Happy Butthurt Day

It is beyond scientific dispute that sea levels rises over recent years can be entirely attributed to the tsunami of lefty tears. I see no prospect of new development money being attracted to anywhere coastal anytime soon.

We get one of these days only once in a while, and it would be foolish not to enjoy it.

It would take a million monkeys with a million facebooks to sift and curate the best of the tsunami of pant-wetting that’s occuring right now. I’ll look forward to those with the time and money to do so bringing their best work.

Today, for one day only, the important thing about the UK’s next prime minister is that he has silly hair, and so does Trump, and what is it with guys with silly hair rising to the pinnacle of political office?

Image

After 3 years of Trump, the media’s template is already set… whole teams of people will be officially in charge of manufacturing outrage over every breath Boris takes. Perhaps better would be if those people learned to code, though, because after a quintillion boilerplate words written contra-Trump, a quick search and replace macro, and all of those stories will be able to be recycled with Boris’s particulars inserted as appropriate.

He gaffe-prone, a racist, he’s a sexist, a homophobe, and Islamophobe. He likes pineapple on his pizza. A national embarassment, an international pariah, he’s a troll… and his name sounds a bit… Russian.

I’ve made no secret of my overwhelming reservations about Boris as PM, but in the absence of my aforementioned ideal candidate, I think he’s the best chance we have got of at least enjoying the spectacle of politics over the coming months and years.

A word of warning though: recent history has shown the hysteria of the lefties that peaks on these days operates on a ratchet. The next level of stridency, militancy and absurdity is coming. Prepare to dig in your heels and never give an inch to their thuggery, charlatanry, effrontery, pettifogging, humourlessness and barefaced lies.

Laugh in their faces.

AJ

Advertisements

Nothing Ever Happens

Tommy Robinson has been sent back to prison for 9 months having been reconvicted on contempt of court charges. Speculation is rife as to what the future holds for the anti-rape-gang martyr.

The whole situation stinks. It is the archetypal travesty of justice. I won’t rehash all the facts and background here – it’s all out there via a simple internet search, though you will have to look beyond the mainstream media if you want anything approaching the truth, the unedited video recording of the so-called offence, and a better account than a litany of tendentious claims about Robinson’s supposed commitment to made-up leftist concepts of racism and islamophobia. You will need that rarest of treasures – an open and inquiring mind – otherwise you’ll be gulled by the weight of imbecilic pablum and lazy reheated opinions of conformist imbeciles and people whose income depends on pushing a particular fashionable narrative.

What I’m interested in is what happens next; what will the consequences be?

There is excited speculation in bar rooms and internet forums that Robinson’s death in custody would be the blue touchpaper that would set off God only know what… riots, race wars, revenge attacks against unrelated Muslims, subsequent reprisals and a spiral of civil disorder and violence.

I predict none of that.

Having been sentenced to 9 months, Robinson will be out on licence half way through. He probably will spend most of it in solitary, and it will be damaging to him, but he will survive it. He’s probably one of the mentally toughest, most courageous and resilient people walking this land.

And, after all, who would want to be the prison governor on whose watch this figurehead was seriously or fatally wounded, with the attendant risks of prison and civil disorder?

But let us suppose I’m wrong and that, by cock-up or conspiracy, Robinson leaves prison in a black bag.

Oh sure, a couple of dozen inarticulate knuckleheads will put the windows through on their nearest curry houses, and a handful of mosques will become bacon-magnets… nothing we haven’t seen before, but enough to have the media salivating at stories about the ‘far-right extremists’ in our midst.

The societal rage at this situation will be suppressed and sublimated as it has many times before in my lifetime. There is no tipping point or critical mass. The lid will simply be further tightened on the pressure cooker, and more layers of plating will be welded to the containing hulk by the media, politicians, judiciary, police, celebrity dregs and common-or-garden useful idiots.

Rallying support for any kind of action – even getting the truth out and jamming a jaws-of-life into the Overton window – via social media will be impossible with the advanced state of partisan censorship and collaboration between the elites of London and the elites of Silicon Valley.

It will be a damp squib, and any hope of the prevailing order being dented – let alone overturned – will be shown to be utterly fantastical.

You want to know what the long term outlook is? It is conformity. It is mediocrity. It is grey goo. No bang, all whimper. More laws, more taxes, more stifling bureacracy, more chaos, more cognitive dissonance, more injustice, more lies, more insidious redefinitions of long established words, more surveillance, more technological monitoring, more corruption.

