Monday, December 26, 2016

Dark Red in Aussie Greens
 Left Renewal issued a statement of principles that includes the "rejection of the state's legitimacy".
"We believe . . . that capitalism is a violent and antagonistic relation between workers, and those who exploit them. As workers, whether or not we are waged, we experience perpetual violence and that this violence must be brought to an end. We therefore fight to bring about the end of capitalism," it states.
"Capitalism depends upon violent and authoritarian divisions within the working class, such as elitism, sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, religious sectarianism, and ableism (among others). It is only with the abolition of these authoritarian relations that we will be able to create a thriving movement capable of transforming society and so must challenge these wherever we encounter it." Left Renewal claims "Australia is based upon an act of genocide which exists within a broader framework of global imperialism".
Despite the party's position against factionalism, members of Left Renewal will be bound to factional discipline.
"As advocates of grassroots democracy, we believe in . . . a degree of tactical unity in order to have real collective influence in the society that we live in. Once a decision has been taken by our organisation in a participatory democratic fashion, it is required by members that they respect, implement and where necessary, bind on the organisation's democratic decisions. In unity is strength," the statement of principles says.

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Cologne and few prosecutions?

So the police and prosecutors for whatever reason just close the case.
Die Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg stellte die Ermittlungen ein, schrieb dem Opfer: „Es ist durchaus denkbar, dass der junge Mann Ihnen auf diese Weise sein Interesse an Ihnen mitteilen wollte.”
The Oldenburg prosecutor discontinued the investigation, wrote the victim: “It is quite possible that the young man wanted to be notified in this way be interested in you.”
One may have to use google translate.
And another reason why these crimes are not investigated, by the head of police.
Holger Munch, president of Germany’s Federal Police, said: “There is a connection between the emergence of this phenomenon and the rapid migration in 2015.”
He added many of those responsible for the sex attacks would probably escape justice because of limited CCTV footage and the fact many were masked.
He said: “We have to presume that many of these crimes will never be fully investigated.”
The prosecutor Ulrich Bremer says you are wrong
Cologne’s public prosecutor Ulrich Bremer said only three of the suspects had recently arrived in Germany. The rest were of Algerian, Tunisian or Moroccan origin, while three were German citizens. According to the report, he also said that of 1,054 complaints received 600 were connected to theft rather than a sexual offence.
However, Bremen denied the reports the following day as “total nonsense,” telling Associated Press that “the overwhelming majority of persons fall into the general category of refugees.” According to AP, Bremer said 73 suspects have been identified so far that include 30 Moroccan nationals, 27 Algerians, four Iraqis, three Germans, three Syrians, three Tunisians, and one each from Libya, Iran, and Montenegro. A total of 1,075 criminal complaints have been filed, including 467 alleging crimes of a sexual nature ranging from harassment to rape. Twelve of the 73 suspects are linked to sexual crimes, though only one of those—a Moroccan asylum-seeker who entered Germany in November—is in custody, he said.
Doubtlessly there is an example of a “native” German raping, but the sheer numbers are totally opposite in fact on the Cologne situation, besides the politicized police, and keeping things quiet.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Retaining Culture & Definition?

Thursday, October 20, 2016

USA Media and politics interweaving

about the US Media and political culture I found this comment, which concisely (and sadly) sums up what Washington D.C. has become:
In this world, there are Bill and Hillary, the Podesta brothers, Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner, Christiane Amanpour and Jamie Rubin, Samantha Power and Cass Sunstein, Andrea Mitchell and Alan Greenspan, and on and on. Jorge Ramos goes after Trump; his daughter works for Hillary; and his boss at Univision badgers the Clinton campaign to stay lax on open borders — the lifeblood that nourishes his non-English-speaking money machine.
George Stephanopoulos, who helped run the Clinton campaign and White House, and who as a debate moderator obsessed over Mitt Romney’s answers to abortion hypotheticals, is the disinterested ABC News chief anchor.
CNN vice president Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton’s former deputy secretary at the State Department Tom Nides (now of Morgan Stanley) — suggesting “The Clinton News Network” is not really a right-wing joke.
Former ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, a — pre-Benghazi — regular on the Sunday talk shows.
CBS president David Rhodes is the sibling of aspiring novelist Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for “strategic communications and Speechwriting,” whatever that fictive title means.
ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman married former White House press secretary Jay Carney (now senior vice president for “worldwide corporate affairs” at Amazon: not just “corporate affairs” or “worldwide affairs” but “worldwide corporate affairs”). And on and on.
These nice people report on each other. They praise each other, award each other, make money together, and bristle with each other when they are collectively and pejoratively dubbed the “elites.”
[I would figure there is a republican version too]

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Religious Authority or just Man's law?


Sure Fletch there are black men and white women who happily subordinate their world view to the inheritance of the Christian regime.
And those who do not are the ruin of that civilisation, due to their secular tolerance for immorality – end of enforcement of godly morality in law.
One problem, the sermon on the mount was an appeal to end religious authority in law, and let faith guide the personal behaviour/ethical standard.


