Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Opsablepsic opsimath...

There has been some misguided polemic (again) over the issue of Imperial or Metric measures;  now re-ignited. It is hard to explain and harder to convince people but to me, Imperial has always seemed more logical and easier to grasp, somehow based on ancient knowledge: look at the clock (time: 24 hours, 60 minutes, and 60 seconds), look at circular measurements (360 degrees, 60 minutes, and 60 seconds and that translated into all air and nautical directional movement)...how good to realise that it IS and obviously so when one stops for a second to think about it. Reading the comments on The Spectator (and the predictable "Like most things about Europe, the response is not really about Europe, but values, and so if your group identity is that of the modern urban social liberal then ‘returning to the imperial system’ is clearly a return to the dark ages or racism and rations..." ["Is it really that hard to understand the difference between allowing something and the nation "returning" to it?" Mark Wallace]...I think we SHOULD return to it.) I was led by AWoLsco's comment to this AMAZING read: from Ernest P. Moyer back in 2002: "Something Strange Happened On The Way To The Parthenon or The Origin of the Royal Egyptian Cubit". That may sound long winded and boring but give it a try. All the 'modern', liberal, trendy anti-British dickwads thinking we're so backward when what they are rejecting is based on the very earth itself, so logical as to defy anyone who claims that metric is superior. The English inch is supreme it's equivalent 'introduced to mankind' and used before the Greeks, pre Babylonian, pre the Egyptians of 6,000 BC...
"All linear measures were originally based on the definition of the number of units in the radius of the earth. Conversely, All circular measures were originally based on the definition of the number of units in the circumference of the earth."

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Overt omissions, obvious outrage II...

Following on from yesterday's post about the BBC's shockingly wrong headline and article "Why do US police keep killing unarmed black men?" Alan at Biased BBC has come up with an interesting find: "At least one of the Blacks who murdered the police officers in Dallas had links to Black Power groups….by coincidence in June the BBC was promoting their agenda": the BBC did a programme on the killers and their gun club just last month: "On the ground with America's Black Power soldiers". And again the goading of blacks into killing by repeated and continual lies:
"But there’s more: if you are a black man aged 15-34 you're nine times more likely to be killed than anyone else. Yet African Americans make up just 12% of the US population. Whatever way you look at it, police are clearly killing disproportionately large numbers of African Americans - particularly young black men."
No explanation, no reasoning, none of the actual facts as to WHY... I hope the authorities are looking closely at the BBC footage and will be giving the reporters and cameramen extended questioning. 

Friday, July 08, 2016

Overt omissions, obvious outrage...

The headline in that image shocked me, seriously. I have waffled on about BBC bias for over 2 decades but still they manage to amaze me with their unbelievably crass reporting. The image isn't from the news today about last night's Dallas police murders but I saw the link to it just as I was wondering why - the news of the worse police killings since 9/11 - the whole thing seem overtly anti-police (but has since been updated and toned down and now even including info about the horribly high number of police that are killed in the line of duty). However, imagine my surprise when I see the link "Why do US police keep killing unarmed black men?" [Link] I thought WTF? and followed the link to see that, indeed, I hadn't misread. The BBC did indeed have the headline "Why do US police keep killing unarmed black men?". In all their interviews they fail to get near the real issue. Reports now from the Dallas Police Chief say that "[the now dead suspect] was upset about the recent police shootings"... "The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers." Now why would he want to do that? Maybe because he reads the BBC and much of the rest of the polemic creating media or listens to Obama or those overt racist, anti-police lefties like Black Lives Matter (yes, racist) that keep stoking the flames of the outright lie that there is some US Cop anti-black intentional killing spree. And it is lie. A big fat funded by lefty billionaires lie. The STATS speak for themselves and tell another story. Some of those five stats (previous link) are from HERE, pdf: The Danger of the 'Black Lives Matter' Movement by Heather Mac Donald. "In Los Angeles, blacks between the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30 times the national mean. Who is killing them? Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks." Another snippet with New York as an example:
"Standard anti-cop ideology, whether emanating from the ACLU or the academy, holds that law enforcement actions are racist if they don’t mirror population data. New York City illustrates why that expectation is so misguided. Blacks make up 23 percent of New York City’s population, but they commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime, according to victims and witnesses. Add Hispanic shootings and you account for 98 percent of all illegal gunfire in the city. Whites are 33 percent of the city’s population, but they commit fewer than two percent of all shootings, four percent of all robberies, and five percent of all violent crime. These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned to minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects."
Let me repeat that last bit: These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned to minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects.  More crime in those neighborhoods means much more police presence.  Much higher percentage of violent crime in those areas means more police presence. When you add to the mix that 'blacks of all ages commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined' it's a recipe for disaster.

