cronyism and that the entire criminal-justice system is dysfunctional.

Which is hardly surprising when they were headed up by a leading Mafia crook who also happened to be a friend of the President.




The London Times, the Old Thunderer, also raises the issue of white flight

There has long been considerable evidence of “white flight” to cities in Britain, Australia, America and New Zealand. It is estimated that up to 20% of South Africa’s whites have emigrated since the advent of democracy in 1994 Anecdotal evidence suggests that Zuma’s rise, coupled with nationwide power cuts and a continuing crime wave, has led to a further massive brain drain. Polls show that 63% of South Africans have “seriously considered” emigration. [Isn’t this an incredible proportion? My God, how bad must it be?]

Among my age group the chorus is absolutely insistent,” said Geoff Landsman, 25, a civil engineer. “You must go abroad. If at all possible equip yourself with a foreign passport. I have a Dutch one. I’ll leave by Christmas. I’m not saying I’ll never come back but I want to see if I can cut it abroad.

Anna Davids, 62, an ophthalmologist, lamented: “There’s a whole generation missing. Look around. Where are the young white couples aged 25-45? At least two-thirds of them are gone.” She said that affirmative action plans discouraged young whites from staying. Everything’s loaded against young whites, no matter how well qualified they are.”

But then the Times spoils it all by pointing out that 'wise voices caution against panic'. “The ANC’s leaders are acutely aware that any hope of addressing the problems of poverty and unemployment depend on maintaining the country’s growth and stability,” said Frederik van Zyl Slabbert.

Christ – is that supposed to be a wise voice?




The New York Times, on the other hand, conscious of the fact that only the most dramatic of pictures will interest its readers in things non-American, takes a more hands-on approach.

DIEPSLOOT, South Africa — A dusty maze of concrete, sheet metal and scrap wood, Diepsloot is like so many of the enormous settlements around Johannesburg, mile after mile of feebly assembled shacks, the impromptu patchwork of the poor, the extremely poor and the hopelessly poor.

Monica Xangathi, 40, lives here in a shanty she shares with her brother’s family. “This is not the way I thought my life would turn out,” she said. Her disappointment is not only with herself; she is heartsick about her country. Fourteen years after the end of apartheid, South Africa — the global pariah that became a global inspiration — has lapsed into gloom and anxiety about its future, surely not the harmonious “rainbow nation” so celebrated by Nelson Mandela on his inauguration day.


The past year has been especially unnerving, with one bleak event after another, and it is more than acidic politics that have soured the national mood. Economic growth slowed; prices shot up. Xenophobic riots broke out in several cities, with mobs killing dozens of impoverished foreigners and chasing thousands more from their tumbledown homes.

The country’s power company unfathomably ran out of electricity and rationed supply. [It’s not unfathomable at all. They forced out white specialists and replaced them with unqualified BEE blacks. What do you expect?] Gone was the conceit that South Africa was the one place on the continent immune to such incompetence. The rich purchased generators; the poor muddled through with kerosene and paraffin.

Other grievances were ruefully familiar. South Africa has one of the worst crime rates. But more alarming than the quantity of lawbreaking is the cruelty. Robberies are often accompanied by appalling violence, and people here one-up each other with tales of scalding and shooting and slicing and garroting.

The poor apply padlocks in defense. The rich surround their homes with concrete and barbed wire — and there are suggestions that more are simply fleeing the country. “On our street alone, just that one small street, three of the husbands in families were killed in carjackings or robberies,” said Antony McKechnie, an electrical engineer who a month ago moved to New Zealand. “If we had stayed and something had happened to any of our three children, we would never be able to forgive ourselves.”

In great measure, the tough realities of South Africa’s long haul after apartheid have simply replaced the halo of liberation’s first days.





However, the piece de resistance comes from the Guardian. Now as every schoolboy knows, the Guardian is the canonical source of left-liberal opinion in the UK. Anything that might undermine the prevailing multi-culti fantasies is studiously avoided, downplayed or explained away. But now even they have been forced to face reality. A careful reading of this article shows that they’ve virtually thrown up their hands in despair of South Africa, and by extension any black run country, ever being successful.