One problem, the sermon on the mount was an appeal to end religious authority in law, and let faith guide the personal behaviour/ethical standard.
I don’t think so. If we each have our own personal faith and ethical standards and yours differs from mine then whose should we appeal to? The law is already faith-based in a way (the law against murder is based on the sixth commandment). I once read an ex-atheist Christian challenging some people on an atheist forum, and an atheist questioned why murder should be wrong. The Christian replied that there really isn’t a reason, apart from God saying that it is wrong.
Here is the interesting exchange (Christian ex-atheist answers in bold) –
Can I ask a really silly question?
You state that divine authority is needed in order to provide a logical basis for morality. That’s fine, many other people have made this claim, too.
So, why do we need morals?
We don’t.
I’m completely serious here. For example, can you provide a single reason why murder is wrong other than “God said so”?
No, I can’t.
The reason I ask is that your statement seems to imply that you consider a logical moral value system to be a good thing – but you also seem to think that the definition of “good” relies completely and solely on the existance of God. This leaves me wondering what actually is your logical and rational basis for deciding that a logical moral system would be a good thing.
I never make the claim that a logical moral value system is a good thing. I simply state that without divine authority, we have no logical basis for the promotion of any value system, no matter what we think of that system. I’m not so much concerned with the definition of ‘good’ as I am with an objective standard. The standard of morality cannot have an objective reality without divine authority.
As an example, many people consider “thou shalt not kill” to be a good commandment, but are completely unable to rationalise why they think that. Can you answer this question? “God said so” may be a valid reason why you should obey – at least assuming God is real – but is there any other reason at all why this should considered to be a good commandment?
There is no other reason why this should be considered to be a good commandment. None. Zilch. Try to logical prove that killing is morally wrong. You will fail. Other than the reality of a god who declares killing to be morally wrong, there is no logically compelling reason for us to believe it is wrong.
Oddly, if you do answer this question, you’ll have to do so by justifying a moral value without reference to God, which you’ve claimed you can’t do. (Before you get offended, I actually suspect you can answer this question – which is pretty much my point. If you have to, prove me wrong by saying you still don’t know why murder is wrong, but I do hope you’re a better person than that.)
Oh my! No, you have certainly mistaken me for someone else. I really have no other reason to logically believe that murder is wrong. I could be honest and say that it emotionally upsets me, but I always choose reason over my emotions. If our lives have no inherent purpose or value, we are only kidding ourselves when we establish the facade of morality.
Go ahead. Logically prove to me that murder is wrong..
Why (assuming you do) do you now believe people are different to termites? is there any reason other than “the Bible says so” or “God says so” ?
If we are designed and loved by a god, we have inherent purpose and value as opposed to self-assigned, imaginary purpose and value.


That is total crap .
We dont murder because we dont want to be murdered .
The golden rule and the basis for morality.
do unto others as you have them do unto you.
No that rule is not Christendoms possession it is found in many different cultures .
[except there is one major religion that does not follow  the "golden rule"]


“If we each have our own personal faith and ethical standards and yours differs from mine then whose should we appeal to?”
No one, simply delineate personal morality from law – personal morality where there is consent, law where there is no consent. Where there is no consent then there is law.
Placing law into areas where there is consent is interference, imposed morality one on another.
What motivates personal morality, whether Godfaith code or mutual respect citizenship (in our dominion) is besides the point or should be.


SPC, yes but what about if you run across a culture where killing is very much acceptable and their law allows it. Your personal morality accounts for nothing in that case. What is law, then, if not the legislation of moral opinions? Every time a law is made, it becomes an imposition of one group’s opinion upon another’s.
When we throw a person in jail because he has robbed a house, he is being imprisoned because of another man’s opinion that stealing is wrong. Once again, the opinion in question concerns a subjective reality and is, therefore, purely subjective and a matter of preference. Our entire justice system becomes illusory. In order for our justice system to have credibility, it has to be based on an authority that exceeds the mere opinion of men. But with a God who establishes morality as an objective reality, we are no longer dealing with the opinions of man’s preference, but the opinions of men concerning God’s preference.


No one consents to being murdered or stolen from.
Your refusal to acknowledge the role of consent in modern state law making, is simply because of a preference to (and habit of apology for this) impose God morality in law, in that you apologise for those Jews and those Moslems who (would) do the same.

Friday, October 7, 2016

Heaven Hell versions and where is desire? Justice?

Dialogues With The Devil, Taylor Caldwell, 1967, there seem to a series of Dialogues
Written by Lucifer to his brother, Michael:

Certainly, in hell there is no free will, for the damned relinquished it on their worlds. This torment has been denied them by me. Therefore, they cannot will to climb to Heaven by self-denial, by contemplation, by worship, by dedication, by acts of faith and charity. These attributes shriveled in them during their lives, or were rejected scornfully by them in moods of risible sophistications. They can desire to possess them now, but I would keep them safe and warm, as Our Father never kept them so! So, they can will nothing. They can only accept the pleasures -and the pains – I bestow on them.

In Heaven, however, free will is fully released. The ability to reject, to deny, remains with archangels, angels and the souls of the saved. The gift of repudiation is still with them and the possibility of disobedience. Is that not most frightful? What insecurity! What danger! My damned remain with me in eternal slavery because in life they desired only safety, and lacked the fire of adventure, though, God knows, they protested enough on their worlds! But what did they protest? Inequality, which is the variety of God. Instability, which is the light of the universes. Uneasiness of mind, which is the soul of philosophy. Apparent injustices, which are the goad of the spirit. Vulnerability to life and other men, which is a charge to become invulnerable through Faith in God. The presence of suffering or misfortune – but these are a call for the soul to put on armor and serenity. They demanded of their rulers that they remain in constant cocoons, silky and guarded by earthly authority. They did not ask for wings to soar into the sunlight, and the ominous threats of full existence. They rejected freedom for hell. Certainly, they cried for freedom on their worlds, but it was freedom only to live happily without the freedom to be divinely unhappy.

