Discrimination

Racism is bunk.

One simply cannot say ‘all so-and-sos are such-and-such’ as the racist does. Every case of this disintegrates almost immediately under a barrage of counter-examples. It’s illogical. Individual character will always be influenced to a greater or lesser degree by inherited genetic factors, and this degree, a vector quantity at least, will always vary with each individual.

In some individuals the degree is greater, and the influence may operate in a particular direction, while in others it is barely detectable, but it is always an individual matter.

The illogicality of racism leads its less self-examining proponents into cul-de-sacs of theoretical absurdity and in some cases practical atrocity.

The same is true of religion, though there doesn’t seem to be an ‘ism’ for it.

For example, among my Muslim acquaintances over time I number a minor Saudi prince, with whom I was in a flying club, and a typically devout recent sectarian convert from an old English family. They are both perfectly civilised people and neither would ever be so indiscreet as to mention that the one officially holds the other to be an apostatic heretic worthy only of instant death, nor that the other officially holds the one historically responsible for a series of deplorable atrocities and centuries of persecution.

On the other hand not a hundred miles from here is a substantial body of apparently less civilised people who, while using exactly the same title for their beliefs, seem, according to some of the things they say, officially to want me dead and my culture replaced with theirs, preferably before the weekend.

This presents the same difficulty as discriminating between my late and rather devoutly Anglican mother, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, and a member of the Ku-Klux Klan. All of these ‘Christians’ would consider me a sinner, but only one would offer what Over There they call ‘a clear and present danger.

And so we arrive at the semantic root of the problem. It’s that word discrimination.

We’ve made it wrong to ‘discriminate’. We’ve made it mean ‘to express in some detectable way the view that all so-and-sos are such-and-such’.

What we need right now is discrimination, lots and lots of it, and of the highest grade we can obtain. We have to be able to discriminate between people who are prepared to accept that things written more than a thousand years ago might since have changed in meaning or reasonable interpretation, perhaps like the Book of Leviticus, and people who are not.

The accuracy, timeliness and reliability of this discrimination must be as high as can be managed. This is not a theoretical but an existential challenge and should be addressed at once.

Until discrimination is achieved we must go armed, as do some of the people in the seventh paragraph.

 

Vexatious and ill-informed

Ars Technica reports that two ‘anti-Muslim activists’ are suing the US government for failing to protect their rights under the First Amendment to the US Constitution by preventing Facebook, Twitter and YouTube from censoring them.

Even I know that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to anyone except the US government itself:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are not departments of the US government and any attempt by it to regulate their content would itself violate the second term of the First Amendment.

I have no doubt that the US judiciary will set aside this vexatious and ill-informed suit.

It is interesting, if perhaps unsurprising, that American Muslims appear to have more common sense than to attempt any kind of proceeding against their opponents’ use of these services under the first term.

Right now

Cold Fury quotes the well-quoted Vladimir Putin:

“If they bomb even one city in Russia, I swear, in half an hour every Muslim will die”

and endorses this view:

I never respected the guy more, and can only wish we ourselves had someone in office as dedicated to maintaining his nation’s power, security, and general well-being even half as forcefully. Someone who could compete with this guy on his own terms, someone who would negotiate from a position not of contrite weakness, but of self-assurance and strength.

Hear hear, Sir!

Having read some history I’m convinced that what we (the civilised West) are facing is of historic proportion and is nothing less than an Islamic world-domination plan, financed by oil, planned by theocratic dinosaurs and executed by murderous, expendable subhumans unsuitable for any other employment. Only conflict between competing would-be ‘leaders of the Islamic world’, the Saudis and Qataris versus the Iranians versus the Turks, is slowing down its implementation.

For many decades this genocidal campaign has been facilitated in the West by virtue-signalling socialists of whom Angela Merkel perhaps provides the best example. Even now a significant minority of British people, albeit confined to rich and fashionable cities, still believe that as a nation we should continue to demonstrate our bona fides and attract good karma by allowing Islam to defeat us.

Soon – almost instantly, in historical terms – sides will have to be taken.

Vladimir Putin is more like us than the enemy is; very much more. His country has successful experience in dealing with barbarian hordes, throughout history and from both sides. It also contains some of the toughest and most courageous and determined people in the world.

We need (in the old-fashioned, pre-NLP sense of actual compulsive necessity) to be allies with these guys.

Right now.

 

 

Suedi Arabia

Zero Hedge carries the heartening news that a Mrs. DeSimone is at last suing the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for having done no fewer than thirteen things which contributed to her husband’s murder by Muslim terrorists on September 11, 2001.

I sincerely hope that the relatives of all of those who were murdered or injured by Muslim terrorists on that day, and those of all other victims of Muslim terrorism, proceed similarly against the kingdom with the minimum of delay.

