Thursday, 3 May 2018

The Voter ID Controversy — What Controversy?

Today I voted in the local election. The card that came through my door said

YOU MUST BRING ID TO VOTE
You will not be able to vote unless
you show ID to polling station staff

I thought this provision was a new national requirement but apparently it is a pilot scheme being tried out in a few areas. It is said to have caused chaos. I showed my NUJ card which was accepted, presumably some forms of identification were not.

I can’t say there is a big problem in the UK of duplicity at the ballot box, almost invariably that comes after the votes have been cast and the politicians have taken power. I recall two cases - one involving Orthodox Jews, and another Moslems. Unlike their secular brethren the JINOs, the ultra-Orthodox never cause any trouble in this country, and this was purely a matter of local politics. The Moslem voter fraud was somewhat bigger but was still local, and then there was of course that business in Tower Hamlets involving Lutfur Rahman. In the United States though it is all about racism. How could it be anything else?

The reality is that the Democrats are opposed to voter ID laws because there is massive fraud in the system including in particular illegal immigrants voting, and all this fraud benefits the Democrats. The claim that blacks and other legitimate minorities are less likely than whites to carry ID is utterly pathetic. It is virtually impossible to conduct any transaction in any Western nation without some sort of ID, and most of us carry ID routinely, if only a bank card.

Of course, we should all oppose the ever encroaching Orwellian state, including mandatory ID and checks on everything we do, but proving you are who say you are when you vote is far from Orwellian, and only unreasonable people would not consider it reasonable.

Tuesday, 20 March 2018

Muhammad & Aisha - And Mr Robinson

Tommy Robinson is an idiot, let’s be absolutely clear about that. Yes, the persecution he has suffered at the hands of Britain’s increasingly politically correct police has been disgraceful, but the British police have always been arseholes, and even idiots can suffer unwarranted persecution.

Like countless millions of other white Britons, Robinson is appalled by what he sees as the colonisation of his country and the attack on white, British, and especially English, culture. The vast majority of whites agree with him, and that in spite of decades of left wing brainwashing and at times naked tyranny. The big difference is, unlike him, they are afraid to put their heads about the parapet, and with good reason.

Before proceeding any further, it should be noted this sentiment is unique to neither the English nor to whites in general. The first white colonisers of the American continent faced the same resentment from the natives; the verdict of history is that this resentment was justified, certainly for Native Americans . There are those who would gladly see the White Man go the same way as the Red Man, and they make no secret of it, but these conspirators - for want of a better word - are not followers of Islam. Which brings us to Muhammad and Aisha. All over the Internet, the reader will find claims that the founder of Islam was a paedophile who had sex with a 9 year old girl. Today, that equates with rape in anyone’s language, the girl being far too young to consent. Dedicated enemies of Islam, not all of them with white skins, parrot this mantra incessantly, and on occasion, so has Robinson. But he goes much further than that, equating this alleged condoning of child rape with the grooming gang scandal, which like so many others he insists are the result of Islamic grooming gangs.

Here is the great man spouting off to Al Jazeera about how Muhammad married a 6 year old girl and raped her when she was 9. This clip was uploaded to YouTube on February 8, 2016, the day after it was recorded. So what are the facts, and the context?

To begin with, although unlike Jesus of Nazareth there is no doubt Muhammad existed, there are no contemporaneous biographies or other writings about his life, as historian Tom Holland points out. This means that even if one accepts the integrity of the Qur’an (not necessarily its validity), there must be serious questions about the Hadith, and about The Prophet himself. Recognising that the age of Aisha could be a problem in the modern world, some Islamic scholars have claimed she was much older, perhaps nineteen, when her marriage to Muhammad was consumated. The thought of a man in his fifties having sex with a much younger woman, much less a teenager of legal age, still causes revulsion for many people, although older men can dream! Others, like white convert Jonathan Brown, see no problem. Let us though look at the context of these claims of paedophilia.

What was the age of consent for cavemen, when our barely human ancestors first came down from the trees? That is an absurd question; throughout most of history there was no age of consent as such. Although the Bible tells us the years of Man are three score and ten, most people didn’t live anything like that long. It is so easy for decadent Westerners sitting in their centrally heated or air-conditioned living rooms to forget this. Not only was life indescribably hard for most people, even the very wealthy were not free from medical misery. Today, a person who develops appendicitis will be treated and make a full recovery provided it is diagnosed in time. The first recorded appendectomy was performed in 1735, but even two hundred years ago, appendicitis was a death sentence. So was birth for many women. Queen Victoria, who died in 1901, gave birth to nine children, all of whom survived, but earlier queens were not so lucky. Catherine of Aragon, the consort of Henry VIII, became pregnant seven times. Her daughter Mary became Queen of England but died aged 42. All her other babies were either stillborn or died in infancy.