I have satisfied all these lusts of men. Strange, is it not, that my hells, though the ultimate success of the dreams of men, are filled with weeping? And strange, is it not, that they still do not believe in the existence of God? But then, they never did; they believed only in me. They cannot will to believe in God. They see absolute reality about them now, which was their will in life. I will not pretend that I do not understand them, for was it not I who promised them all without work and without striving?

But lately I asked of a newly descended soul which had much acclaim on Terra: “What was your greatest desire on your world, you who were applauded by rulers and admired by your fellowmen?”

He replied, “Justice for all,” and put on a very righteous expression.

That was admirable, for who does not admire justice, even I? But I probed him. He declared that in his earthly view all men deserved what all other men possessed, whether worthy or not. “They are men, so they are equal, and being born they have a right to the fruits of the world, no matter the condition of their birth or the content of their minds, or their capacities.” I conducted him through the pleasures of my hell and he was delighted that no soul was lesser in riches than another, and that every soul had access to my banquets and my palaces, no soul was distinguishable from another, none possessed what another did not possess. Every desire was immediately gratified, he discovered. He smiled about him joyfully. He said, “Here, justice is attained!”

Then he saw that no face was joyful, however mean or lofty its features. He remarked, wonderingly, on the listlessness of my damned, and how they strolled emptily through thoroughfares filled with music and through streets wherein there was not a single humble habituation. He heard the cries of pleasure over my laden tables, and then heard them silenced, for there was no need now for food and where there is no need there is no desire and no enjoyment. He saw that the poorest on earth were clothed in magnificence and jewels, yet they wept the loudest. He was no fool. He said, “Satiety.” True, I answered him, but satiety can only live in the presence of total equality. He pondered on this while I led him to the seat of thousands of philosophers, and he sat down among them. But, as there is no challenge in hell, and no mystery, there can be no philosophy. That night he came to me on his knees and begged for death. I struck him with my foot, and said, “O man, this was the hell you made, and this was the desire of your heart, so eat, drink, and be merry.”
He attempted to hang himself in the manner of Judas, and I laughed at his futility. I meditated that above all futility is the climate of hell.

He said to me, in tears, “Then, if you are, then God exists.”

“That does not follow,” I replied to him. “But, did you not deny Him on Terra? Did you not speak of supra-man and man-becoming, and the ultimate glorification of man on earth, without God?”

“I did not see God among men,” he said, wringing his hands.

“You did not look,” I said. “You were too dull in your human arrogance and too enamored of humanity. You never denounced your fellows for their lusts and their cruelties. You told them they were only ‘victims.’ You refused to look upon their nature, for you denied the infinite variety and capacities of nature. To you, one man was as good as any other man, and equally endowed, for the foolish reason that he had been born. You saw no saints, and no sinners. It was only a matter of environment, though the proof was all about you that environment is but a mere shading or tint on the soul, and is not destiny. You denied that men have gifts of the spirit, often above those of other men. In truth, you denigrated those gifts of striving and wonder. You denied free will. Everything evil that happened to a man was only the result of his fellowmen’s lack of justice. You denied the reality of good and evil, the ability to make a choice. In short, you denied life, itself.”

“Then God in truth does exist?” he asked, after a moment’s miserable thought.

“That you will never know,” I said. “But rejoice! All your dreams are fulfilled here. Delight yourself. Behold, there are beautiful female demons here, and banquets and sports and pleasures and soft beds and lovely scenes and all whom you had wished, in life, you had known. Converse with them.”

“There is no desire in me,” he said. “I want nothing.”

“You are surely in hell,” I replied, and I left him weeping.

Dialogues With The Devil, Taylor Caldwell, 1967

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class

Would that Europeanizing elitism concept into America also include Couldenhove Kalergi panEuropean, then join MiddleEast, Africa, open  borders?