We have already lost. Enjoy the fucking decline, and if you’re going down, take as many of the bastards with you as you can.

Still, never mind. Another pint, Bob? Who do you think will win Wimbledon?

AJ

Prelude to a Moral Battle Royale

Let me come straight to the point, then flesh out my thinking on the matter:

HPV (Human Papillomavirus) is a disease principally transmitted by unprotected sex, which can cause various cancers (often of the cervix or anus) years after the initial infection. The majority of consequent cancers are experienced by women, and gay men.

Girls in the UK have been vaccinated against HPV since 2008.

An HPV innoculation for boys is now ready to be introduced. The benefits will accrue 25% to the boy innoculated, and 75% to any female he couples with in the future. The risks associated with the innoculation drug are unknowable.

I predict that western governments will make this jab mandatory for boys, and those for and against it will both take to the streets. Not at first of course. It’ll start out as voluntary, then it’ll be opt-out, only then will it become mandatory after extensive pressure from sexual health advocates, and push-back from religious groups.

I hope at this stage in the grand opera of progressive authoritarian hegemony, you don’t automatically reject my prediction on knee-jerk grounds. The US National Institute of Health already looked into the implications of mandatory vaccination in 2010.

Let’s pull at some of the threads here.

Screen Shot 2019-07-10 at 15.31.11

More than 100,000 cases of cancer will be prevented under plans to give boys the HPV jab as well as girls, health officials have said.

Until now, only teenage girls have been given the free vaccine, with parental consent, which protects against cervical cancer.

From September, boys aged 12 and 13 will also be given the jab at school.

Giving boys the vaccine protects girls from the human papilloma virus (HPV), which is passed on through sexual contact. 

Okay, so far, we’re injecting 13 year old boys with a pharmaceutical cocktail, entirely for the benefit of those with cervixes. Where’s their 25% of the benefits?

Estimates from the University of Warwick suggest the vaccine will prevent 64,138 cervical cancers and 49,649 non-cervical cancers in the UK by 2058.  This will include 3,433 cases of penile cancer and 21,395 cases of head and neck cancer, such as throat cancer, in men.

Ah, there it is.

Now, it seems to me like this is an unprecedented situation. A BCG jab prevents the recipient from getting life-threatening tuberculosis. A measles jab supposedly maintains herd immunity and, in turn, protects the recipient and everyone else from a life-threatening epidemic. An HPV jab primarily protects other people (from the viewpoint of parents of boys), with a marginal potential benefit to the recipient.

Decision calculus when asked to have your children innoculated against measles or tuberculosis depends on the individual. If you believe there is no risk associated with vaccines, you’ll have your child jabbed without question. If you believe that there is a risk, you may decide that the risk of autism or whatever is subordinate to the risk of a measles epidemic or your kid getting tuberculosis, so you’ll reluctantly have your child jabbed. However, if you believe that the risk associated with the innoculation is unacceptable, you’ll not have your child jabbed, and he may well live a long and happy life without ever contracting measles or tuberculosis. And if he does ever contract those diseases, it will not be consequent to anything he has done that could ever be considered a moral matter, because those diseases are airborne.

So… what if you decide that the risk associated with innoculating your boys against HPV is unacceptable? There are three principal reasons to take this decision.

The first is if you decide the risks of the pharmaceutical cocktail having unforseen consequences to be unacceptable. This can be argued, and evidence can be exchanged, and conspiracy theories can be posited until the cows come home. It’s unresolvable.

The second reason is that you consider this innoculation to present a moral hazard: someone innoculated against HPV no longer has to consider this potential consequence of subjectively immoral behaviour.

It is the third reason, the new argument, that takes us into relatively uncharted territory: any risks associated with the vaccine are borne by the boy being innnoculated, while the benefits mostly accrue to other people.

Let’s just get a premise laid down at this juncture:

I’m not saying that there ARE any known risks associated with injecting children with miraculous cocktails of pharmacological wizardry. But what if there were, and they were being covered up or the seriousness and prevalence was being downplayed?

I’m not saying that’s definitely the case, but you cannot in good faith claim 100% confidence that the converse is true either.