In ancient times, social norms developed to protect fertile women and the young, without whom the tribe would not survive. This meant that as soon as girls achieved puberty, they had come of age. To put it crudely: When they’re old enough to bleed, they’re old enough to breed.

Puberty is an individual thing, but generally girls go through it two years before boys. The youngest recorded birth in history was of a Peruvian girl at the age of five years, seven months, twenty-one days, which seems barely credible. This was in 1933, and at the time of writing she is believed to still be alive. There have been nine year olds who gave birth, including one in Britain (1881), but leaving aside the depravity of men who would even consider perpetrating such monstrous acts as the rape of such a young child, these are truly exceptional cases, so we can almost certainly rule out the claim that Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was nine, especially as this would have required the complicity of both her parents.

Whenever the idea of an age of consent came about, it did not become law in England until 1275 with the Statute of Westminster, which set it at 12. By the 1870s, it had risen to 13, but in 1885, the campaigning journalist W.T. Stead started what has been called a moral panic about the sexual abuse of underage girls in London, and this led to the age of consent being raised to 16, which it remains to this day, in spite of attempts to lower it, including by the pernicious homosexual lobby.

Returning to England, young marriages were not only permitted but were encouraged. At the higher levels of society, they were also arranged. Before Henry VIII, Catherine of Aragon was married to his brother, Arthur, who at 15 was slightly younger than her. He died a few months later, and seven years later she married the even younger Henry, but the first marriage had been planned since Arthur was three. The father of Arthur and Henry was Henry VII; his mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, was married as an infant to John de la Pole. This marriage was dissolved, and at the age of 12 she married Henry’s father, Edmund Tudor, who was twice her age. Later that year she was a heavily pregnant, 13 year old widow. It is in this context that the marriage of Muhammad and Aisha must be viewed. As far as the historical record can be relied upon, the marriage was successful, regardless of his first wife and of the other nine he is said to have taken.

Tommy Robinson cannot be unaware of any of this. Although at times he has the demeanour of a street thug, he is a highly intelligent individual who claims not only to have read the Qur’an but to have studied Islam, yet still he pushes this absurd Gates of Vienna narrative about the threat to Western civilisation. This is too easy to punch full of holes, but we will all the same. As the aforementioned Tom Holland has pointed out in his speeches, the traditional view of the jihadi is of converting the infidels with a Qur’an in one hand and a sword in the other, adding that any fanatic who tried to do this would fall off his camel. Nevertheless, the image is one that is used by Islamists as much as by Islamophobes, and for the same reason: to portray Islam as an ineluctable force striking terror into the heart of all before it. But again as Holland points out, the evidence is that rather than falling to the Mohammedans, the Roman Empire in the East evolved in much the same way as it did in the West, where instead it embraced Christianity.

Relations between the Islamic world and the Western world were actually rather good throughout most of history, even after the betrayal of the Arabs with the 1917 Balfour Declaration. A stellar example of this was the great Irish famine of 1847-52. Following the Islamic pillar of zakat, the idealistic young Sultan Khaleefah Abdul-Majid I offered a donation of £10,000 to assist Irish farmers.

According to the Times of Febuary 27, 1845, page 5, in 1844, the average price of wheat was 7s 7d (about 38p) per bushel. As a bushel of wheat will produce around 42 loaves of bread, that sum would have paid for a shade over 1.1 million loaves, a token donation to combat a massive problem, but a very generous token neverthless. The reaction of the Great White Queen was amazing. At that time, Victoria was very likely the richest woman in the world. She had donated £2,000 of her personal fortune to ease the famine, but could not (in her mind) be seen to donate less than a foreigner and a mere Turk at that, but rather than increase her donation, she insisted he reduce his. The Sultan also sent five ships of food, which the British Government attempted to block. This is the Islamic menace?

It is well documented that the first UK mosques were established by white converts in 1889, and that the first true English translation of the Qur’an was published by another white convert, in 1930. In fact, Islam has been in these islands longer than the Mormon “religion” has been in existence, and in spite of the shabby treatment of the Arabs from the Balfour Declaration down to the nakhbah and the Intifadas, Islamist terror did not raise its ugly head in the UK until the 7/7 outrages of 2005. The 1988 Lockerbie bombing and the handful of other Middle East linked terror attacks cannot be described as Islamist in any meaningful sense of the word. So why has England in particular become a magnet for Islamist terror in recent years?

As all but the wilfully blind must acknoweldge, Islam is no more responsible for the current wave of terror than was Catholicism for the Provisional IRA, or the Gunpowder Plot for that matter. The roots of modern Islamist terror lie not with religion but with political and economic grievances, real and imagined, that are tacked onto it. The country with the world’s largest Islamic population is Indonesia; only a handful of terror attacks there have been directed against whites (Australians). So why does Robinson and why do so many people like him direct their anger at Islam?