Some excerpts:

'Look at our terrible healthcare system, the crime and the pitiful state of our schools,' said Zola Ndzengu, a pharmaceuticals machine operator. 'In Gugulethu there are people going to bed on empty stomachs. I am so upset by our party. I am a member of the ANC, but I am so sad and confused. Things were bad already. And now to see the politicians behaving so badly. It's just too much.'

Kanti, 25, who leases his phone container but hopes to buy it next year, said: 'The ANC has gone crazy. Mbeki made mistakes, but the way in which he was thrown out like a dirty rag was a disgrace. I do not blame Tutu if he does not vote. He was there back then in the struggle and we take his views very seriously. I could never vote for Zuma or his sidekick [ANC Youth League leader] Julius Malema, who says he will kill anyone who does not support his boss."

So yes, they’ve heard the penny drop. But hark! What else do we hear? A sound of bolting hoofs and slamming doors. Yes, doors are slamming but the black horses have galloped from the Augean stables. Because it’s too late, and the problem has by now penetrated throughout Europe.

And staying with the hearing things theme ‘ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee’.

Tuesday, 14 October 2008

Breathtaking MSM

When it some to political correctness the disingenuousness of the MSM is just breathtaking. The International Herald Tribune, in an article on the breakout of ugly attacks on Africans in Italy, including killings, marvels at the ‘paradoxes’.

Get this.

“But there are paradoxes. The regions with the most immigrants have the most integration [read, Africans living in white areas] and the most jobs. They are also the areas with the highest levels of anti-immigrant sentiment”

This is a paradox?

Gimme a break! Of course the regions with the most immigrants will have the most trouble. What planet are these people on?

Sunday, 12 October 2008

Happy days - for some

It's always a joy to see a happy smiling face. And it's little surprise when you consider what Toorpakai Saiedi, an Afghan asylum seeker, has just landed. This 35 year-old mother-of-seven (a lot more cultural enrichers to come there, I'd say) receives a staggering £170,000 a year in benefits from Ealing Council- £150,000 of which is paid to a private landlord for the rent of their seven-bedroom house in West London. The detached property in Acton, worth £1.7 million, has two large reception rooms, two kitchens, a dining room and a 100ft garden.

Ealing Council is picking up the £12,458 a month bill - which is nearly five times the rent for a similar property in the same road. Much to the delight of the landlord, one Ajit Panisar.

Outside the house, Mrs. Saiedi's son Jawad (pictured) said: 'When the council chose to put us here we did not say no. If someone gave you a lottery jackpot would you leave it? 'When I heard how much the council was paying I thought they were mad.'

But not quite mad enough to do the same for Peter Wright, a white Ealing native, who finds himself (together with his wife) evicted by the same Council due to a redevelopment. Although he’s lived in the house for 60 years, has worked, paid rent, rates and taxes all his life, the Council deemed their need to be ‘insufficiently pressing’. Obviously not as pressing as a family of Afghan immigrants.

As Rod Liddle has said, ‘every public institution seems to have a list of priorities upon which the most deserving people come last. The victims of crime, the Gurkha, the man who puts up barbed wire to prevent burglars and is told to remove it by the Council in case the thieves injure themselves (this is not a joke – but you know that) the taxpayer, people who spend their lives in an area and are then told to get lost’.

Will the people ever rear up against this kind of thing? I really don't know. I think peecee dhimmi thinking has become so internalised that it’s not likely.

Friday, 10 October 2008

Shock! Minister talks bullshit

From our Minister for (dis) Integration Conor Lenihan “Some parents are removing their children from schools with large numbers of foreign nationals, despite evidence that diversity in the classroom does not have a detrimental effect on learning”. He pointed to an OECD report which showed that ‘outcomes were marginally better in schools with a migrant presence’.

Well of course. I truly believe that people will learn better and faster when they all speak different languages. Makes sense, doesn’t it?. The way some people talk you’d think teachers would have to use sign language or something to communicate.

But wait! Oh dear! The Daily Mail tells us that, em, well, teachers are, in fact, actually starting to use sign language.