Any reasonable compensation would be chickenfeed to the Saudis, and so there is no reason for them to suppose that this is the end of the matter.

Personally I would always favour reducing Saudi Arabia to a self-illuminating glass car park, but I’m prepared to wait until everyone’s got their compo.

 

Let them eat Somlói Galuska

[Hungarian sponge cake with raisins, walnuts, rum, chocolate sauce and whipped cream, from fat-free, sugarless, zero-calorie Wikipedia]

Dick Puddlecote and Frank Davis agree that the government’s pudding curse is atrocious, but both confine themselves to the matter of theory involved. I maintain that any attempt to shame restaurants by naming them as those who serve large portions of delicious puddings will be, from the health nazi point of view, counterproductive.

Also I have to query Dick Puddlecote’s statement that

Marie Antoinette was slaughtered for less.

I thought that when she was told that the starving people had no bread, she suggested that they eat cake; this libertarian view, so clearly at odds with French revolutionary proto-socialist prescriptivism, was doubtless what doomed her.

But I agree wholeheartedly with Frank Davis that

Politics now, across the whole of Europe, is governments versus peoples.

The sole exception to this, I would suggest, being the government of Mr. Viktor Orban, who is being horribly denigrated by the lefty media for allowing his people to vote on EU migrant quotas, which is happening today. Here is his speech. I prefer not to quote or link to the liar-press, but would correct it on a number of points: Hungary is not a backward country, but has consistently led the world in technical fields such as electric traction; its people are not shambling, xenophobic peasants cowering beneath Dracula-like castles, but often intellectuals of the first rank in the world. During the Manhattan Project a joke was made that all of the best mathematicians were actually men from Mars, but pretended to be Hungarian so that nobody would question their accents.

Insulting such people as these because they chose to elect someone who will allow them to express their view of EU population-replacement programmes is likely to be about as counterproductive as ‘naming and shaming’ pudding-chefs. However, should the Hungarian people fail to welcome their being supplanted by an ancient enemy imported by distant bureaucrats, the campaign of vilification will doubtless continue.

 

 

 

“You need to go online.”

Longrider deplores the government’s threat to drag German fast bowlers (geriatrics) kicking and screaming into the Age of the App.

…my parents are getting along as they have always done and not a computer to be seen. If they want things, they use the old tried and tested methods and it works

Unfortunately they are costing the state too much money in demanding ‘the old…methods’. These methods involve paying people at least minimum wage to open letters, answer phones, and generally behave in an officey and administrativist manner.

All of which costs far, far more than setting up a website and an algorithm or two and saying as often as is necessary “You need to go online.”

I always say: follow the money.

Compulsory anhedonia

Frank Davis is disgusted by an article in the Independent, as am I.

Trigger warning: if you are usually upset by references to government overreach, the hypocrisy of the élite scum and the nanny state in general, you may want to go outside and fire a few rounds from a pump-action shotgun before reading further.

I will not quote the authoritarian filth in the government and quangocracy because they deserve no further publicity and I did promise to try to do something about my blood pressure. It’s all in the newspaper if you’re that way inclined:

Restaurants, cafés and pubs have reportedly been ordered to make their food and drink healthier or face being named and shamed for contributing to the obesity crisis.

My points in brief are these:

MPs enjoy a subsidised bar which is the only one in the country where smoking is still permitted. All of their lavish restaurants are subsidised. Specially-made sweets (‘House of Commons Fudge’ and ‘House of Lords Humbugs’, if I remember rightly) and unique Sobranie cigarettes in elegant boxes, gold-blocked and unsullied by antismoking advertising, adorn their subsidised gift shops. Anyone who tolerates scolding, nagging, hectoring and nannying from such self-seeking hypocrites as these is in my view far too tolerant.

Furthermore, anyone who tolerates the existence at all of such outrageous pseudoquangos as ‘Public Heath England’, never mind crediting the hoity-toity bossy bullying of their ‘chief executives’ (I can’t help wondering how much more than the prime minister this one is paid), is in my view tolerant to the point of clearly hazardous excess about which Something really ought to be Done.

However, I suspect that the point of diminishing returns has long since been passed, and that these measures will backfire.

Exhibit A: those silly little ‘traffic light’ anti-food markings which the unemployable middle class have forced upon supermarkets. Expected result: well-trained, docile sheep picks up package, sees that not all boxes are green, obediently puts it back and looks for one on which they are. Actual result: all goats know that in theory the most delicious item in the whole supermarket must be the one on which all five boxes are red, and search hopefully for it (it is called Baklava, and is usually available from Messrs. LidL).

