Somehow he tracked me down on the internet:
Somehow he tracked me down on the internet:
At least 10,000 people died in Tiananmen Square massacre, secret British cable from the time alleged
Secret document suggested death toll was much higher than later reported, while claiming wounded students were bayoneted as they begged for their lives and the burnt remains of victims were ‘hosed down the drains’
Tell your friends that it’s not all right to be a communist.
from https://twitter.com/SallyMayweather, via https://twitter.com/cthulhupotamus.
In times gone past I could have easily condemned the Poundland tweets for being unnecessarily crude and not family-friendly. But after years of humourless leftist hectoring and soft Stop Funding Hate-style fascism all we can do is applaud them. Well played sirs, well played. You’ve made the SJWs look like idiots, while getting them to give you oodles of free publicity.
I notice the SJWs aren’t declaring that they’ll never shop in Poundland again. Most of them wouldn’t be seen dead in such a place anyway, so there’s no point them declaring a boycott. Can’t see Poundland’s regular customers paying any attention to some bearded hipster declarations on Twitter.
I was in a Poundland myself last week. It’s not the greatest shop. Most of the stuff there is barely worth a pound. But occasionally you get some bargains. Bought a bread knife for a pound last year that’s still going strong a year later. it’s not a knife I use all the time, I’ve got a few, but it’s still impressive for a pound. I’ll definitely be back in in the New Year. It may not be a shop where the clientele dazzle me, but at least I don’t have to look at any SJWs.
I thought I would finally give the new recipe Lucozade a go, following its battering from social media.
I went to Tesco to buy some, but it wasn’t clear that what was on the shelves was the new formula Lucozade or not, because it said ‘Original’ on the bottle. Was this old stock of the real Original, or were Lucozade pretending that nothing had changed? A look at the ingredients confirmed a lot of artificial sweeteners in it, so this had to be the new recipe. So a black mark straight away for the new owners, Suntory. If you fundamentally change the formula, be honest enough to say so. If less sugar is so great, then why not advertise it on that basis?
It got worse, even in the shop. I had asked some people who were also looking at the Lucozade shelf if they knew whether this was the new formula which had less sugar, and they said (incorrectly, as it turned out), ‘Oh no, the new one is that one,’ pointing to a bottle called Lucozade Zero. So people are getting the idea that the bad publicity about the new taste of Lucozade is only about the no-sugar version, a misaprehension that Suntory seem to be in no rush to correct.
Anyway, at home I gave it a go. To start with I was… well, I wouldn’t say pleasantly surprised, but it wasn’t as bad as I was expecting. I’d been primed by the likes of Delingpole to expect something that tasted like it came out of the anus of a diseased baboon, but the taste was definitely in the range of normal soft drink taste.
But the more I drank, the less I enjoyed it. After half a glass I didn’t want any more. There was something unpleasant about it. Lucozade has always been a slightly weird taste, but this was just wrong. So that’s the end of Lucozade for me.
And here’s the thing. Even if they fix it, like Fanta managed to eventually fix Diet Fanta, what would be the point of drinking Lucozade any more? I only drink it when I’m poorly, or when I’m exhasuted from lack of sleep and have something I have to do despite that. Taking so much sugar out means it’s no good for that purpose any more. And I’m as sure as hell not going to drink it for pleasure. So unless it can be used for boot-cleaning, that’s Lucozade done with for me. Another simple pleasure in life ruined by SJWs. Fuck you SJWs. Fuck you all.
I tried to leave this comment over at Frank Davis’s blog, on a post of his about why Theresa May has said nothing about the smoking ban, but his comment system doesn’t want to let me. (Have I mentioned how much I hate modern comments systems?) [Update: It’s now got through.] I thought it was worth a post of its own anyway.