A head teacher has had to resort to using sign language to communicate at a school where pupils are from 24 different countries. Damian Jordan uses a signing system called Makaton to speak to youngsters at Fairlight Primary school in Brighton.

The head teacher, who has only just taken up his post, realised he would have to come up with a new way of communication when he found out 55 youngsters at the school speak languages ranging from Spanish, Polish, Arabic and Mandarin and various African dialects.

Mr. Jordan has been learning Makaton - a version of sign language which is used specifically in schools. He said the major advantage in using Makaton was that it helped children be more readily understood while they grasp English.

‘It means that at times children might get frustrated that they can't make themselves understood'

Well, who’d have guessed?

And by the way, re the OECD findings, if ever a sentence were constructed and designed to mislead it must be the one cited above ‘outcomes were marginally better in schools with a migrant presence’. What 'outcomes' exactly? And what kind of a presence exactly?

Thursday, 9 October 2008

Meltdown and immigration

Interesting comment to the preceding post:



Not directly linked to this post but I've been thinking about this banking crisis and immigration. Now that we're in trouble, the idea of cheap labour to fuel the economy has become the expensive burdon on our budget in a time for counting the pennies.I think the banks need to change from national entities to international entities.



This would help stop economic migration from Africa, Islamic States etc.Banks discriminate between who they lend money to based on risk assessment. Government in recent years have tried to force banks to ignore certain requirements for high risk categories e.g. in the US where legislation aimed at banks providing finance to black citizens from a certain income level who were being discriminated against.



Risk assessment is great but I think it is flawed because the banks fail to look at their operations from a holistic view and focus on their confined national operations.Majority of immigrants to the US and Europe are migrating for economic purposes. They come to earn money in a strong, stable currency which can allow them to buy nice things & have a better life. I think the problem is that they are still economic mules but not in a legal or moral sense.



This means they do the undesirable jobs but now their presence has more of an ability to impact on society.A strong economy needs raw materials e.g. copper to grow. Most of the superpowers do not have sufficient raw materials to supply their demands. African immigrants come from countries rich in raw materials. We need to form a relationship whereby they are dependent on the US or Europe's financial system and can thus provide their raw materials quid quo pro.



THE POINT:



With investments a key principle for stability is the idea of keeping a diversified portfolio. We don't like economic migrants but they will come as long as our continent has and their continent has not. Banks should therefore loan to people outside of its country of registration - to diversify their debt portfolio.



The account and interest payments will all be based in say Ireland or UK and denominated in European currency but they get sent a credit card to give them a reliable/stable source of finance.Banks are xenophobic and won't give credit to people on other continents who are ALL classified as risky. They should form relationships with banks in Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Mozambique, Malawi, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia as well as certain distant Asian communities and start to discriminate between risky and non-risky borrowers on a more magnified basis.



Some members of society in those countries are incredibly low risk, hold stable jobs and lives - why ignore the potential return from them based on geography?That would prevent the need for economic migrants to come to UK, it would satisify our need for raw materials. This idea has the additional benefit of potentially preventing banking crisises because a recession in Europe doesn't mean e.g. South Africans will struggle to make thier interest payments.



It will reduce the risk of banks struggling with cash flows and liquidity in times of recession.Banks have recently been riding a wave and lending without recourse or thinking about failure nationally. As long as times are good they ignore the possibility and risk of failure - now look at us! The idea behind their excessive lending is that it is viable as long as economic activity is festering.



In simple countries, you are paid your salary and there is a relatively limited amount of areas you can spend it on and in these countries banks are not heavily leveraged. In the complex countries (esp. US) you have a huge variety of businesses e.g. cheerleading is a multi-million dollar busines, you can make millions off selling buttons. There are huge potential profits for any seemingly random business.



There are more people and more businesses for expenditure to filter through until someone's initial salary is finally completely returned to the bank. So the multiplier effect from economic activity allows many more people to make interest payments for their debt and, therefore, creating the opportunity for banks to lend LOADS of money.



People will borrow up until the point they struggle to make the interest payment, capital repayment is not in their mind. More businesses, more income - MORE LOANS. So when there is a recession and economic activity dies down you have people who cannot handle their obligations.Now providing credit to countries where immigrants come from will encourage economic activity in their countries.



