Barrel Strength

Over-Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight

Barrel Strength - Over-Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight

Canadian telephone roaming charges

The story of Thomas Lukaszuk’s $20,000 phone bill for a call from Canada that he received while in Poland tells us much more about the state of competition in the  Canadian telephone industry, and its rapacious anti-consumer behaviour,  than it does about Lukaszuk’s morals, ethics,or fitness for public office.

In all, he used two gigabytes of data.

I have had to pay $500 after buying what I thought – wrongly – was the correct foreign travel plan, only to find that merely landing in the Poland cost me $80.

Vengeance is coming, saith the Canadian consumer, and the CRTC will be our instrument.

This is how the Guardian whitewashes the Islamic element

The Guardian’s coverage of the Rotherham sex-slavery gangs strives to avoid mentioning the Islamic factor.

The word “race” is used instead of “religion”, and the word “Asian” is used instead of “Muslim”.

 

What made South Yorkshire perhaps more politically charged is that in many cases the victims were underage white girls and the perpetrators were Asian men.

There were other abuse cases – in Oxford and Telford – with the same mix of ethnicities.

The far right had a field day with slogans which cast Muslim men as dangerous paedophiles. The tabloids leapt on remarks made in 2012 by the judge in a widely reported Rochdale case, Gerald Clifton, who in sentencing nine Asian men for 77 years for abusing and raping up to 47 girls said: “I believe one of the factors which led to that is that they [the victims] were not of your community or religion.”

Andrew Norfolk, the Times’s dogged and brilliant reporter who broke the story in Rochdale, has always said the “overwhelming majority of child abusers in this country are white men acting on their own”.

However, his own analysis was that race was important to discuss because council staff feared “treading into a cultural minefield”.

The report accepts that the concern of being labelled a racist did mean people pulled back from probing too deeply.

However, there must be an acceptance that perpetrators were criminals rather than Muslims. (on what grounds? -Dalwhinnie) Surely the crime of a young girl being raped should have led officials to act, whatever the colour of the skin of her assailant?

Apparently, not if it concerns Muslims acting as Muslims do.

Second point, Islam is not about skin colour! It is a religion (or totalitarian political ideology, as I believe it to be). It is not a race, a skin colour, or an ethnicity. Even in the midst of the revelations, the reluctance of the political Left to confront Islam  constitutes my principal reason why I think the Left is in bad faith.

 

Rotherham: the guilty white civic adminstrators

The Telegraph names names.

All of them with one exception are well educated white people, and four of the six are women – which is relevant when you consider that women are claimed by feminists to be more compassionate (ha!).

There will be more heads rolling as details emerge.

The curious thing about this scandal is that details of it have been available if you had read the anti-Islamic websites like Jihad Watch, Gates of Vienna, and Front Page. The fact is, those of who read anti-Islamic sites have been informed about this situation for years. I recall reading about South Yorkshire Pakistani sex gangs nearly ten years ago. The actual sex criminals were sent to prison some time ago.

What is the mysterious event that makes something “known” to the likes of the Telegraph and the Guardian? Why does it take so long for facts and issues discussed in  the blogosphere to seep through the semi-permeable membrane into the mainstream media? When does an issue become “respectable” enough – such as Muslim anti-Christian sex slavery – to be mentioned in polite society, when this behaviour is well known to any Christian who has had exposure to Islamic males on an intimate basis?

Ask any woman who has had the occasion to have had sexual relations with a Muslim man, and who has escaped their clutches, and you might out some things you do not want, but yet need, to hear about how that religion rally treats women.

The answer for the delay I mentioned above is that it is taking thousands upon thousands of such incidents to seep through the barriers of polite liberal discourse to allow for a more general discussion among the kinds of people who read the Globe and Mail about what Islam really is at the genetic, reproductive, family level – sexual slavery, female bondage, and male sexual frustration.

There was a scene in the movie John Carpenter’s “The Thing” (1982) where the dog kennel had been infiltrated by the mutating alien, and then began to assimilate the dogs to itself. The dog handler comes out of the kennel and is asked “what is it?”, and he replies, “I don’t know but it is weird and pissed off“.

And that, dear readers, is the first approximation answer to “what is Islam?” Forget theology, or ideas about God, and think about sex, men and women, and you will go deeper into the heart of the matter than reading the Koran. The plain fact is: there is no love in Islam. It is not a value of the religion, nor is Allah a loving God. H e is immaculately remote from human concerns, He is capricious, and He does not love us, because love would bind Him to us. The Prophet never spoke about love, and the absence explains much of Islamic social and sexual life
Yet, like the Thing in the movie, it is trying to assimilate all life to itself. And like the Thing, every cell of it cannot cooperate with any other cell of it. This may be our greatest advantage.