The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class

Look at the reviews. Here’s a long comment but it explains the importance of this book. Here’s one reviewer, but bear in mind he made his case well before the advent of Donald Trump, the quintessential billionaire middle-class American. (Eltitist, Trump is not):
The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism has Undermined the Middle Class is one of the most important books written about American politics in the past fifty years.
The author, Fred Siegel, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a think tank that focuses on urban policy and politics. He also serves as a professor of history and the humanities at Cooper Union and is a contributor to numerous publications…
The Revolt Against the Masses tells the story of how what some think of as liberalism is, in fact, a form of arrogant elitism modeled on an American form of aristocracy long associated with European statism.
“Today’s brand of liberalism, led by Barack Obama, has displaced the old Main Street private-sector middle class with a new middle class composed of public-sector workers allied with crony capitalists and the country’s arbiters of elite style and taste,” the book reveals.
Siegel describes how the American left turned away from its progressive roots between WWI and WWII, espousing a cynical and anti-American attitude that embraced experts and despised democracy and the average man. Siegel writes that the liberalism that emerged from 1919, taking its cue from H.L. Mencken, who sided with Germany in WWI and labeled Americans who supported “Wilson’s War” as “boobs” and “peasants” was “contemptuous of American culture and politics.” He added:
For the liberals, the war years had revealed that American society and democracy were themselves agents of repression. These sentiments deepened during the 1920s and have been an ongoing undercurrent in liberalism ever since. … For liberals, the great revelation of 1919 that they carried into the 1920s was that middle-class society at large, and not just the Bible Belters with their restrictive mores, was to blame for their subjugation. Their disdain for Main Street was matched by their contempt for the detritus of urban popular culture.
The Revolt Against the Masses tells the story of the leaders of modern American liberalism–Herbert Croly, Randolph Bourne, H.G. Wells, Sinclair Lewis, and Mencken–who sought to discard America’s most sacred principles of democracy and the rule of law for a bastardized version of European elitism, with decisions made by experts and social scientists.
The Revolt Against the Masses also identifies modern exponents of the new liberal elitism, influential figures such as John Kenneth Galbraith, who, “more than any other liberal, was able to meld the two central strands of 1920s liberalism: a Menkenesque contempt for the burghers and an undue regard for technocrats who cloaked their prejudices in the language of social science.”
The notion of free-market capitalism driving the growth of the US economy and the American dream after WWII was a convenient fiction. Behind this facade, generations of liberal political operatives worked to realize the dreams of a society led by an enlightened elite with heroic overtones that bear close resemblance to the fascist era of 1920s Europe. Men like Herbert Crowley, editor and co-founder of “The New Republic”, advanced the ideal of a secular priesthood that would Europeanize America. He envisioned an elite vanguard of intellectuals, writers and scientists who would not be swayed by outmoded ideas of popular democracy and individual freedom. And the mechanism for advancing the new liberal agenda was government.
Both liberals and conservatives alike need to read The Revolt Against the Masses. For conservatives, this book provides ample ammunition to use it, characterizing and countering the attacks of the liberal elite against people of faith, small business, and civil libertarians–the three pillars of a future conservative majority. Every conservative in Congress and across America needs to read  The Revolt Against the Masses.
For liberals and those who call themselves “progressives,” however, The Revolt Against the Masses is an equally important resource. Siegel describes how the ideals of 19th Century Progressivism were hijacked a century ago by an arrogant elite who despise working people and enrich themselves at public expense. Barack Obama is the ultimate example of this elitist tendency in American politics.
The majority of Americans who call themselves conservatives–and liberals–will be shocked and outraged by many of the revelations in this concise and well-written book.
It is concise. Requires no particular expertise to grasp his theses. You will come away with a changed view of how things have operated for several generations now…

Monday, September 19, 2016

Mathematical Modernisation


Teaching Math in 1950:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
Teaching Math in 1960:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
Teaching Math in 1970:
A logger exchanges a set “L” of lumber for a set “M” of money. The cardinality of set “M” is 100. Each element is worth one dollar. Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set “M.” The set “C,” the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set “M.” Represent the set “C” as subset of set “M” and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set “P” of profits?
Teaching Math in 1980:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
Teaching Math in 1990:
By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels “feel” as the logger cut down the trees? There are no wrong answers.
Teaching Math in 2002:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $120. How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60?
Teaching Math in 2010:
Hokona te logger he truckload o rakau mo $ 100….

Thursday, August 18, 2016

? dependant upon the whims and market?

the long-desired Left-wing dream of a 100% Government health care system across the USA. In doing so he re-stated a core belief of Left-wingers everywhere,.
In my view, the provision of health care cannot continue to be dependent upon the whims and market projections of large private insurance companies whose only goal is to make as much profit as possible
The horror. The horror. One commentator had some fun with this stupidity:
In my view, the provision of gasoline cannot continue to be dependent upon the whims and market projections of large private energy companies whose only goal is to make as much profit as possible.
In my view, the provision of housing cannot continue to be dependent upon the whims and market projections of large private realty companies whose only goal is to make as much profit as possible.
In my view, the provision of bread cannot continue to be dependent upon the whims and market projections of large private food companies whose only goal is to make as much profit as possible.
 tom hunter (7,956 comments) says: 
Griff (13,957 comments) says:
August 18th, 2016 at 9:18 am

You could instead point to the different costs and outcomes around the globe and think about what is best
Or you could try and answer the question that lies at the core: why is healthcare different that profit screws it up?
The USA has a system very much closer to free market profit based system than us.
Their healthcare public/private spend is about 50:50 – whereas NZ’s is about 80:20. This is a huge difference to you? Having half of a market place occupied by government is “close” to a free-market or worse, Dikensian laissez faire?
That means they have a more efficient cheaper system that result in better outcomes right ?
Nobody would describe the US system as “efficient” – but according to you the degree of government involvement in that market, from almost endlessly prescriptive regulations that try to tell doctors, hospitals and insurers exactly what they can and cannot do, to all that government spending that screws any price signals trying to get through the fog. BTW – all insurer’s premium prices have to approved by state boards – something not heard about when those premiums jump by double digits in one year.
And actually – on actual healthcare outcomes like cancer, surgeries and other stuff that makes people’s lives better – the US has better outcomes than the NZ system, let along the godforsaken NHS in Britain.
Don’t tell me – life expectancy and infant mortality?
Most first world nations have mostly public systems and spend around 10 % of gdp in health care .
We spend 11% in NZ
The USA spends around 17% of its much higher gdp.
Their measurable outcomes are not significantly higher than ours.
In fact in a lot of them they are very much lower
life expectancy
infant mortality…
Ding, ding, ding, ding……. You’re not a Lefty but you repeat classic Lefty talking points rather than thoughtful analysis.
Life expectancy is vastly more impacted by such “public healthcare” as water treatment, sewerage systems and clean food than the healthcare of hospitals and clinics, which is why there was such a jump in life expectancy when the former were developed. Besides which we’re talking about tiny differences between the US and other parts of the West. Margin of error stuff.
As far as infant mortality is concerned there are huge fudge factors involved because of the definition of a “live birth”, which in the US is far more tightly measured than in say – Cuba! Moreover, infant mortality appears to be more affected by demographics, which is why Utah – operating under the same horrible “private” US healthcare system – has infant mortality rates every bit as good as the likes of Western Europe.
Yes the rich in the usa can afford lots of expensive testing and better cancer care in old age.
The non-rich can “afford” this too because they have private healthcare insurance.
The poor rely on charity for even basic service if it is available.
Crap – and has been crap at least since the start of Medicaid by good old LBJ in 1965: a government-funded healthcare system for the poor. If it does not cover them then it can be expanded – and has been. Charity is been a minor and shrinking component of healthcare for the poor ever since 1965.
I will point out that a huge study completed just a few years ago, that tracked a large sample of US poor over many years (almost a decade I think) who used Medicaid compared to those who did not and had no healthcare insurance,revealed the counter-intuitive truth that the latter had better health outcomes. The authors of the study did not expect this and have since been involved in trying to figure out how to tweak Medicaid to avoid this rather terrible result.
The number one cause of bankruptcy in the USA is medical bills.
Another Left-wing talking point based upon a study that failed to track healthcare insurance coverage timing and failed to consider the other factors that had led to bankruptcy. It “chose” healthcare expenses because it was less a study than a narrative.