It will make their currency more stable and more businesses will offer more services and goods with the aim of securing a portion of their credit money. It will provide them finance to start up their businesses. This will convince them to stay in their country of origin. The return will convince us to keep lending. Essentially creating a new form of economic mule without the disadvantage of the mule living in your house, sort of speak.I really think this idea would work best in Ireland.



I think Ireland should focus on transforming their economy into a hugely financial-orientated / exclusive financial hub type environment.Some of the banks in UK started this on a relatively small scale - basing their business on maximizing value and making loans to African/Asian individuals who held decent profiles. Surprise, surprise they have come out of this crisis less battered than the others.



What do you think? European credit for the masses or not?

Wednesday, 8 October 2008

Help! Nobody knows anything!

You can accuse the Germans of many things, but not of being unmethodical nor of failing to master the facts. It was thus with a distinct chill I heard their Finance Minister a week ago smugly say that the financial markets meltdown was a US problem and wouldn’t affect Europe. This foreboding was reinforced as I listened to Angela Merkel yesterday on TV, when it became clear that she hadn’t a bulls notion about what was going on.

Unless something was, as the man said, lost in translation, she didn’t understand not even the basic concept of derivatives. Given that she heads the most powerful economy in Europe, and as she’s apparently a regular reader of this blog, I have taken time out to explain some of the basic concepts underlying the disaster.

Now Angela, the underlying malaise, present all the way through, was massive conflict of interest at all stages. The politicians stripped away regulatory constraints, the Republicans to see to their paymasters in Wall St. and to appease the frothing free market fundamentalists, while the Democrats gained by using it to enable minorities to buy houses they couldn’t afford. Conflict of interest

Leroy, resident under the bridge at 42nd St. is approached by mortgage huckster. “Hi there. Would you mind putting away that meths bottle for a moment? Now – while this place is nice and central, the traffic overhead is a pain. How’d you like to own a palatial mansion in the Hamptons instead?”

“You would? Great. Just sign here, and the key is yours”

Thus was born the sub prime crisis. The huckster gets his commission and heads off for the next mark. Conflict of interest. His bosses also make money, but they recognise that Leroy might have some difficulty in meeting his $4000 a month repayments, so they’d like to offload it. They also know that not even a sociology professor would be stupid enough to take this on, even at a premium. So what to do?

Now Angela, are you paying attention? Under this scheme a whole series of asset-backed securities (like Leroy’s mortgage) are pooled to make - in theory - otherwise minor and uneconomical investments worthwhile, while also reducing risk by diversifying the underlying assets. Securitisation makes these assets available for investment to a broader set of investors.


These asset pools can be made of any type of receivable, like credit card payments, auto loans, and mortgages, to esoteric cash flows such as aircraft leases, royalty payments and movie revenues. Typically, the securitized assets might be highly illiquid and private in nature. would be packaged together And the trick here is to mix in some good stuff with the crap, ‘securatise’ it and offload it at a profit. More conflict of interest.

Ok, you might get the sociology professor to buy this, but not the sophisticated money markets – the real target. Now for the conflict of interest piece de resistance. Enter the rating agencies, Standard & Poor, Moodies and Fitch. These are always described as highly respected, prestigious, blue chip and independent. Just like Arthur Andersons was before the Enron collapse.

Now these agencies gave these crocks of shit instruments AAA or aaA ratings, as good as it ratings can get. Surprised? Why? For a start, it’s the issuers of these ‘instruments’ that pay the fees of those agencies, not the people who use their advice! And it gets better. The same rating agencies worked with the crooks issuing banks in designing these ‘instruments’. So, they’re paid by the banks to rate their products, having already raked in massive fees for developing those products in the first place!

The numbers looked compelling. "Buy this investment-grade collateralized debt obligation and you get a return of up to 10 percent - almost 25 percent more than the average yield on a similarly rated corporate bond". Just like a Ponzi scheme, everyone’s a winner. Sell them and you get commission, buy them and you get commission as well for ‘sourcing’ good products. And just like a Ponzi scheme, reality intruded with increasing force until the whole deck of cards collapsed.