 

Rotherham

The most disturbing aspect of the sex-gang Pakistanis in Rotherham, England is not that Pakis were behaving like Muslims. What after all are kuffar good for except as sex slaves?

The disturbing aspect was the deliberate police attempts to prevent effective measures against these activities because they might be considered “racist”.

Children as young as 11 were sexually exploited by gangs of men – almost all of them of Pakistani origin – but council officials and police suppressed evidence to avoid causing damage to ‘community cohesion’.

What community? What cohesion?

The report into the matter found that:

Girls as young as 11 were serially abused by large numbers of men only to be treated with contempt by police and social workers, the Rotherham inquiry found.

It said officials turned a blind eye while at least 1,400 girls were raped, abducted and trafficked from city to city.

The victims were taken by taxi from schools and children’s homes for sex acts with men.

Today, the Children’s Commissioner Maggie Atkinson said she was ‘not surprised’ by the findings.

She added that failings to identify and respond to child sexual exploitation are not unique to Rotherham, calling on all local authorities in England to ‘take note of the lessons learned’ from the scandal.

Vicious threats of violence against the victims and their families stopped them going to the police.

They were ‘doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone’.

The devastating report by Professor Alexis Jay revealed that:

  • Staff were given ‘clear directions’ from managers to downplay the ‘ethnic dimension’ of the abuse despite almost all the perpetrators being of Pakistani heritage;
  • Three separate reports warning of the scale of the abuse were ‘suppressed or ignored’ by the council because it was ‘in denial’ about the crimes;
  • Serious discussions about sexual abuse were impossible because of the ‘macho’ and ‘sexist’ culture at the Labour-controlled council;
  • Police treated victims and their families as if they were to blame for the abuse, and took no action against the paedophiles;

Dhimmis exulting in their dhimmitude.

Distributional Coalitions: Tribes,Classes, Lobby Groups

The intrusion of messy reality into economics generates most of its intellectual issues. The world escapes the simple axioms of market exchanges mediated through freely negotiated prices. An American economist called Mancur Olson wrote “The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation and Social Rigidities” in 1982. It discussed issues not within the scope of either monetarists or Keynsians, namely how economies do not work according to the ideas of either schools.

For Olson, the question to be answered was why some economies were performing better than others after World War 2. Why, for instance, was Britain in such a mess (pre-Thatcher) and Germany and Japan increasing in wealth by leaps and bounds?

Olson observed the behaviour of what he called “distributional coalitions”, which are normally economic associations but which can morph overtime into castes, tribes, or even races. Usually we call them “special interest groups”, and usually we think of them as things like the dairy farmers, or other organized economic groups with formal legal status which seek legal or regulatory privileges (professional associations, banks, etc). Olson pointed out that they are usually small, they exercize disproportionate power, they reduce efficiency in the economy, they slow a society’s adaptation to change, and once successful, are exclusive and seek to limit the diversity of incomes and values of their membership.

His final rule of interest groups was:

9. The accumulation of distributional coalitions increases the complexity of regulation, the role of government, and the complexity of understandings, and changes the direction of social evolution.

Olson pointed out how expensive it is for anyone to discriminate racially (or any other way) as individuals, but by contrast, how rewarding it is to discriminate when it is done collectively. South Africa, in the apartheid days, could engineer much higher standards for whites by keeping blacks out of skilled and semi-skilled work.

Moreover, a racially, linguistically and culturally distinctive group finds it easier to maintain a multi-generational coalition. “The linguistic and cultural similarities will reduce differences in values and facilitate social interaction, and … this reduces conflict and makes it easier to generate social selective pressures.” (p.159)

And here is the kicker: if you can reinforce the “distributional coalition” with inbreeding – marrying within the tribe, the class, the group, the caste – you will make the group work better over time. This is called “endogamy”.