It is partly due to the aforementioned grooming gangs, but these are not Islamic gangs. As former Home Secretary Jack Straw pointed out many years ago, the problem is there are some men “of Pakistani heritage” who regard young white girls as “easy meat”. Straw’s comments were branded racist at the time - bore, bore - but was he wrong?

Robinson and others have also campaigned against what they see as creeping shariah, but how does shariah deal with rape, real rape? In June 2012, Iran publicly hanged four men convicted of aggravated rape. In 2014, Saudi Arabia executed a man who kidnapped and sexually violated a young boy. How many “Islamic” grooming gangs would there be in Britain under a shariah government?

If Robinson’s crusade against Islam started with a genuine but misguided grievance, it has now expanded into something far more sinister. Predictably, when he started the so-called English Defence League back in 2009, he was condemned as a Nazi. Not realising how futile was attempting to dodge this ludicrous charge, he went out of his way to recruit Jewish, black, and even homosexual members. Homosexuality is a far greater threat to Western indeed all civilisations than a few jihadis. As if that still wasn’t enough, Robinson decided to go all the way in attempting to purge the media smear of anti-Semitism by accepting an invitation from a Zionist to visit Israel, even posing with the IDF, on a tank holding a machine gun. He has also made common cause with American Zionist Pamela Geller, a woman who is so far off the planet she has even been condemned by the ADL, an organisation that smears all critics of Israel and Organised Jewry as anti-Semites.
Robinson with Pamela Geller - spot the goy

So what is really going on here? The short answer is that Robinson has become a hasbara, not only that, he has fallen for the garbage about gallant little Israel being the guardian of Western civilisation, the new Gates of Vienna. He and others on the so-called far right have made common cause with the Zionists simply because they are white. This wouldn’t be half so tragic if Zionist Jews had not been in the forefront of the destruction of free speech on race issues and enthusiastic promoters of both non-white immigration into the West and forced race-mixing. Earlier this month, Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding of Britain First were sentenced to 36 weeks and 18 weeks respectively for “harassing” Moslems by the same Government that is complicit in the murderous American drone programme that has killed hundreds and maimed thousands of innocent Moslems in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.

So the British Government, more specifically the globalists, are not friends of Moslems anymore than they are of blacks, or Jews for that matter. Rather they want everyone to conform so they can rule over us. Way back in the 1990s, David Icke suggested what they want is “a microchipped population connected to a global computer.”

Icke became a laughing stock on account of such pronouncements, when he wasn’t being denounced as an anti-Semite, but he sounds saner with each passing year. In fact, Icke was far from the first person to postulate the machinations of the global elite. Leaving aside so-called conspiracy theories about the Order of the Illuminati (which did exist), and other, far more way out stuff, Professor Quigley wrote about it en passant in his magnum opus, see in particular page 980 of the Second Edition.

Technology aside, Moslems are being brainwashed the same way as the rest of the goyim. And the non-goyim. Is it conspiracy, coincidence or simply degeneracy that every major soap opera must now have its own dysfunctional non-white family, and that Moslems in particular are shown drinking alcohol and even engaging in perverted sex as in the sickening EastEnders storyline of a few years ago? This sickness has jumped from the boob tube to reality in the persona of London’s first so-called Moslem mayor. Here is Sadiq Khan’s voting record on so-called gay rights. He has also endorsed feminist claptrap about the mythical gender pay gap. According to Robinson, Khan is not to be trusted, he is some kind of Trojan horse for the great Islamic conspiracy. Mushallah!

Monday, 5 February 2018

Never Explain Insurance To A Moron

Nor to a woman who is clearly not right in the head, whatever her other faults.

The barely readable missive below arrived this morning in response to, well, the young woman concerned has been running a campaign including a petition over what she calls discrimination against people who are mentally ill. Yes Dr Szasz, I know there is no such thing as mental illness, but this head case does not. Queen E was narked she couldn’t get travel insurance for the regular price, that only a handful of companies would provide any such insurance anyway, and these charged up to twenty times as much as normal.

First though, let me dispose of the Queen E moniker. This woman has no class, she is less like the real Queen E than her sister, the late Princess Margaret, although I doubt she has yet got round to shagging Mick Jagger.

As I tried to explain to Queen E patiently, time and time again, an insurance company is in business to make a profit. It does this by taking in more money than it pays out. Insurance is something people buy hoping they will never need. Ever bought an umbrella? Sure you have. Some insurance is mandatory; driving without insurance is a very serious offence. Insurance companies use people called actuaries to calculate the risk involved in insuring people, buildings, etc. This includes life assurance. Obviously, calculating when a particular person will die is not possible, but in a group of X thousands of people chosen by various criteria - especially age - it is likely that a certain number will be dead in a set period of years.