This reflects the reality in the UK too with the constant railing against the UK police 'sus' then stop-and-search activities, always saying how they were racist etc...then you look at crime figures and suddenly it's clear and obvious...except to [mainly] lefty [mainly] dimwits.

In the USA police officers are being hunted and killed (dozens of incidents this year) and are being ambushed like last night (while policing an anti-police rally!) precisely because the main stream media (and many politicians) are constantly anti-police, hinting of racist cops, intentional beating, police brutality etc even when all the facts suggest the police weren't at fault. I know the police aren't always innocent but FFS, this constant false narrative shit has got to stop sometime. Something else Dallas Police Chief said was tragic: "We don't feel much support most days. Let's not make today most days". And finally, repeating a line from Daily Wire: Anti-police rhetoric has deadly consequences. And - an irony missed by BLM - not just for the Police.

Update (21:15 BST): another shooting: Bristol, Tennessee: "he was angry about police violence against African-Americans"... 

Thursday, July 07, 2016

Odious ogre officially outed II...

Yes, the II in the blog post title because the first (Odious ogre officially outed; only oblocutor O'Donnell obnubilates...) was back in 2011. Arch vampire and actor supreme* Blair, the destroyer of the UK with his decade or more of damage - continued by the Brownstuff - that was New Labour, is castigated but unpunished. Decried but not even a slapped wrist in the offing. A non apology and with the gall to say - with the evidence of the gross failure now spread worldwide [11th anniversary today] - he would do it all again.

Funnily enough back then it was hardly reported, I wrote: "A reader contributes... If you can't understand the title it means that at last Blair is being outed over the Iraq War lies and the intentional misleading of parliament. The smoking gun is in view, the evidence is now before the Chilcott Inquiry: big news but not particularly interesting to the MSM apparently because hardly anyone seems to be giving 'sufficient' coverage or column inches that the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's evidence deserves. I guess these days any day is "a good day to bury bad news". 

One who did report it [Stephen Glover that day's Daily Mail] ""At last, the damning evidence that should bury Blair for his lies over Iraq". Unfortunately, Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell has banned the Inquiry from releasing records of secret talks between Tony Blair and President George W. Bush... Apart from the seeming lack of interest in giving Blair his comeuppance I also note that nobody seems to be mentioning Gordon Brown either; cunts. It is as though he has been airbrushed from history and all the problems the UK faces are now the evil Coalition's fault."

Yes, as usual BBC were being very coy because  back then they were still in crush-Coalition mode; the lack of coverage was overshadowed by what became a non-story; two days after the Blair news I wrote about the Guardian and BBC 'overreaction' to the Coulson hacking 'scandal' and how "Incredibly, on their UK News page there are 5 MORE articles (only the main story is as per the Home News page)...and note how the Blair news (and everything else!) is demoted... ...and somewhat appropriate following Peter Sisson's comments: "In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told 'it's all in there'". Of course very different today...ahem.