And the underlying conflict of interest was the fact that the main perpetrators, the likes of Lehman’s Richard Fuld and Merrill Lynch’s Stan O’Neal, awarded themselves hundreds of millions of dollars while the going was good. Even middle managers could take in a million bucks a year. So what if the whole thing went belly up – you still had millions stashed away and could crawl out from under your stone in a few years when the storm clouds had passed. Just like happened with the mountebanks who hustled the dotcom bust, in the full knowledge of what they were doing.

So that’s what happened Angela. And it means that the people fixing the problem are know-nothing politicians working with the Wall St. crooks who caused the problem initially. I think it’s officially time to panic.

Now where did I leave my brown trousers?

Tuesday, 7 October 2008

Justice. Or was it?

Former Plymouth Argyle goalkeeper Luke McCormick, 25, fell asleep while driving his Range Rover and while being at double the legal limit for alcohol. His car then ploughed into that of Phil Peak, killing his two sons, Arron 10, and his brother Ben, 8. They had been on a family outing, and the crash left the father in a wheelchair.

He told witnesses at the scene: "I am so sorry, I'm sorry. I just fell asleep. I fell asleep, I'm sorry."

Too late, Luke my boy, too late.

He was sentenced to seven and a half years in jail, and deserved every minute of it, I hear you say. Justice served.

But was it?

What if he had ploughed into a field instead, and was found drunk and asleep by the police? The sentence? Probably a 10-year driving ban and a heavy fine.

Yet the offence was the same. Why should someone be penalised for the outcome of what he did, rather than for the offence itself? Yet this, like the ludicrous concept of concurrent sentences, is standard practice in our daft legal system.

Taking this to its (il)logical conclusion, a driver exceeding the speed limit by 5 mph and who killed a child that ran out in front of him would almost certainly receive a heavier sentence than one who exceeded it by 40 mph but who was not involved in an accident.

Maybe this approach satisfies some primitive sense of justice, but it don't seem fair to me.

Monday, 6 October 2008

Welcome, mass murderers!

The conspiracy theory of history has always been an area of keen disagreement (see 9/11 post a few weeks ago). The whole European Project has obviously featured strongly here. To many, there’s a secret cabal planning to create a European super state that will eventually destroy national independence and rule all of us from Brussels like an Evil Empire.

This could well be. But at the heart of the theory lies a paradox. Essentially you can't, it would seem, reconcile an ever-growing Union with deeper levels of integration. It seems self-evident that the bigger it becomes, the harder it is to impose deep centralized control.

Nothing underlines this better than the plan, supported by almost all EU members, to eventually give membership to Turkey. At a stroke this would mean that the Union’s largest member would be made up of 80 million mainly impoverished Muslim peasants. Should it not be evident, to even the dimmest sociology professor, that this would, apart from anything else, render unified and centralized legislative control impossible? As such, does this mean that there is no plan to deepen the Union, and ipso facto, no plan for the Orwellian entity we’ve all worried about?

I ask because Turkey has serious ‘form’.

Quite apart from being Muslim, which will obviously create its own unique set of integration problems, it carries a raft of baggage that make it eminently unsuitable for polite company. And by the way, the supposedly ‘moderate’ Erdogan government recently tried to pass a law criminalising adultery. Imagine how the French would react to that!

For a start it’s aggressively, almost violently nationalistic. It has carried out ethnic cleansing on a massive scale throughout the 20th century, and its treatment of the Kurds and Alevis has been, and continues to be, brutal and discriminatory. And they're totally unapologetic for this. It occupies part of Cyprus, an EU member state, refuses to recognise it, and has shown little interest in leaving.

However, it’s the attitude to the Armenian genocide (representative pictures on the left) that catapults the country, or at least should do so, into pariah status, giventhe approximately 1.5 million deaths involved. This reaction is the polar opposite to that of Germany to the Holocaust. Germany and Germans have been traumatized by this to the extent that denying it happened will land you in jail, they have paid massive reparations to Israel and other victims, the name Hitler has disappeared, while you can't even use the initials AH on your car registration.