Clearly, in the absence of special circumstances, men aged 60-65 will die before a similar group of men aged 30-35. And just as clearly, a group of women who are not right in the head or have other negative characteristics, will be more likely to be taken ill on holiday, or in Queen E’s case to be arrested, than a similar group of normal women. Just as it is not possible to predict when a particular individual will die, so it is not possible to make specific predictions about Queen E. Therefore she will be insured not on the same basis as an ordinary woman but on the same basis as a group of mental defectives.

She and her supporters can whine and wail and sign petitions galore about the evils of discrimination, but no insurance company worthy of the name will buckle to them. Not if it wants to stay in business.

Monday, 22 January 2018

Sound Advice Is Not Victim Blaming

Three days ago, the cyber version of my local freesheet reported on the sexual assault of a 13 year old girl. As sexual assaults go it was not that serious - try telling that to the judge - there is no suggestion she was raped, and appears to have simply been fondled. As you might suspect, the police are looking into this as a priority. Although details are virtually non-existent, the paper reports this assault took place on a Saturday morning, at 3.50am.

Unsurprisingly, a number of readers have commented on this report, the consensus being what the fuck was a thirteen year old doing out alone at this time of the morning? Nobody blamed the girl for this assault, but the parents, that is a different matter. Would you allow your thirteen year old daughter, or son, out alone at that time of night/day? If you answer yes, then clearly you are equally unfit to be a parent. Yes, the person responsible for whatever happened to this child is first and foremost our as yet unidentified assailant, but are the parents not responsible?

Now transfer this to a woman who is out drinking, perhaps too much, is she not responsible if she gets into a car with a man she doesn’t know or trust? Is she not responsible if she gets drunk out of her mind and wakes up next to a stranger without remembering or claiming not to remember having consented to sex ? Are the police and hospital A&E departments victim blaming when they advise women not to act so? According to the sisterhood they are, but women should not put themselves in that position, and the same applies to men who might just find themselves falsely accused six months or six years down the line in the current insane climate.

Tuesday, 16 January 2018

Me Times Two

December 20: I arrive in Humanities 1 from the Newsroom just before 14.15 and ask for my books. The assistant gives me a pile in a foreign language and says I have more. Would I like those too?

These aren’t mine, I say. Would you believe they were for a different A. Baron? And there was me thinking I was unique.

Actually, it’s amazing how often this sort of thing happens. There are two journalists named Duncan Campbell, two named Jill Dick, and two named Matthew Kalman. And let’s not forget Alexander Baron (1917-99), the one who was merely famous rather than notorious!

Sunday, 7 January 2018

Notes From A Contrarian

My adoptive mother was not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and that is being diplomatic, but she was right about one thing: I would argue black is white, she would tell me. I’ve always gone against the grain, and still do out of habit, but I never go public until I am absolutely certain. Yes, we are surrounded by lies, bombarded by them constantly: religion, spirit mediumship, political propaganda, and in this supposedly enlightened age by all manner of chimeras such as sexism, homophobia, and even microaggressions. But, and this is a very big but, leaving aside argumentum ad antiquitatum, if an idea, taboo, belief, shibboleth, law...has been around for a long time, there is usually a reason for it, and more often than not a good reason.

Don’t buck the status quo just because, and when you are wrong, admit it. When you have been duped, admit it, as soon as you realise it. Throughout history some incredibly intelligent people have been fooled by con-men and shakedown artists; there is no shame in admitting you have been conned, and if you don’t, you may waste the rest of your life promoting some ridiculous idea or lost cause.

Thursday, 4 January 2018

The Further Decline Of Trafalgar Square

Wow, it gets worse! No screens or music like in previous years, and even smaller crowds. Down, down, down. So small in fact that there was never any problem getting in and out. The fountains were of course boarded up as usual, even more so, and it was so low key that there was no meaningful security. Yeah, there were police and stewards; on the way back at Embankment Station there were police armed with automatic weapons, but it was clear that no suicide bombers were expected, and the pickpockets must have been extremely disappointed.

True, there was a spectacular firework display at midnight that was clearly visible, but when you’ve said that, you’ve said it all. Even worse for me were the travel arrangements. I ended up taking the Underground to Balham then a train to East Croydon, upon boarding of which I decided to get off at Streatham Common, whereupon I found a Morley’s Chicken where I demolished an extremely nourishing bargain basement meal before a long walk towards Crystal Palace when my luck changed, and with two bus rides I was home some time after 3am.

Not sure what I’ll be doing next year but probably not Trafalgar Square as it stands. That is assuming I have not departed this Earth.