The image above is cut from The National newspaper reproduced on the BBC: HERE. 'Shamed', 'Damned', 'defiant to the end', a 'monster' and a 'weapon of mass deception' among the other headlines (Scottish newspapers).

* just a reminder to those who may think yesterday's performance was genuine; well, the performance was genuine as befitting one of such lying talent, the emotions shown were not. 

Monday, July 04, 2016

Outing Osborne & other obscurantists...

From Dan Hannan: 'Extraordinary'...Germany's Federal Minister of Finance 'admits he only threatened to exclude us from the market because George Osborne asked him to'! Also, "Another line added to the truth & reconciliation table..." From 'Liberal Leaver' Roland Smith @whitewednesday on Twitter. Also author of the Liberal case for Leave: "a global, outward-looking and ambitiously positive" Brexit vision. The other line being Nigel Farage resigning as leader of UKIP today, totally at odds with what Remain threatened.

Friday, July 01, 2016

Open ossuaries...

[edited 11 a.m.] Today marks the start date, 100 years ago, of the Battle of the Somme (The Somme Offensive). The absolute horror of the First World War, if not realised when reading details, is brought home when we look at the numbers of dead and wounded. The irony of the Battle of the Somme and the Battle of Kovel-Stanislav (better known as the Brusilov Offensive, where the Russians, at the request of the French, opened up another front to the east against Austria-Hungary) was that the intention was to relieve the valiant French at the hell of Verdun (which itself lasted for 10 months and became the longest battle in human history, with more than 300,000 deaths and up to 700,000 wounded). In the Brusilov Offensive casualties and deaths were at least a million and a half. At the Somme the length of battle was less than 5 months; on the first DAY 19,240 British soldiers lost their lives (the bloodiest day in the whole history of the British army). [edited 03/07] The deaths and wounded from all nations by November totaled between 950 thousand and one million...one MILLION dead or wounded... These three offensives (in both senses of the word!) were the worst in pure numbers of dead and wounded - and all were in 1916 - but made up a few of dozens of battles or operations in WWI with deaths and casualties in the tens/hundreds of thousands; the two battles of Marne and the three at Ypres also account for over 800 thousand and 900 thousand casualties respectively.

Image from The Royal British Legion commemorating the 'memory of the fallen and the future of the living'.

Monday, June 27, 2016

Only oldies?...

The old shouldn't be allowed to vote? WTF? "Of course, barely concealed contempt for the working classes, particularly the white poor, is nothing new to social media or the liberal press. But, the all-out attacks on senior citizens post-referendum has shocked many." Who are the morons suggesting such things? They are:
Headlines in the Europhile press have included: “How old people have screwed over the younger generation” from the Independent, and "EU Referendum Results: Young 'Screwed By Older Generations'…" from the Huffington Post. VICE gave us: [...] "Brexit Proves Baby Boomers Should Get Less of a Vote". GQ Magazine went all out, producing: "WE SHOULD BAN OLD PEOPLE FROM VOTING". Writing about “them” as if the older generations are some foreign species, the reasons given by the author included:
The above section quoted from Liam Deacon at Breitbart. Those writing the linked articles are seriously deluded or don't have a good sense of humour (I think they actually mean what they have written which pretty much makes them pretty low specimens.) How about a better idea?

This idea isn't new: "Admit it, an 18 year-old shouldn't be allowed to vote". "Even the French classical liberal economist Frédéric Bastiat – no proponent of obtrusive government – warned that unbridled voting rights would lead to disaster.Writing in his famous essay 'The Law,' Bastiat noted that exclusions to voting are justified because “it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend." [edit] "Bastiat was, at the time (mid-19th century), writing about children and women."

Mitrailleuse adds: "Kids don’t have the mental capacities or own enough assets to be fully vested in society."  Indeed! he's on about the USA but it still applies. [LINK]

By the way, why are they all using the unusually large 25-49 age group? It isn't so clear cut:
From Lord Ashcroft Polls: How the UK voted and why [LINK]