Smoking bans are a cold potato, as you say. They’re part of the fabric of society now. But anyone who dares try to overturn them will find themselves roasting in hell. Leftists will sometimes, for expediency’s sake, taken a softly-softly approach to changing things as they are now, in order not to frighten the horses. If they’re a politican they may even pretend that they don’t support the change (eg. as many leftist politicians did a few years back on gay marriage).
But try to change course on something that they thought was done and dusted, and all hell breaks loose. This is why Brexit has caused such a storm with the left. They thought increasing integration into supranational entities was a done deal, it was a battle they thought had been won, ancient history, and the alternative should not even be thought of, hell, should not even be conceived of, any more. It’s like reaching a checkoff-point in a computer game — no matter how many times you subsequently die, you never go back beyond that point.
This is all part of their modus operandi – they can tolerate tussles for a few years over their latest battle, but once that battle has been won, there is no going back. The public must never be allowed to see that ‘advances’ the left have won can be reversed, because then they might start to think that maybe other things that were set in stone can be reversed too.
The left don’t want you even to conceive of things being different. This is how it’s been since Lenin. It’s why they’re so keen on thought control. People who don’t conceive of alternatives won’t fight for them, because who is going to fight for a cause they never think of?
So the greatest sin that can be committed, in the eyes of a leftist, is for someone with some power or a following to bring an old battle back into play again. That’s why even people who had previously seemed nice and relaxed and sensible suddenly start acting like unhinged, foaming-at-the-mouth loons when something like Brexit happens. They were happy before because the future looked like going their way. Take that assurance away and their true colours show.
So if Theresa May was to seriously talk of overturning the smoking ban she would be quickly be reduced to a smouldering pile of ashes. Not just the leftists, but at least half the Conservative party would rise up and smite her, leaving only a small, smoking pile of ashes. That’s why you’ve been hearing nothing from her on the subject.
Scotland Yard has announced a review of all current rape and sex abuse investigations after a second trial collapsed in less than a week amid claims that police withheld crucial evidence.
A review? There should be a criminal investigation, and mass arrests, starting with Alison Saunders. Men who are clearly innocent have been arrested, and evidence that clears them deliberately supressed, in order to fit the modern feminist narrative.
So many men have been fitted up recently that nobody believes it any more when a man gets arrested for rape. Pity the victims of real rape.
For in Colditz, escape planning had itself become a highly elaborate process, with escapes being planned and scheduled many months ahead by a multi-national Escape Committee which in some ways prefigured the EU in Brussels.
Frank Davis, talking about how plans become prisons.
The world’s most heinous tyranny was not an apparition or a deviation from Marxist ideals, Solzhenitsyn demonstrates; it was, rather, the inevitable consequence of expecting perfection from imperfect human beings.
I see this way of criticising Marxism (or Leninism) a lot, and while there is defintely truth to it, I do not like the way it’s commonly put, because it implies that the Marxists’s conception of a perfect person is right. It implies that a perfect person is as as the Marxists and Communists describe — eg. thinking only of others, without selfish desires, etc. — only we are too imperfect to ever get there. But the Marxist conception of a perfect person is weird and wrong. We don’t ever want people like that. We are imperfect, but our imperfections aren’t a matter of having individual desires, and caring for our family. It would be more accurate to say that “the world’s most heinous tyranny was the inevitable consequence of trying to mould people into grotesque shapes”.
(Besides, Stalin imprisoned and killed millions of his own followers who were dedicated to his brand of Marxist-Leninism. He wasn’t really that worried about perfection. If there was the slightest possibility that you could be a threat to him, it didn’t matter how much of a good Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist you were.)
People on the right have been putting up with death threats for years. This happens openly on Twitter. When does The Guardian ever report this?
And doesn’t it ever occur to Tories like Grieve that The Guardian only runs pieces from Tories when it suits The Guardian’s own agenda? It’s never because the Guardian editors’ say to each other, ‘Hey it might be fair, in the interests on balance, to run a piece from a Tory letting them say what they want.’
(Actually I’m sure Grieve does realise this. He just doesn’t care, because stopping the referendum result comes first.)