 tom hunter (7,956 comments) says: 

And if anybody wants to see what government healthcare in action in the US you have four to look at:
1. Medicare:
For the elderly who no longer have employer health insurance coverage and/or cannot afford private. The system works but is effectively out of control on budgets. The government cannot cut because the oldies will kill them: the system cannot keep going as it is without chewing up almost every dollar the government has within a decade. A third rail created by LBJ.
2. Medicaid:
For the poor who can’t jobs with healthcare insurance and cannot buy it themselves. See above. This one can have spending cut by the government. Unfortunately the doctors who provide services then drop out. Another growing healthcare crisis.
3. Veterans Health Administration:
Pimped by Jon Stewart and other lefties endlessly during the Obamacare debate: “Should we not provide the same level of superb healthcare to everybody that we provide to our veterans?” (cure huge, liquid eyes). This system is the closest the USA has to NZ or the UK: government-owned hospitals and clinics with government-employed doctors and nurses, funded by government tax.
It’s fucking awful. So awful that even the Democrats finally yielded on ideology and offered the poor bastards using the system, actual cash they can use to avoid and evade if they’re not getting the medical care they need. Like every such system it’s rationed by command and control rather than price – which is why hundreds of vets have died waiting for treatment and why there have been resignations at the highest levels over lies being told about the queues, as well as punishment of whistle blowers. But many doctors and aministrators who connived in this are still on the job, since the VHS cannot afford to fire them.
4. Obamacare:
A pathetic attempt to screw the private sector system into doing what the government thinks is right via almost endless, prescriptive regulation and rigging the price outcomes. The result has been a small increase in the number of poor covered by health insurance, but with tens of millions still not covered – and at the cost of vast increases in medical costs, premiums, excess (your average struggling family has to spend thousands before the insurance kicks in, even on the lowest “Bronze” plan).
Almost every criticism of Obamacare is turning out to be correct, and if the remaining boast is that more poor people have been covered than before – well that could have been done with vastly less pain, screaming and government idiocy by just expanding the program that already existed for the purpose: Medicaid.
The reason it was not, the reason Obamacare never even tried to attack the problem of employer insurance capture or reduced competition leading to screwed prices and service, is that it was never meant to – since the Left don’t think that “Profit”, or the private sector, should be a major part of the system.
That was an ideological choice, not one based on “real world data to drive policy”.

multiculturalism is inverse of racism and so is intolerant,diversity "favouring" working class

Jack5 (9,428 comments) says: 

Odakyu-Sen at 7.49….
Interesting comments. Tolerance, IMHO, is a good quality.
Multiculturalism, which is intolerant of non-multiculturalism, as in Japan and China, is the inverse of racism, which is also intolerant. 

Both want to dictate racial composition.
Odakyu-sen (3,281 comments) says: 
Is it wrong for a society to dictate its racial composition?
Is it more acceptable for some societies to dictate their racial composition than for others to do so?
If so, then which societies would get a “free pass” from the MSM for doing so? And which societies would be ridiculed?
Jack5 (9,428 comments) says: 
Odaky-sen at 8.04
I think societies have the right to decide the racial composition of their societies, but provided they do this in a civilised, humane, and tolerant way – not in the way the Nazis or for example, the Bhutanese, set out to do.
I think further that societies which don’t rationally, coolly, and unemotionally discuss the racial composition they would prefer have the composition set for them by folreigners or by an activist minority, some of whom benefit from change. In NZ’s case this is the small group of real estate agents, immigration consultants, and the liberal-pacifist-religious fanatic minority.
construction building industry, educational language institutions, parties seeking more voters.
Do  other sectors of society get to discuss and have and input?
Inandout (2,513 comments) says: 
Odakyu-sen 7.49: You will note ‘diversity’ in city suburbs almost invariably favours the more working class areas, because working class residents are relatively powerless to fight against their suburbs being overwhelmed by alien cultures. Look toward Parnell, Takapuna, Devonport, Remuera and there will be a sprinkling of multiculturalism, but I can’t imagine those suburbs turning into Mt Roskill type shitholes. The city planners need their escape routes to the leafy streets, whilst the rest of Auckland can bask in the joys of diversity. Ponsonby does have a mosque, but then some rather strange people reside there.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

brexit and more others ??

