Friday, 27 April 2012

Egypt to legalise sex with dead wives

Tell me this is a joke! It's not real, it can't be...

According to the Daily Mail the new Islamic government in Egypt is intending to enshrine in law a husband's right to have sex with his wife up to six hours after she has died. It is to be called the "Farewell Intercourse" law.

It seems that a "proper" interpretation of Islam allows this necrophilia.

They are also planning to reduce the age at which girls can be married to 14, and to get rid of women's right to education and employment.

In Islam, alive or dead, a woman only serves one purpose.

Mind you, 14 is quite restrained for an Islamic age of "consent". (Just a figure of speech - the girls don't actually consent.) The late Ayatollah Khomeini wrote a monograph describing the best ways to have sex with girls as young as three years old; also covering the compensation payable to the parents if the girl is damaged. Google Mufa'Kathat at your peril.

Wednesday, 25 April 2012

It's a double dip

Looks like we are in recession again...


Two consecutive quarters of "negative growth" ie shrinkage, in the economy and it's officially a recession. However this is effectively meaningless - in truth our GDP growth has been hovering in recession territory ever since the credit crunch in September 2007. A sliver above zero, or a sliver below - makes no odds.

To get us out of recession the government would have to drink some bitter medicine. They would need to cut spending by about £200 billion; that's £120bn to eliminate the deficit, and another £80bn to hand out as tax cuts to the wealth creators - business, industry and the like.

£200 billion may sound like a lot of money, but it would only take government spending back to 2005 levels.

So, what to cut? Well, the welfare system is our single biggest ticket item at £207bn, so it would have to be the main candidate. There are some lesser wins: £18bn per year by leaving the EU; perhaps £5bn pa by withdrawing our armed forces from Afghanistan, but really, the bulk of the pain would have to be taken as welfare cuts.

And the government just won't swallow that pill. So we're going to remain in or near recession.

Monday, 23 April 2012

Marine le Pen, kingmaker?

The first round of voting in the French presidential election was completed yesterday and the ten candidates polled as follows:
Francois Hollande (Socialist)        28.63%
Nicholas Sarkozy (UMP)               27.08%
Marine Le Pen (Nationalist)          18.01%
Jean-Luc Melenchon (Left Party)      11.13%
Fran├žois Bayrou (Social Democrat)     9.11%
Eva Joly (Green)                      2.28%
Nicolas Dupont-Aignan (Republican)    1.80%
Philippe Poutou  (Communist)          1.15%
Nathalie Arthaud (Workers' Party)     0.57%
Jacques Cheminade (Weirdo)            0.25%
As no candidate has more than 50% of the votes there will be a second round of voting featuring just the top two. If we reallocate the votes of the candidates dropping out to their most natural home (excluding Le Pen for the moment) we get...
Francois Hollande (Socialist)        53.12%
Nicholas Sarkozy (UMP)               28.88%
From this we see that Mme Le Pen does not hold a trump card. If she asked her followers to vote for Sarkozy, after extracting policy concessions from him of course, she could theoretically boost his support to 46.88% - which wouldn't be enough to keep him in the Elysee Palace.

And anyway it's more complicated than that. The Front National supporters mainly hate Sarky. (It doesn't help that he's a second generation immigrant himself, with Jewish roots!) So Le Pen could not deliver a big bloc of votes. Plus if Sarky moves to the right to please the FN supporters he will lose support on the left.

So, although Marine Le Pen did a sterling job and surpassed her father, it seems it's game over for now. She will move on and start looking towards the parliamentary elections later this year.

Meanwhile France will shift sharply to the left under President Hollande.

Thursday, 19 April 2012

Is there no getting rid of him?

If there's someone in your living room and you don't want him there, you just ask him to leave; first politely, then firmly, then violently. You don't have to give a reason, or allow him to appeal your decision to another house further down the street. You want him gone, he must go.

It is, or at least should be, the same at the national level. If a person who is not a British citizen is in the country and we, ie our government, do not want him here then he must go. We shouldn't have to give a reason, nor should there be any judicial process, if asked to leave a foreigner should just leave.

I'm thinking of course of the case of Abu Qatada who it seems is wanted in most countries in the world but not in the UK. He is not a British national, he entered the country on a false passport, there should be no question of him remaining.