Anyone who trusts scientists and the government and multi-billion dollar global drug companies and tech companies to be honest, impartial brokers of truth is an idiot. An idiot who doesn’t understand the crises in science with reproducibility and with the fact that falsification of theories – the life-blood of the scientific method – is strongly disincentivised when the theories have politically helpful and financially profitable consequences. An idiot who lacks the imagination to grasp the power and wealth that are at stake for those who control the supply of information, and the lengths to which the promises of power and wealth will drive people.

Now lets lay down another premise:

There are societies and cultures with religious foundations, who believe that to contract HPV is a shameful moral failing, because it is propagated by casual unprotected sex and disproportionately affects loose women and gay men.

I have a close Irish friend who survived cervical cancer when she was about 30. Her diagnosis, treatment and recovery all took place in London. She didn’t tell any of her Irish family about her diagnosis, and went through the entire ordeal alone and in silence, because of the stigma that was associated in Ireland with cervical cancer and the knowledge that it is often (but not always) caused by the HPV virus, which is often (but not always) caused by being a degenerate homosexual, or a slut.

Catholic Ireland is just one specific example of such a society, where the arguments about HPV vaccination have already been exercised in relation of vaccination of girls, USA is inevitably another, but it’s plausible that any traditional Christian or Muslim community would hold beliefs along these lines.

Today we have Muslim parents in the UK pushing back against the ‘No Outsiders’ programme in UK schools, which teaches very young children all about homosexuality, and that it’s more than okay to be this way.

This is a battle conservative Christians fought and lost in the UK 30 years ago. Their ‘thin end of the wedge’ argument was roundly mocked at the time, but it’s not a thin end anymore is it? It’s a big purple-veined chunk of Pride Month degeneracy rendered mandatory by government, schools, corporations , the media and the whole gamut of hysterical progressive cry-bullies.

We can be fairly sure, by the way, that this is matter is a moving feast, because the idea of innoculating boys in the UK was rejected in 2017 as ‘not cost effective‘ by the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. It behooves us to ask what’s changed, why and at the behest of whom.

What I didn’t realise when I opened this window is that the specific situation has been emergent in Australia for a few years now, since 2013 when they started vaccinating boys. A 2-minute search hasn’t turned up anyone kicking up a big stink about this, but the fat lady hasn’t sung yet, and signs are that the people of Australia are tiring of being bullied by Globohomo.

We also know that the subject of HPV vaccination is on the radar of people (women) who use language like this:

This paper examines Australia’s reification of gendered discourses of health, contagion and consent in those human papilloma virus (‘HPV’) vaccination programs. HPV vaccination programs and registers in Australia are usually based upon patriarchal gendered concepts of women, and particularly unchaste women, as irresponsible and unclean, potential reservoirs of disease who must be regulated and registered to protect both themselves and wider society from the harms of HPV contagion and cancer. Cervical cancer and HPV prevention schemes use law to write normative gendered expectations which oblige women to internalise a constant pre-illness risk state which casts their bodies as inherently unruly and pathological. These legislative and administrative schemes require women to become complicit with state- and self-surveillance to gain state-mediated health protections.

So let’s wait, stockpile the popcorn and watch, as arguments are made as to why conservative Christians and Muslims should vaccinate their sons against the consequences of immoral, sexually-licentious behaviour. Why these parents’ wishes should be disregarded, mocked, belittled, over-ridden and finally criminalised. Children taken by social services because their parents have moral scruples.

And let’s be under no illusion about what’s at stake here. The social contract will be waved at parents, children will face denial of their bodily autonomy, and mandatory pharmacological intervention in the name of all that is progressive will be expected to prevail in the name of all that is just and moral. To refuse you have your boy-child shot with a cocktail of drugs will be framed as an infringement of, and affront to, the rights of women and gays.

Watch this space.

AJ

 

All Pie left behind…

For a while, Jonathan Pie was a hoot. That was while Andrew Doyle was involved in writing for him. Now though, all pretence of ‘giving it out to all sides’ has been dropped, and Pie is now just another pile of narrow-minded leftie shite, in defiance of many words of derision that were previously uttered by Pie himself about swivel-eyed progressives who brought Trump and Brexit on themselves.

So the torch of common-sense and the bleeding-obvious must be passed to a new man, and Alistair Williams is that man.

His more or less daily bulletins are spot on. Here is his latest:

Though you may first have heard of him thanks to his Burgerking Brexit metaphor which was masterful.

There are a few hours of his material on his YT channel, and a decent interview with him (where I originally learned of him) on the New Culture FOrum’s YT channel.

Enjoy. I’ll be going to see him live when I next get the opportunity.