After Brexit people have been speculating about other countries leaving and what we should call this. The usual suggestions are Grexit, Frexit and Nexit. But there are more imaginative names out there: Nethermind, Departugal, Italeave, Czechout, Oustria, Finish, Latervia and Byegium!

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Be warned

Well, there’s also the Amazon customer revews of Veet for Men Hair Removal Gel Creme. The top-rated review is right there at the link, and I do wonder if we’ve entered the world of Playboy letters to the editor, but this one’s still pretty good:
A warning from across the pond…, July 3, 2012
By A. Chappell
This review is from: Veet for Men Hair Removal Gel Creme 200ml (1) (Health and Beauty)
After having been told my danglies looked like an elderly rastafarian I decided to take the plunge and buy some of this as previous shaving attempts had only been mildly succesful and I nearly put my back out trying to reach the more difficult bits. Being a bit of a romantic I thought I would do the deed on the missus’s birthday as a bit of a treat.
I ordered it well in advance and working in the North sea I considerd myself a bit above some of the characters writing the previous reviews and wrote them off as soft office types…oh my fellow sufferers how wrong I was. I waited until the other half was tucked up in bed and after giving some vague hints about a special surprise I went down to the bathroom. Initially all went well and I applied the gel and stood waiting for something to happen.
I didn’t have long to wait. At first there was a gentle warmth which in a matter of seconds was replaced by an intense burning and a feeling I can only describe as like being given a barbed wire wedgie by two people intent on hitting the ceiling with my head. Religion hadn’t featured much in my life until that night but I suddenly became willing to convert to any religion to stop the violent burning around the turd tunnel and what seemed like the destruction of the meat and two veg. Struggling to not bite through my bottom lip I tried to wash the gel of in the sink and only succeeded in blocking the plughole with a mat of hair. Through the haze of tears I struggled out of the bathroom across the hall into the kitchen by this time walking was not really possible and I crawled the final yard to the fridge in the hope of some form of cold relief. I yanked the freezer drawer out and found a tub of ice cream, tore the lid of and positioned it under me.
The relief was fantastic but only temporary as it melted fairly quickly and the fiery stabbing soon returned .Due to the shape of the ice cream tub I hadn’t managed to give the starfish any treatment and I groped around in the drawer for something else as I was sure my vision was going to fail fairly soon.I grabbed a bag of what I later found out was frozen sprouts and tore it open trying to be quiet as I did so.I took a handful of them and tried in vain to clench some between the cheeks of my arse. This was not doing the trick as some of the gel had found it’s way up the chutney channel and it felt like the space shuttle was running it’s engines behind me. This was probably and hopefully the only time in my life I was going to wish there was a gay snowman in the kitchen which should give you some idea of the depths I was willing to sink to in order to ease the pain.
The only solution my pain crazed mind could come up with was to gently ease one of the sprouts where no veg had gone before. unfortunately, alerted by the strange grunts coming from the kitchen the other half chose that moment to come and investigate and was greeted by the sight of me, arse in the air, strawberry ice cream dripping from my bell end pushing a sprout up my arse while muttering…” Ooooh that feels good “. Understandably this was a shock to her and she let out a scream and as I hadn’t heard her come in it caused an involutary spasm of shock in myself which resulted in the sprout being ejected at quite some speed in her direction. I can understand that having a sprout farted against your leg at 11 at night in the kitchen probably wasn’t the special surprise she was expecting and having to explain to the kids the next day what the strange hollow in the ice cream was didn’t improve my status…
So to sum it up Veet removes hair, dignity and self respect…:)
Laughing is a good exercise.

Monday, July 11, 2016

Defining social justice warrior

mikenmild (23,207 comments) says: 

I don’t believe terms like ‘social justice warrior’ or ‘political correctness’ have any accuracy I describing an ideology at all, any more than bland words like liberal or conservative get us very close to describing a coherent set of beliefs.
Zombie muncher is a snarl word, I agree, but is also very useful for a short hand explanation of the miracle of transubstantiation.
Kimbo (6,501 comments) says: 
Um, but those are immediate pejoratives and imposed by others (i.e, hegemonic oppression), whereas “political correctness” and “SJW” were self-descriptions and terms from those who actually initiated developed them as favourable descriptors.

Fletch (8,958 comments) says: 

Social Justice Warriors, the SJWs, the self-appointed thought police who have been running amok throughout the West since the dawn of the politically correct era in the 1990s. Their defining characteristics:
* a philosophy of activism for activism’s sake
* a dedication to rooting out behavior they deem problematic, offensive, or unacceptable in others
* a custom of primarily identifying individuals by their sex, race, and sexual orientation
* a hierarchy of intrinsic morality based on the identity politics of sex, race, and sexual orientation
* a quasi-religious belief in equality, diversity, and the inevitability of progress
* an assumption of bad faith on the part of all non-social justice warriors
* an opinion that motivation matters more than consequences
* a certainty that they are the only true and valid defenders of the oppressed
* a habit of demanding that their opinions be enshrined as social customs and law
* a tendency to possess a left-wing political identity
* a willingness to deny science, history, logic, their past words, or any other aspect of reality that contradicts their current Narrative.
But there is no need to take my word for it when you can simply read how the SJWs describe themselves, in their own words. This is how one proud, self-declared SJW explained what it means to be a social justice warrior.
Being a social justice warrior means taking on a role in this unjust society in which you don’t ask for equality but instead, you demand it—and others see that as the “wrong tone.” People who think they are doing nothing wrong are going to be upset that we are telling them to change. People are not going to think these problems of inequality are significant because they have the privilege of it not affecting them. They will write us off as radical, overdramatic, and insignificant hypocrites. But social justice warriors must not change their “tone” to appease the oppressor. Oppressors must change, not the oppressed. Being an activist for justice—or a “social justice warrior” if they want to call us that—is about standing up to oppressors…The “wrong” tone is our tone. The wrong tone is the social justice warrior’s tone. —“On Being A ‘Social Justice Warrior’”, Austin Bryan, June 10, 2015
Vox Day (2015-08-29T22:00:00+00:00). SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police (Kindle Locations 212-228). Castalia House. Kindle Edition.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