The reaction in Turkey couldn’t be more different. First, they deny it even happened and will come down on anyone, in Turkey or abroad, like the proverbial ton of bricks if they broach the subject. Even Western academics have allowed themselves to be shamefully intimidated, succumbing to threats like exclusion and the banning of access to sources and Turkish academic colleagues.

But it gets a lot worse. The organizers and directors of the genocide, some of whom were hanged by the Allies after WW1 for their crimes, are honoured throughout the country to this day. Mass-murderers Enver and Talat (the latter pictured right) have streets, boulevards, schools and even whole districts named after them throughout the country. Even those with a direct hands-on role in the mass murders, here I have in mind the likes of Cemal Azmi in Trabzon and Resit Bey in Diyarbekir, have statues erected in their, er, honour.

This is as if Germany had streets, schools and statues dedicated to Himmler, Heydrich and Eichmann. Again, the Turks aren’t in the least bit apologetic about any of this. Assimilate? Don't make me laugh. Earlier this year Erdogan, in a speech in Germany, described assimilation as "a crime against humanity". Well, I suppose we should listen, as such crimes are a Turkish speciality


So how in God’s name can a country like this be even considered for EU membership?

Well, much of it, quelle surprise, comes down to cynical politics. The US, and its British lapdog, see Turkey both as a strong counter to the Russian 'threat' (I'm quaking in my boots) and as a friend of Israel. The latter, of course, will trump anything else in American politics. Now you’d think that the Israelis, and Jews in general, would be reluctant supporters of genocide enthusiasts. But needs must. Israel is short of friends and have developed a good modus vivendi with the Turks. Well, at least for now. Then again the Jews have cornered the genocide market and presumably don't want others diluting its impact.

Anyway, to go back to the beginning, given what we know, why are the EU’s leaders pushing for Turkish entry? The must know that it will destroy whatever chance they have of a unitary state, as well as impoverish the rest of the EU.

Any ideas?

Saturday, 4 October 2008

Well done, lads

Here’s a new one for my bulging ‘You Couldn’t Make This Up’ file. Some of you may remember school master Phillip Lawrence, who back in 1995 intervened to help a 13 year-old under attack from a knife- wielding thug. Learco Chindamo, for it was he, objected to this intervention, and stabbed Mr. Lawrence instead, killing him.
Well, you’ll be pleased to know that the splendid Learco is now walking the streets of Britain again thanks to his early release. This particular cultural enricher came to Britain from Italy, but is of Phillipino origins.
So why hasn’t he been deported? Well, in fairness, the courts thought about it, but declined as - now take hold of something solid here - ‘it would breach his right to a family life’. Pity poor Phillip Lawrence’s right to a family life didn’t get similar protection. And what a family! The Chindamos seem close, in that Learco is clearly a chip off the old block. Daddy (pictured below) is currently residing in Spain, serving a 25 year sentence for stabbing and bludgeoning a former girlfriend to death.

Learco has stated that he ‘doesn’t want to leave Britain’. And why should he? He’s now walking the streets, 28 years old, being provided with a financial allowance before he signs of for a college course, all at taxpayers’ expense. He has 24-hour police protection and it’s reported that he’s been given a car to ‘facilitate his rehabilitation’.Little surprise then that, according to one member of the public who saw him ‘swagger’ into a local restaurant, ‘there was an arrogance about him and he was very confident’.

And why wouldn’t he be? Back in the Philippines he’d be languishing in a ghastly prison cell for the rest of his unnatural life. In the UK he’s out and about, 28 years old, financed by the taxpayer as he chooses and trains for a new knife life. It all leads me increasingly to the conclusion that the European Convention on Human Rights provisions have evolved into the most pernicious and counter-productive pieces of legislation ever inflicted on us.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: “The ECHR was drawn up 50 years ago in entirely different circumstances. We must now pull out of it and write our own laws to protect human rights for the majority". He says the UK should give six months’ notice that it will withdraw from the convention and announce that that any foreigners convicted of a terrorist or other serious offence will be deported to their home country at the end of their sentence.
Did you see that pig just fly past the window?