We need a short enabling Act of Parliament to put the above principle into law, then any undesirable we want rid of should just be told: you have seven days to leave the country, after which, if you're still here, we will forcibly put you on a plane and send you to any other country that will take you - including delivering you to your worst enemy if that's most expedient for us. We should not even give a reason. If someone doesn't know why we find them undesirable it's not our job to educate them.

The only possible appeal against such an order would be on the grounds that the deportee is actually a British citizen. If he claims that, then an actual judicial process must take place, otherwise - sayonara!

Tuesday, 17 April 2012

Is Anders Breivik mad?

It's day two of the Anders Breivik trial in Oslo, and the only real question the court will have to answer after the expected 10-week trial is: mad or bad?

"I'm not mad!"

Breivik, of course, rejects both options and considers himself to be both sane and good.

Most normal people would like to reject the options and say he's both mad and bad. Legally though that can't happen: a mad person is not responsible for their own actions and therefore not "bad". They are to be hospitalised and cured, rather than imprisoned and punished.

This blogger, having read through Breivik's fifteen hundred page manifesto (No Mrs Breivik, he wasn't just playing computer games in his bedroom the whole time!) reckons he has a feel for what is going on in the Anders Breivik bonce.

(With the case actually on-going at the moment we should probably respect the conventions of sub judice and refrain from comment. However, since all involved parties are foreign, and in line with the entire British mass media we'll quietly ignore that issue.)

So, to start with the conclusion, what Brevik is, is "radicalised".

He is an uncommon case of self-radicalisation. No-one took him away and brain-washed him, he did it to himself, by extensive study of far-right literature over several years. He was a quiet, almost introverted person; a natural absorber of ideas. He imbibed the ideology of the far Right, the further Right than even this blog supports, and the ideas went straight to his hind-brain and lodged themselves there. His writings are shot-through with far-right rhetoric. He's a true believer.

Let's start with the concept of the "lone wolf".

The far-right, and we talking neo-nazi here, knows that the authorities have penetrated their organisations and realistically they cannot mount a significant illegal operation without it being closed down by mass arrests while still in the planning stage. So to counter this, they have developed the concept of the lone wolf. The instructions to the would-be lone wolf are: if you want to do something, just do it. Don't tell like-minded friends, don't ask permission or advice from any organisation you may be a member of, just plan it and carry it out in a team of one.

Ironically, the lone wolf feels a sense of comradeship with people he has never met, and feels himself to be acting as part of a large team, despite his activities being entirely solitary, because the far-right radiates approval at the lone wolf. The message is: you may be acting alone but in reality you are an important member of a large pack.

For this reason Breivik is being somewhat ambivalent in court about whether he is part of an organisation or not. The true answer is that, yes, he is part of a larger grouping, but he has never actually met any of the other members.

The second important issue, is identification of the enemy. Breivik attacked his own native Norwegians, not his ostensible enemies the muslims, of which plenty are at hand in east Oslo should he have wished to attack them.

The far-right does not consider the "invaders" to be the real problem at the moment. Muslims are colonising Europe, but they are not invading by force, they are simply being let in. The true enemy in far-right circles is the "enemy within" the traitors in government who are facilitating the muslim invasion through a combination of permissive immigration laws, and willful disregarding of such laws as do exist. (The current Abu Qatada nonsense is an illustration of how obstructive the powers-that-be are when it comes to deporting even one muslim. Deporting white British citizens to the USA goes through on the nod; muslims cling like limpets to the UK.)

Breivik therefore struck at what the far-right considers to be the real enemy, the governing party, not the targets one might assume a far-right person would choose to attack.

And he did not attack actual members of the government but rather at members of the youth organisation; potential or future members of the government, not current members.

This might seem illogical, but it isn't when viewed through a far-right lens. The far-right thinks on a much broader canvas than most people. They are looking ahead generations and worrying about the migrations of whole races while your typical politician only cares about next week's headlines. The key mantra of the far-right is known as the "14 words": We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children. So Anders Breivik attacked the children of the enemy, because that is where his actions would have the most effect. Had he attacked the current prime minister he might have succeeded in killing him; but attacking as he did he may have killed ten future prime ministers, all of them traitors-in-waiting.

So Breivik acted in accordance with the far-right ideology, which he believes implicitly. He was logical and reasonable, in his own mind. He even believes his actions were proportionate. His people are threatened with extinction and expunging the traitor class which is facilitating the extinction is not an excessive response to the situation.

His aim was not an immediate change in Norwegian policy, but rather to attempt to steer the entire ship of history onto a different path. It will never be possible to say how his actions have affected the course of future events, but it is likely that the consequences will be significant. People who were going to hold important government positions are now dead. The future in Norway will be much changed.

And Breivik is self-aware enough to have said that he expects to be hated in his own time; he thinks it will be a hundred years before his actions are appreciated. He is certainly right about the hated in his own time part, but there probably won't be a Norway in a hundred years' time so the second part is less certain.

To come back to the original question: mad or bad? Clearly not mad in the sense of hearing voices or hallucinating, but perhaps mad in the sense of actually having the sociopathic personality necessary to carry out the killings. A normal person might agree that theoretically it would be a good idea to kill the next generation of traitors before they had a chance to grow up and start betraying their country, but really no normal person would be able to do it.

It is said that about one in a hundred people is actually a high-functioning sociopath. They are just like everyone else except that when dirty work needs doing they can do it, while everyone else is too squeamish. Normally they never trouble the law because they don't become convinced that mass murder is necessary.

In Breivik we have a conjunction of sociopathy and radicalised extremism.

Most psychopathic killers in prison are genuinely confused as to why anyone cares about what they did. For them murder has no more emotional load than stepping on a bug. The clever psychopaths have realised that people will object if they step on bugs so they don't - even though it would be nothing to them if they did.

This is abnormal of course. Therefore by definition it is mad - the majority is always sane. However, these people do not exist by chance. The evolutionary history of the human race must have required their presence. Bluntly, the tribes which did not contain a certain percentage of psychopaths did not survive. Possibly in historical terms when two tribes go to war the tribe with the greater proportion of psychopaths destroys the other.

But these "useful" psychopaths must always be in a small minority, otherwise the tribe will destroy itself. Cooperation and care for others is the right response in 99 out of 100 situations. Psychopaths are there for the 100th situation, generally war.

Breivik is a human weapon, programmable and capable of lethal action; primed and ready to carry out mayhem in the defence of his tribe. His condition is intended by nature, but unfortunately he was a weapon without a safety catch and he went off while still in the holster.

So in a technical sense Breivik is mad because his mental condition is different from the normal. But he cannot be cured because his condition is normal for him. (He could probably be de-radicalised but that is not the same thing. That is merely stepping down the weapon from "target locked" to an idle state. A new target could quite easily be programmed in.)

However the court will probably rule bad rather than mad. No-one wants to admit, indeed they probably do not realise, that we must harbour killers in our midst in order to survive. So call him bad and don't worry about the details. Ruling "mad" admits of the possibility that he might one day be cured; which would be inconvenient. Bad is tidiest.

Finally, it's worth bearing in mind that although we have some of these human weapons, the muslims have a lot more.

Friday, 13 April 2012

Sharia creep

The London Islamic Zone (LIZ to its friends) is creeping west. Just over the border in the Borough of Islington (LIZ is basically the boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Newham and Waltham Forest) lies the Metropolitan University of London, whose vice-chancellor (the overall boss man, for those not familiar with British universities, the actual chancellor being a purely ceremonial role) one Professor Malcolm Gillies, is proposing to designate some parts of the campus as no-alcohol and no-talk-about-sex areas. This is to make the University more muslim-friendly.

Met U is especially popular with female muslim students living inside the LIZ. This is because, as the Prof notes, many are taken to university by a close male relative; which indicates a hardline muslim attitude in the home. These female students are effectively prisoners allowed out for education on a day-release basis. Their families zealously guard their innocence, especially their complete innocence of the concepts of equality and female emancipation.

Only about 20% of the student body at Met U is muslim, but it seems the 80% must bend to accommodate the minority in this instance, at least according to the Prof.

Perhaps strangely though, no muslim has actually asked for these concessions to be made. The vice-chancellor has taken it upon himself to suggest them. When means the title of this post may be inappropriate - it's not sharia creeping here, it's the vice-chancellor being a creep!