Emma Rice, the outgoing artistic director of Shakespeare’s Globe, has suggested that the theatre’s board disapproved of her because she has a working class background and only two A-levels.
Rice lasted two seasons in the job before announcing her departure. She had clashed with the board over her decision to break with tradition by introducing lighting rigs and amplified sound.
I went for that job too, but they didn’t go for my idea of having a sign-language productions.
Did she discuss her modernisation plans with the board when she interviewed for the job? “No, is the honest answer to that, but neither was I asked,” she said.
What sort of question would that be? “Do you have any plans to do the complete opposite of what this company is about?” Wouldn’t it be kind of taken as read that you don’t?
Suppose membership of the EU is like being a member of a club. When you leave a club you aren’t liable to keep paying the club money to finance all the things the club has committed to paying for the foreseeable future, like rent, salaries, pensions, and so on. That’s up to the club, and it’s also up to the club to get members in so that it has the money to pay for those things. So if membership of the EU is like membership of a club, then we don’t have any obligations to keep paying in money once we leave in order to pay for the EU’s future obligations, even when those things include paying the pensions of British people who worked for the EU. (Nor do we have any claim on the assets of the club.)
But maybe the EU should be conceived of as more like a partnership. Not that the people in charge of the EU act like it’s a partnership, they act like they’re in charge, and the member states should do what they’re told. But maybe, despite that, it is more like a partnership. But what happens when you leave a partnership, and the existing partners carry on the organisation? This is a complicated and tricky area even in normal business circumstances (and there are differences in types of partnerships, eg. the rules for a limited liability partnership are different those for a non-liability partnership). And it’s even trickier in this case.
A departing partner, especially one who has put in most of the money, or most of the work, may feel entitled to a share of the assets of the partnership. That person would not normally be expected to keep paying in money to finance the partnership’s financial commitments once they’ve left, and the others are carrying on. If the departing partner does agree to keep paying in for a while then it would be reasonable for them to claim a share of the assets of the partnership. It may be reasonable for them to claim a share even if they don’t keep paying in. Otherwise they walk away from something that they’ve put a lot of time and/or money into, which has made it a success, and they get nothing.
The UK has poured an enormous amount of money into the EU, and has helped turn it into a powerful institution. Yet we’re supposed to walk away with nothing for us, but £40 more billion for them? The EU has fancy buildings, fancy cars, fancy wine cellars, which they never would have had without our large contributions. Yet we get no share of those, or suitable compensation?
You might say that membership of the EU should not be conceived of as like a partnership either. You are probably right (after all, mainly what the EU does is to piss away its members’ contributions), but then what is it to be a member of the EU? How should we conceive of it? This is something that never gets discussed. Probably because the EU apparatchiks never even dreamed that anyone would want to leave, or be allowed to leave. But the nature of a country’s membership matters when it wants to depart. This trips up rock bands all the time. They never think about the nature of the partnership at the start, and when the group breaks up, they end up in the courts for years.
Update: The recent Brexit ‘agreement’ provides little detail on this, and little detail on what exactly is going to happen with our continued contributions. How much of the £39 billion is money we will owe anyway for the period up to March 2019 is not stated, although if we pay about £12-14 billion annually (after the rebate), as many sources say, then we’re only talking about £15-18 billion for that period. (But are there hidden payments that we normally make which aren’t declared as part of our official annual contribution?)
There will be some money paid back to the UK: it “will receive a share of any financial benefits that would have fallen to it had it remained a Member State.” But I take that to mean that we’ll still get the usual things we get, eg. grants to academics, while we’re continuing to pay in, rather than any share of the EU’s assets.
I also note that the agreement itself features the exact words (near the start), “Under the caveat that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. This wasn’t just some spin put on the agreement by David Davis. So why the fury on the part of the EU when this was brought up? Why do we need to put into UK law an agreement which itself contains the caveat that this interim agreement is not final until everything else is agreed?