AJ

Beware of classicists bearing codswallop

Boris says he wants to roll back the nanny state.

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 11.02.31

[pastebin]

It’s a neat trick, and swathes of natural conservatives will be delighted. Until they look at the small print. Then they will realise that they’ve been had.

Boris Johnson will end the “continuing creep of the nanny state” if he becomes prime minister, starting with a review of so-called “sin taxes” on sugary, salty and fatty foods.

The former foreign secretary wants to reverse the interventionist policies pursued by Theresa May and David Cameron in favour of a more liberal agenda.

He believes that taxes on less healthy foods “clobber those who can least afford it” and should be halted unless there is clear evidence that they work.

In what he says, he is narrowly correct – sin taxes are regressive. They have no effect on affluent people, and far far more impact on people with smaller incomes.

But his fine words butter no parsnips, I’m afraid.

There is a significant gulf between what I consider to be the scope of the nanny state, and the things that Boris looks to be targeting. His tantalising promise is merely that he would be ‘starting with’ taxes on food that tastes of anything. But the reach of the nanny state is like that of a fibrous abdominal tumour that has wended its way around all the vital internal organs that keep us living.

It is everything from 5-a-day campaigns, to the way you are talked to by doctors in the NHS if you consume even the published allowance of alcohol. When I was in hospital, the pharmacist visited my bed to understand my needs. He asked my how much I drink, and I said about 20-25 units a week. This pasty-faced, pudgy millenial fuck pursed his lips and said “would you like me to send someone you can talk to about that?”

In any case, much of the nanny state is administered well outside of the Prime Minister’s sphere of influence. Do you imagine Boris is going to be able to have Action on Smoking & Health (ASH) disbanded? What would lifelong chugger and hector Deborah Arnott do then? And Action on Salt, which is a band of well funded academics? And Action on Sugar, which is the same people as Action on Salt?

Do you imagine that the sptefully designed smoking ban will be relaxed to allow businessmen to choose whether they cater to a smoking crowd or a non-smoking crowd, or find enterprising ways to accomodate both? Don’t be surprised, by the way, if we end up with legalised weed, and the same absurd situation that you get in Amsterdam, where you can only smoke weed inside the coffeeshops, but you can only smoke tobacco outside, making the traditional joint impossible, and the tendency to over-do the high-strength weed all the more present.

Do you think he’s going to be able to roll back the crazy legal environment in which no-one is held responsible for their actions, and corporations are cash cows for lawyers and their grasping indolent clients?

Perhaps he’ll stop the ever-lowering speed limits, ditch the cash-cow speed cameras, and end the perpetual emphasis on safety uber alles? Will the BRAKE charity be shut down, having been run for 24 years by deluded do-gooding scold Mary Williams who has lobbied continuously for new measures to impede motorists and promote no-one dying ever, especially not from their own stupidity?

Do you suppose that a food industry that has invested billions in technologies and techniques to conform with prevailing standards set by nanny, are just going to abandon these, and along with them, reject the government’s gift of being able to reduce portion sizes while still charging the same price?

There are plenty more examples of Nanny Statism here, that Boris will find himself unwilling or unable to undermine.

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 11.31.29

So what’s he going to do? Hold a consultation where only those with a vested interest in making money and sticking their beaks in people’s lives actually get a meaningful say? I should think that will be the extent of it. I find it unlikely that he’ll opt for what is the only strategic way to put the genie back in the bottle, which is to banish women – font of every last bit of this egregious meddling – from all positions of public influence.

And let us not forget that while Boris was the mayor of London, he implemented a number of policies straight out of Nanny’s big book of bullying. City Hall became the first government building to have its own sugar tax, and consumption of alcohol was banned on the Transport for London network.

At the helm, Boris is clearly quite happy to grease the squeaky wheel for a quiet life, and there is no squeakier wheel than those posessed of the puritanical urge to make us into greyer, duller, more malleable and conformist people, and there’s no grease like that supplied by corporate lobbyists, who love regulations that hurt their smaller competitors.

At least if we assume that every word out of Boris’ mouth is utter bollocks, there is the faintest sliver of a chance that we will at some point be pleasantly, if fleetingly, surprised. On the other hand, anyone stupid enough to take him at his word has clearly not been paying attention for the last 20 years, to him or to the batallions of malignant do-gooders that have woven themself into the national fabric.

That he is our great white hope is a depressing state of affairs.

AJ