Therefore, if a restaurant serves generous portions of fine food which discerning people like to eat, then though it may be named, it can hardly be shamed.

Listing those restaurants which boldly defy the government’s compulsory anhedonia (this is an expensive psychiatric word meaning ‘inability to experience pleasure’; I’m not sure I like it, so I’ve only hired it) will invoke a sort of culinary Streisand effect; by trying to put them out of business, the parasites will ensure that they hardly ever have a free table.

I look forward to the simplicity of calling visitors’ attention to the official recommendations rather than letting them waste time with ‘Trip Advisor’.

Hogan-Howe was the first

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.

Mentioned on this blog a week ago.

Today reported to have resigned, or offered to resign, or something equally plausibly deniable.

The list is long.

[After Eric Frank Russell,  Wasp (1957)]

 

 

All very well

Do please read this, by Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish. It is a complete, correct and concise statement of the problem and applies even more in class-ridden England than it does in the USA:

Utopia’s middle class expects to live the way that our middle class does. And yet none of them actually produce anything… Their public service actually inhibits production. Whatever the rhetoric, they spend all their days killing the geese that lay the golden eggs. And then they are insulted when the goose doesn’t recognize their contribution to her golden egg-laying.

I knew a goose once who laid a golden egg, but her friends persuaded her to see someone about it and she’s perfectly all right now.

Seriously, though. What are we going to do with a few million people who passed their exams, went to college, got a job-for-the-girls out of the Guardian and now expect to be paid by the state as though they were senior industrial managers to do whatever imaginary nonsense they profess? Even when this involves inhibiting, defacilitating, demotivating and generally rendering unserviceable what is left of British industry, and turning British society, entirely for their own purposes, into the major contribution to the theatre of the absurd which we see around us every day?

What are we actually going to do? It’s all very well to point fingers.

To the last I grapple with thee

Ars Technica has been fed yet more patronising prolefeed by the godawful Ministry of Truth:

“We know the vast majority of people are law abiding and would anticipate those who need a licence for the first time will buy one. We have a range of enforcement techniques which we will use and these have already allowed us to prosecute people who watch on a range of devices, not just TVs.”

And I have sent an e-mail:

 

The BBC have fed to the media yet another scare story about detecting online TV viewing.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/09/bbc-iplayer-bbc-id-postcode-registration/

Last week’s one, which I can’t be bothered to look for now, involved a mysterious green-anodised cylindrical thing about a foot long which allegedly can detect anything at all, at any range, by a secret method; doubtless from that same company that makes the bomb detectors so popular in Iraq.

Even though they now say they will require a login for the iPlayer, the absence of any application for which might be seen as evidence for the defence, I imagine that their login system will be hacked to cruft within eight seconds of going online; maybe seven.

Accordingly they will still have to act as they always have in assuming that every address – and increasingly, owing to continuous regulatory changes, every individual TV-capable device – must have a licence.

When they come here I would like if possible to have them brush me aside and enter the premises by force to search for equipment or software, naturally with admissible but covert recording equipment running at the time, for the greater glory of YouTube and my lawyer’s convenience.

Icing on this cake (“…and mix it up with Poison / ‘Til it turns a tempting green…”) would be a formal statement from you as my computer consultant (letterhead, invoice, etc.) to the effect that you have visited my premises on [date] and have inspected [number of] computers identified [thus] and confirmed that no BBC software of any kind is present on any of them.

My brief will of course present this (and that) in court as evidence that I am so intimidated by BBC terrorism that I feel obliged to pay money to a consultant to ensure that the BBC do not stealthily implant their wholly unwanted software into my computers in order to entrap me for gain.

In a civilised country (Trinidad? Vietnam? Burkina-Faso?) I might even be able to sue.

If as is remotely possible the BBC’s old school chums at GCHQ, having read all this, proceed to tip them the wink, then of course they won’t come, vindicating everything we said during the Cold War about ‘the maintenance of a credible deterrent posture’.

However if they are not warned (if, for example, GCHQ are also tired of the threatening letters) they may yet walk into my parlour, against which possibility I currently prepare.

The Ars article suggests that nothing will happen before 2017, though of course this could be just another helping of prolefeed from Minitrue.

Would you at your convenience oblige me with a quote?

 

Regrettably I have to say that on sober reflection I think that the algorithm which is cleverer than all the people at TV Licensing put together has probably already concluded, quite rightly, that my TV tax might just cost them more than £145.50 to collect.

Perhaps instead I ought to stage a spectacular event which captures the whole world’s attention, something like the Glastonbury Festival or the trial of Hillary Clinton, so that I can deny the BBC not just special media access but also any kind of ticket at all, obliging them to stand around in the rain outside waiting for some drunken vox pop to lurch into shot and give them something to broadcast.