For significantly improving the effectiveness of a business or organization.

w Edwards Deming had a number of points for change.
W. Edwards Deming offered 14 key principles for management to follow for significantly improving the effectiveness of a business or organization. Many of the principles are philosophical. Others are more programmatic. All are transformative in nature. The points were first presented in his book Out of the Crisis. Below is the condensation of the 14 Points for Management as they appeared in the book.

1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs.

2. Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities, and take on leadership for change.

3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.

4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust

5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.

6. Institute training on the job.

7. Institute leadership (see Point 12 and Ch. 8). The aim of supervision should be to help people and machines and gadgets to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of overhaul, as well as supervision of production workers.

8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company (see Ch. 3).

9. Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service.

10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.
Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership.
Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership.
11. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality.
12. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. 
This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective.
(see Ch. 3)
13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement.

14. Put everybody in the company(country (my addition)), to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybody’s job.

All written back in the 50’s.

Friday, April 8, 2016

Where is Honour?

I. Introduction
HonorThere was a time in days gone by when honor was the driving force behind the life of every great, good, and decent man. Every action of his hand, every thought that found its way from the mind to the mouth and past the lips, every motivation for every endeavor worthy of his undertaking—they were all of them dictated by a man’s inborn sense honor, and aimed at either bolstering that honor which already existed, or else at reclaiming that which through some misfortune had been lost. Honor has for a millennium been the central point in the stories we read to our children in the hope that they too will grow to live honorably. Men and women of valor would slay the dragon, defeat the witch, overthrow or subvert the evil king, all in the name of fulfilling their sense of honor.
Not relegated to our fairy tales only, honor is also found in all of the great stories of history, both told and untold. Men and women of honor speak to the soul; they speak to that which in every living human is real and true. The reason for this is because honor, whatever it is determined to be, is itself honest, good, beautiful, and true. Man honors God, the prophets, and his parents. He honors his promises, his vows, his laws, and his debts. He honors his athletes, scholars, and the myriad other high achievers in our society.
What, then, is honor? What follows below is a look at various ideas of honor through the ages, followed by what honor in its present state means for mankind, and finally a few concluding thoughts. This is, regrettably, only a primer on the issue and is hardly a comprehensive work.
II. Aristotle’s “Great-Soul Man”
Though not immune from academic criticism, the concept of the “Great-Souled Man,” as laid out by Aristotle in his Nichomachean Ethics, is certainly an early rendition of what a man of honor looked like. Many have criticized Aristotle’s conception, which makes it a stellar place to touch down for further investigation into the matter of what makes a man honorable.
In Book IV of the Ethics, the philosopher gives a very simple account of the conduct and demeanor of a man whose soul is great. Some of these points seem honorable, while others appear to fall into the popular conduct and ideals of the modern age, which is among the most transient of human generations. For instance, Aristotle claims that a man of great soul does not take small risks and will gladly do favors while at the same time shunning a similar show of charity. These characteristics certainly seem honorable enough. However this same Great-Souled Man is apt to show favor to those of high station, as to show favor to those of lesser station is below him. The Great-Souled Man is also he who lives his life as he chooses, as to submit to the will of others would be too closely likened to slavery.
Aristotle thus paints a convoluted picture, at least to modern conception, of the meaning of honor. Despite his great intellectual and philosophical prowess, Aristotle is not infallible in his conclusions. He presents a picture of a figure who is comfortably compared to the modern day aristocrat. Aristotle, having come from a different place and time, may present conclusions that are the product of his age. Might one then assume that honor is relative? I believe that this is a false and dangerous conclusion.
III. Chivalry and Noblesse Oblige
“Chivalry is dead,” so many today suggest, and perhaps those who believe this sentiment are quite right. The chivalric code was the code of conduct for knights of the Middle Ages. To abide by this code, though certainly variable from one group to the next, a knight was expected to protect the poor, the weak, and the defenseless; to serve the good, to seek justice, and to generally be upstanding in his conduct. From this does the most readily identified sense of honor come. 
Perhaps the closest and most relatable and reliable idea of honor comes from that bastion of desire for honor, France. It is from the land of the guillotine and champagne that we receive the concept known in the French tongue as Noblesse Oblige. Translated into English as “Nobility Obligates,” Noblesse Oblige suggests that with wealth, power and prestige come social responsibilities; it is a moral obligation to act with honor, kindliness and generosity. In our modern throw-away culture, it is unsurprising that such a notion should fall out of vogue. Not solitary in the blame, one must also acknowledge that a certain unsettling cynicism has invaded the modern conservative psyche, in which the individual believes either by choice or by force that those who are less well off than they are only so due to their own poor choices, and thus undeserving of the help of those in higher, more privileged positions. To this, we shall return further on.
victor_vasnetsov_-_knight_at_the_crossroads_-_google_art_projectV. Culture of Honor vs. Culture of Law
In a society such as ours, in which the civic onus is placed squarely on the law, it is common for the concept of honor to quickly lose relevance in the shadow of the almighty law. If man has the law, he has no perceivable need for honor or morals or ethics, for it is the law that tells us what is right and wrong. To determine right and wrong in such a way is laziness, and nothing more.