Unfortunately, the promotion of prejudices about race, ethnicity, culture and intergroup differences in lifestyle will also make the coalition work better. The inculcation of these prejudices will increase the probability that the members will follow the rule of endogamy and strengthen selective incentives by interacting socially only with their own group, of their own accord.” (p160)

A good deal of whatever I learned as a kid from the osmosis of attitudes about the other tribe in Quebec, the French Canadians, reflected this truth of behaviour, and they had stronger if not deeper prejudices against us “English” (not a  tribe, really just a foreign bourgeoisie). A distributional coalition can be an ethnic majority as well as an ethnic minority. I am not saying that the prejudices of each tribe were unfounded; I am saying that looking at each group, the English in Quebec, or the French in Quebec, as a distributional coalition, generates some insights. It suggests that wherever you see strong barriers to intermarriage, you might be in the presence of a distributional coalition, as well as that of a tribe, caste, or religion. It also suggests that when barriers to intermarriage are falling, a distributional coalition is fading out.

Olson was suggesting that racial and other forms of discrimination can work as the enforcers of the privileges of a “distributional coalition”, but note that, in his view, he makes no assertion that we have some innate drive to discriminate  – an issue on which he is silent. He says that maintaining  in-group marriage (maintaining racial, tribal or religious boundaries) will strengthen the distributional coalition over time, indeed, it is the only way to maintain it over long periods of time.

In conclusion, Olson’s views balance the problems caused by instability against the problem s caused by distributional coalitions.

On the whole, stable countries are more prosperous than unstable ones and this is no surprise. But, other things being equal, the most rapid growth will occur in societies that have lately experienced upheaval but are expected nonetheless to be stable for the foreseeable future.

In short, they have had a chance to purge themselves of distributional coalitions.

 

 

 

 

 

None Dare Call It Treason

“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
[Sir John Harrington, 1561-1612]

One should always apply the maxim that says “never ascribe to malice what stupidity can adequately explain.”

Observing the current meltdown in American foreign policy and the confused ramblings of Baraq Hussein, he who does president impressions, one is forced to conclude that stupidity can no longer be a satisfactory explanation.

Take three examples among many. One, the denial of Islamic terrorism; two, the stupid policy toward Russia; and, three, the militarization of American police forces.

Terrorism

Islamic terrorism is the major threat facing Western Civilization today. Islam is totally opposed to everything that we hold dear: democracy, civil liberties, equality of rights and constitutional government. Day after day, Islamic terrorists around the world proclaim their objectives, including the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. In Gaza, the criminal terrorist tyrants who rule there fire rockets at Israeli civilians from schools and hospitals—all war crimes. Apparently, in the view of the White House, these are no longer war crimes, but acts that are “extraordinarily irresponsible” (!) I suppose it was “extraordinarily irresponsible” for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour in 1941.

Israel has the temerity to react and defend its citizens. Does the Israeli government get support from the White House? No, this “cycle of violence” has to stop. How on Earth can Israel negotiate with Hamas, which is openly calling for the destruction of Israel, and expect them to honour any agreement?
How come the only free and democratic state in the Middle East has become a pariah? Why is Israel not fully supported by Western leaders? The answer, unfortunately, is that many Western governments are led by weaklings who now kowtow to Islamic threats from minorities within their own countries. And in the case of America, its weakness stems from an Islamic sympathizer in the White House.

Other Affairs Abroad

Since the collapse of communism, the Soviet Union, and the end of the Cold War, the threat of Soviet tanks rolling across the border through the Fulda Gap has evaporated. The Soviet republics have become independent states. In the 1990s, NATO and the West made a commitment to Russia that they would not expand towards the Russian border after the threat of communism disappeared. NATO has reneged on its commitment. Naturally, the Russians, no fools they, became concerned. So when the Ukrainian putsch was engineered in Kiev, with overt NATO and American interference, the Russians acted to protect their warm water port for their navy in Crimea. Incidentally, Crimea was always part of Russia.

Any great power is going to protect its geostrategic interests when threatened and that is what Russia did, legalities notwithstanding. Instead of befriending Russia and helping its transition to a modern nation as it climbs out of the pit of communism, Washington embarked on a new Cold War-style propaganda assault. Washington’s pals in Kiev are now shelling civilians in the eastern Ukraine. Video is available on RT and Youtube and, no surprise here, is not shown on the MSM media outlets in America, populated as they are by Hussein’s army of sycophants. Russia is a natural ally of the West in the war against Islam. Our relations with Russia have been poisoned by an ignorant and foolish administration in Washington.

Affairs at Home

Why does your local police force need armored personnel carriers, battle gear, tanks and more equipment than most soldiers carry into combat? Why does the government need all that firepower to threaten civilians?

The Second Amendment in the American Constitution provides that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. This is a right, not a privilege granted by a government. Governments are responsible to citizens—it’s not the other way around. The Founding Fathers wisely foresaw that threats to liberty and freedom come from governments and the citizenry must have the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect themselves from governments, when it becomes necessary.

Even a cursory glance at history shows us that the first act of aspiring tyrants is to disarm the free citizen. Every socialist and communist regime has done this. Turning the police from an agent of our protection into a semi-military threat is another act of government out of control. It is the act of people who see the citizen as a threat. It is an act of tyrants.

No matter how wonderful and inspired the American Constitution is, it is the quality of people in government that is most important. We would do well to remember that great British political mind, Edmund Burke, who said, when discussing the behavior of the National Assembly in Revolutionary France,

“…This unforced choice, this fond election of evil, would appear perfectly unaccountable, if we did not consider the composition of the National Assembly: I do not mean its formal composition, which, as it now stands, is exceptionable enough, but the materials of which, in great measure, it is composed, which is of ten thousand times greater consequence than all the formalities in the world.”

That, unfortunately, is the truth. And until the American people wake up to the fact that they have elected a crew of pirates, who would like nothing better than to tear up the Constitution and scatter the remnants to the four winds of heaven, they will continue to see their rights assaulted, their country disparaged, and their friends around the world betrayed.

These three disparate cases are the acts of an administration that savages the Constitution at home, betrays America’s allies abroad, and refuses to name evil when confronted with it. Is this all due to stupidity? Or does it hide a darker reality in American politics?

Rebel Yell

IQ declining since Victorian era

It is a question of breeding, says the article. More particularly, it is a matter of stupid people breeding more than intelligent ones.

The depressing possibility is that, despite the fact that intelligence is preponderantly hereditary, modern education systems are so poor that students’ cognitive abilities are declining.

I once saw the grade 4 grammar book for a school  in the historic schoolhouse in Orwell on Prince Edward Island . It would challenge the grade 11 grammar I studied in a good private school in the 1960s. God knows what pablum children are now exposed to. Non-judgmental learning.

Thus, if environment constitutes 20-30% of IQ, then it would be quite possible that declining educational standards could account for declining IQ, at least in the West.

As a friend once said of a cabinet document from the department of health and welfare, “It is written by people who do not know the distinctions between an inference, a postulate, a hypothesis, a conjecture, a deduction, a conclusion, a fact, and an observation.”

And these documents were produced by the college-educated, those people supposedly having IQs over 118.

So my hypothesis is that IQs are declining because of poorer, less demanding educations.

 

 

 

The Prime Minister is not a wealthy man

This is the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada as to the extent of his holdings. I think he has even less wealth than me. He holds a mortgage with his wife. It may explain why he is so stringent in relation to propriety in general and financial propriety in particular. Putin, by contrast, owns billions. Obama is a millionaire by now, Bill Clinton a mega-millionaire. The last President who left office a poor man was Harry Truman.

Disclosure Summary
By signing this form, you are satisfying the requirements of section 23 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Should you have any questions about this form, please contact the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner at (613) 995-0721.
23(1) The Commissioner shall prepare a disclosure summary based on each Member’s statement filed under section 21 and submit it to the member for review.
23(2) Each summary is to be placed on file at the office of the Commissioner and made available for public inspection during normal business hours, and posted on the website of the Commissioner. Each summary shall also be available to the public, on request, by fax or mail.
Source: Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons
Liabilities:
Loan, joint with spouse, with the Bank of Nova Scotia.
This declaration is made with the knowledge that a certified copy of the Disclosure Summary will be placed in the Public Registry maintained by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
DATE NAME SIGNATURE
2012/12/08 Stephen Harper ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
YYYY/MM/DD

 

 

Best commentary on Obama’s foreign policies

Bret Stevens, foreign correspondent of the Wall Street Journal, has written what I think is the definitive portrait of Obama’s foreign policy, which seems to amount to annoying your allies and appeasing your enemies. It is premised on the notion, says, Stevens, that the United States is the biggest failed state of all.

After reviewing the facts, Stevens writes:

Should any of this [disarray and failure] have come as a surprise? Probably not: With Obama, there was always more than a whiff of the overconfident dilettante, so sure of his powers that he could remain supremely comfortable with his own ignorance. His express-elevator ascent from Illinois state senator to U.S. president in the space of just four years didn’t allow much time for maturation or reflection, either. Obama really is, as Bill Clinton is supposed to have said of him, “an amateur.” When it comes to the execution of policy, it shows.

 

The failure is not personal, however. The failure proceeds from an ideology, which Obama is implementing.

The point is especially important to note because the failure of Obama’s foreign policy is not, ultimately, a reflection of his character or IQ. It is the consequence of an ideology.

That ideology is what now goes by the name of progressivism, which has effectively been the dominant (if often disavowed) view of the Democratic Party since George McGovern ran on a “Come Home, America” platform in 1972—and got 37.5 percent of the popular vote. Progressivism believes that the United States must lead internationally by example (especially when it comes to nuclear-arms control); that the U.S. is as much the sinner as it is the sinned against when it comes to our adversaries (remember Mosaddegh?); and that the American interest is best served when it is merged with, or subsumed by, the global interest (ideally in the form of a UN resolution)…..

Above all, progressivism believes that the United States is a country that, in nearly every respect, treads too heavily on the Earth: environmentally, ideologically, militarily, and geopolitically. The goal, therefore, is to reduce America’s footprint; to “retrench,” as the administration would like to think of it, or to retreat, as it might more accurately be called…..

The phrase “nation-building at home” captures the totality of the progressive ambition. Not only does it mean an end to nation-building exercises abroad, but it suggests that an exercise typically attempted on failed states must be put to use on what progressives sometimes see as the biggest failed state of all: the United States.

 

Reducing male population by 90-98% is the key to solving all our problems

In an interview in Vice Magazine, the Femitheist proposes that the male population be reduced to being only 2 to 10% of its current numbers.

The interview is worth reading because it expresses several underlying assumptions of the political Left.

  • The drive to equality. The particular theory is that true equality can only be achieved when the proportions of males to females is changed, presumably because otherwise males are too powerful.
  • the use of abortion: because who can object to abortion?
  • the arrogance of perverted science: because all the breeding issues have been checked and she has been convinced that nature’s sex ratios are artifacts, arbitrary rules, rather than facts of life, evolved over millions or billions of years.
  • the naivety of who shall rule: “Any criteria decided upon as the quintessential grade [who gets to survive] would have to be extensively defined and revised as time goes on, or as science advances and the human species and its needs evolve.” In other words, who decides upon the decision criteria and the decision making classes are assumed away.
  • the controlling impulse: “we must remove men from the community and place them in their own specific sections of society, akin to subsidised or state-funded reservations, so they can be redefined. We can make not only men safer, but women as well. By subsidising said reservations through the state we can provide men with activities, healthcare, entertainment, shelter, protection, and everything that one could ever require in life. This will remove conventional inequality from society.” Sort of like getting rid of “kulaks” or “Jews”, only in this case they are being “redefined”.
  • The utopian impulse: “Some would argue it would be a dystopian world because it wouldn’t be free in the present conventional sense. However that is misguided. It will be utopian because it will be a world almost without conflict where people cooperate and are treated properly within a well-engineered and long-forged system. If everything is great for almost everyone the point is null. Survival and socio-organic wellbeing are the most important elements in life. Diversity of principles and standards is only necessary in a world of multiple nations, cultures, societies, and religions due to fear of oppression.” Sounds like a Bolshevik in the 1920s. We have seen this movie before. The male sex is the new capitalist class; if we physically control the male sex in luxury breeding camps, then we can eliminate conflict. Nothing I have seen of life persuades me that women do not compete; frequently they just use men to get the killing done (cf: Niall’s Saga).
  • the materialist assumption: “The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species. If someone is willing to give you all you require to survive and live comfortably, simply because you exist, then you have already achieved all that truly matters.” The communists assumed that too. “Man does not live for bread alone but by spirit and high adventure”.
  • the abolition of the family and its replacement by the state: “Children must be provided a proper education, a sex-separated education that will focus on developing real-world skills and capacities for concept building. They will be taught the reality of true equality, production, labour, and will be provided a better understanding of sexuality, science, culture and ethnicity. If children are made wards of the state with assigned caretakers, not only will it be easier to undo the constraints of bigotry and the other archaic beliefs that are passed down from parents to their children, but children can be used to monitor the older generations in regard to the propagation of bigoted and antediluvian values. It is about creating a unified perception.” In other words, a hive mind. North Korea will seem like a model for the future.
  • Genetic engineering: “Eventually, we will be able to engineer people to a greater preference for their own sex.” It hardly matters toward what end the engineering is done, it is the totalitarian impulse run wild.

At least Plato dealt more frankly with who should constitute the Guardians.

I highly recommend The Open Society and Its Enemies, by Karl Popper, as an antidote to this sort of twaddle. You might also try “The God that Failed”, another set of memoirs of ex-Communists. Listening to to the adolescent tones of the Femitheist, it is as if no one had learned a thing from the gigantic failures of 20th century totalitarianism.