Soviet exile-turned-titan of conservative intellectualism, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, spoke on this very issue while speaking truth to the graduating class of Harvard University in 1978. To wit,
“Western society has given itself the organization best suited to its purposes based… on the letter of the law… Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required. Nobody will mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk. It would sound simply absurd…Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames.”
A lover neither of lawlessness, nor of totalitarianism, Solzhenitsyn nonetheless recognized that an over-dependence on the authority of the law can kill the soul, and the greater the dependence thereupon the quicker the death. Again he states,
“A society with no other scale than the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses. And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.”
Solzhenitsyn speaks of man as if he is not living up to his potential, as if he chooses to limit himself because in so doing he need not worry about stepping out, taking risks, or truly making decisions of consequence. With the authority of the law as the guiding light, man’s mind is made up before he is ever put into a situation requiring him to do these things. How very clean cut; yet in this man’s moral blade becomes blunted and edgeless.
VI. What, Then Is Honor?
After all this, what is honor? I must again defer to Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard Address for a most flawless conclusion. In summing up his thoughts on the West’s over-dependence on the power of the law in the governing of human interaction, he states,
“The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It’s time, in the West—It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.”
The defense of “human obligations.” Aye, there is the rub! The very mention of such a phrase may well send many a modern conservative anywhere but where such an abhorrent idea is spoken. After all, in the land of the free, who has authority to speak to his neighbors’ obligations? Man should be free to do as he chooses, as long as no harm comes to others, so the modern philosophy goes. But in so doing is harm not done to others? Stated another way, in his choosing to do as he will are not others being harmed? Every choice of every man’s life will inevitably create a ripple effect. No man is an island; neither are his choices, and if man has proven anything over the annals of history it is that selfishness—known in modern academia and in the modern conservative lexicon by the much cleaner term “self-interest”—factors ever more significantly into his decision-making process. To do the honorable thing, which most often involves a certain degree of sacrifice, is only a viable option if the primary actor profits, but if he does in fact profit, how honorable was his act of so-called honor?
Man, to be honorable, must defend human obligations, and in a society much more focused on the individual and the material than on the spiritual and the good, the honorable option often requires a break from modern ideals. Returning to the conservative notion that those who are in a lower socio-economic position have only their own poor choices to blame, the honorable response and certainly the unpopular one, is, “What difference should that make?” Honor does not pass blind judgment and determine who is worthy of a dignified response. Honor witnesses a human obligation that has gone unfulfilled, and it acts. Leave the punditry to lesser men.
To do the honorable thing is to submit the whole of one’s being to the belief that there is underlying all human life and interaction, and indeed all of existence, a universal sense of right and wrong. Some call it natural law, others objective truth; regardless of its designation, it remains one and the same—an unalterable law by which all men are not only expected to adhere in their dealings with others, but also by which all men may hold a reasonable expectation to be dealt with by others. To seek to live honorably is naught but to satisfy that innate urge felt inside all men and women when presented with a choice between genuine right and wrong.
As the social cancer of moral relativism continues to spread throughout modern society, our collective sense of honor continues to wane. How can one act honorably if the very basic understanding of right and wrong is replaced with a pseudo-philosophy that states right and wrong are only social constructs, relics of a bygone age? I am reminded of a story told to me by my college mentor, a certain Lieutenant-Colonel Armstrong. While in the Iraqi desert during the first Gulf War, he and his company were driving through the flat desert with not a single landmark in any direction as far as the eye could see. After a time, someone noticed something small on the horizon, as if very far off. Whatever it was, surely it was quite large given how far off it appeared, and yet in a matter of seconds they came upon the object—a single oil drum. Without any other object to which it could be compared, there was no measure by which to judge its size.
Such can be said of our present moral compass. If man suggests that there is no objective right and wrong—a most ironic claim given that this is itself an objective statement—and if he lives a life that reflects this indifference to objective goodness and evil, then he has no basis upon which to build a better world, and therefore no grounds for complaint when the world continues to collapse around him.
If honor is worth anything, then its dictates are such that they remain unchanged across the generations. Either that which is considered honorable today would be so considered in the era of knights and kings, or else it is not today, nor was it then, nor will it ever be considered an act of honor.
honorVII. No Happy Ending?
We must be thankful that relativism is only a shadow, and not an object capable of producing a shadow. We must be joyful that while on the wane, honor is not now, nor ever will it be, dead as long as there are those who desire to live lives of honor. Finally, we must remember that to be honorable, to live according to an objective code of right and wrong will never be an easy path to trod, but in the words of the old gospel tune, “straight is the gate and narrow is the way.”
I will conclude this essay on honor with a quotation from a man who was himself a titan of honor far beyond the reach or understanding of the common man. Let the words that follow serve as an encouragement to those wearied by a world without honor.
“Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense.”
– Sir Winston ChurchillHarrow School, 29 Oct., 1941
Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore