#EndAusterityNow

I see there's some ghastly gathering of unwashed fucknuggets making Westminster smell even worse than usual today. Owen Jones, Russell Brand, Charlotte Church and various other shroud waving shitgoblins and taking time out from their celebrity lifestyles to boost their street cred with the lower ranks.

Apparently, because the actual overall majority of voters didn't vote for the Tories, so the Tories don't have a mandate for their agenda.

76% didn't vote for this Govt - Osborne has no mandate for austerity.  He wants to shrink state not cut deficit #EndAusterityNow #JuneDemo - Caroline Mucus

That's lovely, Cazza, but as was immediately pointed out to her, 71% of the people in Brighton Pavilion didn't vote for her, so is she going to resign out of principle?

Furthermore, as I recall (and I may be wrong, but it's definitely that order of magnitude) something like 61% didn't vote for Blair in his "landslide" and I don't remember this concern for the unrepresented from unwashed lefties back then.

There have been dozens of variations of democracy implemented all over the world, and none of them ever meets with universal approval. But the British state has gradually been centralising control powers over decades, meaning that the blatant disparity between what people want and what they get is becoming more and more overt.

The same thing happened with the Scottish Independence referendum - despite a very clear win, there was a sufficiently large minority who lost out that feel that they haven't been heard.

Yet when I point out that this is always the case in a democracy, that there is always a large chunk of the populace who get fucked over, whatever the result, I always get told that I should join the system and change it from within. I'm told that my sniping from the sidelines does nothing useful.

So today my message to the earnest, the thuggish and the hypocritical who want someone else to pay for everything is this: go become a politician, go change the system from the inside. Your protest marches are no more effective than my blog posts.

Or alternatively, consider the possibility that I may be right: democracy is merely a fig leaf that allows evil Tories to fuck over the poor or kind-hearted Labour to fuck over the poor in a different way.

Don't feed the trolls

I know a bit about trolling, I used to be one. I also spent a lot of time on the receiving end of possibly the best troll the internet has ever seen (anyone heard from pneawf lately?)

I was but an amateur, more of a wind-up artist than anything else, and I still am, online and in real life. My favourite TV show is The Mentalist, especially the early ones, because the character is a massive cunt and a wind-up merchant.

But I did learn from some awe-inspiring trolls, which is why I can spot one so easily.

And it annoys the fuck out of me that mongoloid fucktards with IQs of 7 and one track minds spouting mindless abuse get called trolls. They aren't. They are stupid, pointless bullies who don't put the slightest effort into winding people up, they just make shouty threats of violence when they see someone that they think can easily be bullied.

They are no different to Liverpudlians who perceive a slight on Liverpool; like wibbling leftards; like Terminators: they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be bargained with and they will absolutely not stop until they've hounded you off the internet and shut down your voice.

But what they are not, are trolls.

Trolls will put a bit of effort in, will wind you up in several different ways, often without saying an unkind or improper word and leave you raging while chuckling to themselves.

Trolls do not shout mindless abuse.

However, the psychology of dealing with abuse and dealing with trolls is very much the same, and unfortunately it is not in the nature of those being trolled or abused to respond correctly. But it is simple to deal with a troll and probably equally simple to deal with an abuser:

Do not rise to the bait. If you suspect you're being trolled, or you have a shouty abuser on the line: DO NOT RESPOND.

If you don't respond to a troll, it frustrates the fuck out of them and they move on looking for a new target. If someone shouts abuse at you and you don't respond, they will get bored and look for someone who does.

Speaking as someone who has been on the end, ironically, of both the Scouse hate mob AND Old Holborn's pack of windowlickers, I'm quite certain that someone who actually wants you dead, assaulted or raped is not going to warn you - they're just going to do it. All they're trying to do is make you feel scared.

It's simple, it works and it pisses them they hell off. What's not to like?

Diversity revisited

After researching my last post on diversity, I found this utterly brilliant deconstruction of diversity-chasing by Professor Jonathan Katz. It really is a masterclass in constructing a compelling case and I can't really pull out any one quote. It's all too good.

Just go and fucking read it, OK?

Shock! Horror!

Politician says something very sensible:

The hon. Gentleman has indicated that whatever measures are taken on any of those issues, the zealots will always want to come back for more; they will never, ever be satisfied. I therefore urge the Government to ignore those siren voices and base their decisions on evidence and the real world-and evidence and the real world alone.

The whole thing is definitely worth a read, if only to make you wonder how come common sense is so uncommon in the motherfucker of all Parliaments...

Abandoning constitutional monarchy

There was a vote held at the House of Twits about whether or not Britain should abandon the constitutional monarchy. Contrary to what one might expect from a libertarian and, even worse, an Anarcho-Capitalist, I voted no. In fact, if I had my druthers, I'd undo that shameless huckster Blair's "reform" of the Lords and re-instate hereditary peerage as well!

It's crucial that I explain why. A constitutional monarchy is not the endgame objective of any Libertarian. It is profoundly unlibertarian that someone can rule over you by accident of birth. However, through happy accident, it transpires that having a ruling monarch that is required to give assent to laws, along with two strong chambers of debate is a pretty good mix for reasonable governance in a democratic, rather than an anarchic state.

And while a lot of libertarians resent the land-ownership of the hereditary peers, the fact that they weren't all from the grasping, venal classes actually made them quite good custodians of our rights. If you look at the regime of New Labour, for instance, the official opposition was utterly useless in the Commons and all the serious defence of the common man ironically came from the Lords. And if we look at the rapid increase in common petty theft in the Lords, is it any surprise that it has all come about since Labour started throwing the money out there to be taken and then appointing people from the grasping, venal classes?

I'm not saying the Lords were saints before, but because they were disinterested and there wasn't really anything in it for them, they tended to either not bother at all or take it seriously for its own sake. Sure they could influence big deals for their own back pocket, but they weren't inspired to enact draconian laws because they'd get a chunk of cash for pitching up and then being "whipped" to vote.

Whether you regard it as class, or breeding, or just some kind of good sense and disinterest, the peers have acquitted themselves much better than our elected representatives, who do not represent us, but rather the interests of their party. And really, for this to work properly, you do need a stronger monarch. Unfortunately, Brenda has really screwed the pooch here and I positively fear Charlie. We need a monarch who would not give Royal Assent to draconian laws, or bad laws. The ideal situation is where all three are strong, because then it's difficult for any one of them to overwhelm the others. At the moment, the party in power has a toothless opposition and the Queen just gives the nod to any old shit. In fact, she doesn't even need to rubberstamp anything, as they can now just implement a statuatory order without debate or anything. Not that there's ever any debate anyway.

Anyway, I'm rambling now. Ultimately, I didn't really have a problem with the pre-'97 constitutional monarchy, because no one group of the government had too much power. Blair screwed that completely by abolishing hereditary peerages and every other "reform" he did. Now the Commons dominates and is only held in the vaguest of check by the Lords.

Having seen any number of elected-only government models around the world, the UK's odd mixture of Crown, hereditary peer and elected thief was a very good one. If I had to endure a government, I would rather it was that one.

I would rather endure no government at all. But that wasn't what was asked.

Caution!

Right. Presumably, you're sitting down. If you aren't, please do so. Make sure you aren't swigging a cup of tea or anything because I'm about to say something startling.

The Graun is making some sense in attacking Tory policy here:

Cook writes about the influence on the party of the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), the thinktank set up by Iain Duncan Smith, and he says that some Tory officials do not believe the claims made by CSJ about marriage. The CSJ says children whose parents are married tend to do better (which is true). It also claims that those children do better because their parents are married (which is highly questionable). Cook, who used to work for David Willetts, quotes an unnamed party official as saying:

The CSJ claims that there is evidence marriage helps the poor. But you have to chase down a jungle of references to find anything serious. It's mostly rubbish that doesn't overcome the self-selection problem [that couples who choose marriage are more likely to have qualities that make it easier to stay together and be good parents]. We have repeated some wholly indefensible claims.

Cook also quotes another unnamed party official as saying that loads of CSJ research is "ropey".

Now, Iain Duncan Smith used to be known as "the quiet man", and would that he still were. But since he is no longer leader, he has managed to usurp a load of policy areas and driven his awful ideas into Tory policy:

4. The CSJ says it has now produced 70 Conservative party policies.

Cook says that at one stage Tory family and welfare policy was "outsourced to the CSJ".

And you can bet they're all pretty shit.

Watch that self-selection thing: it's the kind of tactic New Labour would have used to drive policy and just look how well that turned out for us.

Holy ... fuck?

Fuck me sideways:

In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin

Sounds good, doesn't it? Go read the rest then.

The not at all hidden costs of multi-culturalism

How many "schoolsanhospitals" is £50-million then?

Town halls and Whitehall spend £50 million a year on translation and interpretation for the benefit of people who cannot speak English.

OK ...

Yet now an investigation has found that many of the expensively-produced foreign-language leaflets have never been read.

Can I make a fucking suggestion? How about we save the £50 million and say that if you want to come live here, you have to make the effort to FUCKING LEARN ENGLISH, YOU CUNTS?

I'm planning on fucking off to Germany and / or France for a couple of years. Rest assured that before I set foot in either country with the intention of living there, I will at least make sure that I can get by in German (which I already can) and / or French.

Fuck all this stupid bending over backward for people who either can't be arsed or don't give a shit. And for the record: fuck all the ex-pat Brits who go overseas and can't be arsed to learn the lingo. They are cunts, too.

I wonder how Timmy will feel about this?

Is this a situation where they both lose? Timmy always says that jobs are a cost, not a benefit, so is the fact that:

for every green energy job created:

2.2 on average will be lost, or about nine jobs lost for every four created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.

In addition actually nine out of ten promised green jobs created were not even permanent. To put it in a different way: every green megawatt created:

destroyed 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.

So does Timmy think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

It think that this bit is incontrovertibly bad, though:

the investment of $36 billion so far created only $10 billion worth in real market prize of energy. Thus renewable mandates have caused already severe damage to the Spanish economy with energy costs increasing nearly 55%. For some companies such as Ferrroatlantico energy cost for its production of iron alloys soared from 37% in 1997 to 43 % in 2005.

Fucking hell.

Environ-mentalism strikes in F1

Hah!

The introduction of KERS - Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems - into Formula 1 has not been without mishap. There was a battery fire at Red Bull, and a BMW engineer received a nasty electric shock during a test at the Jerez circuit in Spain.

Now F1 safety supremo Charlie Whiting has announced that track marshals will be issued with gloves that will be “good for 1000 volts” and that cars will be fitted with warning lights so that anyone approaching a stricken F1 racer will be able to see if the KERS has shorted out.

Presumably the subtle odour of frying driver will be another give away.

KERS components will also be clearly colour coded so anyone finding them lying by the side of the track will know what they are about to pick up.

In an interview with F1.com, Whiting goes on to say that a KERS Safety Working Group has been set up, chaired by BMW.

“They‘ve met quite a few time,” he said, “and they’ve come up with a long list of suggestions, parts of which have already become regulations, and some of which will form the basis of a comprehensive document we’ll circulate to all circuits and tracks hosting a grand prix.”

No matter how comprehensive the document, the lingering fear of a massive electric shock is hardly likely to encourage marshals to race to the aid of drivers who have just had a major shunt. After all, just how sure would you be that a 150mph impact hasn't also put the kibosh on the KERS warning lamp?

Of course, none of this worries the lads at Williams F1 as they alone seem to have opted for a flywheel-based system. All they now have to worry about is a kinetic storage device rotating at an unimaginably high rotational velocity ripping loose and flying off into the wide blue yonder like a frisbee from hell.

Never mind chaps, I'm sure Gaia will be grateful for your sacrifices!

UK government declares war on the old foe!

That's right, motorists, we're coming for you:

Drivers will have to declare every 10 years whether they are medically able to get behind the wheel, according to proposals to be set out early in the new year.

For the first time, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) will issue a series of minimum physical and mental requirements motorists must fulfil including eyesight performance and reaction times.

Tests, costing up to £80, will be offered to drivers to check whether they are fit to drive.

Anyone who chooses not to take the tests but declares themselves able to take to the roads will be committing a criminal offence if they fail to meet the established standards.

At first, anyway. After several well-publicised incidents of people getting their self-assessment wrong, a taxpayer-leeching quango will use government funds to pressure the government into making us all take the tests every 10 years turning it into a nice little earner.

(Tip of the hat to John Pickworth in the comments here for that one.)

But not content with this pointless cuntwaftery, we have this little doozy:

Speed-limiting devices should be fitted to cars on a voluntary basis to help save lives and cut carbon emissions, according to a new report.

Do you know what? I'm going to get one of these fucking things and drive everywhere in second gear. That will fuck their carbon emission shit right in the fucking eye. Interesting that cutting carbon emissions is right up there with saving lives, eh?

BBC, please go fuck yourself.

The government's transport advisers claim the technology would cut road accidents with injuries by 29%.

29%? Why not 28%? or 30%? Is this "29%" perhaps just a number that you pulled out of your arse that sounds like it's been calculated because 30% would be too convenient? Where is the proof that this will happen?

The device automatically slows a car down to within the limit for the road on which it is being driven.

But charity Safe Speed says the devices are dangerous because they encourage drivers to enter a "zombie mode".

I think it's fair to say that the average British driver is heading for a vegetative state already.

Ministers are planning to help councils draw up digital maps with details of the legal speed on every road.

The speed-limiting devices will then use satellite positioning to check a vehicle's location and when its speed exceeds the limit, power will be reduced and the brakes applied if necessary.

Yeah, like when you're overtaking someone just before entering a town and suddenly half-way through the overtake your car stops. Fucking cunts. Is this possibly another soundbite-driven government initiative that sounds vaguely like it's based on a bad misunderstanding of what technology can do? Just like all their fucking databases?

The Commission for Integrated Transport and the Motorists' Forum, which both advise the government, are calling on ministers to promote a wide introduction of the system.

Well, I can tell you know, mate, that if I ever get my hands on the greasy pole of power, the very first quangoes that will get their marching orders will be you two groups of mongtarded fucking cockwafts.

John Lewis, from the Motorists' Forum, told BBC Breakfast he believed the devices would help drivers obey limits and therefore keep their licences.

John, I'd like to point out that the Archhelmet of Cuntbuggery believes that there is a sky fairy who created the world. That does not fucking make it so. Can I further point out that you are a nasty, totalitarian piece of shit who thinks he knows better than anyone else what is right and what is wrong?

"But we believe that the system should be a voluntary system, that the drivers decide if they have fitted to their car or not, and that they decide if they want to over-ride the speed limit - that should be their choice," he said.

At first, anyway. After several well-publicised incidents, etc., etc.

There would also be a positive impact on emissions and fuel consumption, he added.

Not if I drive everywhere in second gear, you cock-biting fucktard.

Jon York, fleet manager for British Gas, whose vans are already limited to 70mph, told BBC Radio 5 Live the system had reduced road incidents for the company.

Prove it, baby.

But he said the introduction of technology had to be combined with safety education.

"It does aid road safety, it does reduce incidents, but it is part of a wide-ranging number of initiatives within British Gas and one of those is driver training because you have to change people's behaviour."

But Claire Armstrong, from the road safety charity Safe Speed, said that the devices could be dangerous.

She said truck drivers using speed-limiting devices had been shown to "go into fatigue mode or zombie mode" and stopped paying attention to the road.

"That makes it highly dangerous in those scenarios. So you've taken the responsibility away from the driver and that is not [good] for road safety."

Derek Charters, from the Motor Industry Research Association, believes limiting speed automatically could cause accidents.

"The last thing you need is one car to be overtaking and then pull back in, in front of the cars in front, because that braking event will then cause everybody to start to slow down, which will then compress the traffic, which then causes an incident."

Motoring journalist Quentin Wilson said he also believed taking away driver control was a "really, really bad thing".

"Remotely policing the roads from satellites in the sky - I would worry about it an awful lot."

I'm vaguely surprised that children weren't mentioned in this cockwaffle. You know, saving kids' lives and all.

I think I'm going to go out for a drive.

While I'm still allowed to.

What really fucked the "Big Three"

Christ on a trike!!!

Just remind me again about how hard-done-by union members are?

Jamie Whyte Speaks Out

TANSTAAFL*!

Encouraged by politicians, many adults indulge the infantile fantasy that the Government can bestow gifts on us while imposing costs on no one.

*There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!

Hat tip to Timmy. Also, if you haven't read "Bad Thoughts" yet, buy it now and read it. No bullshit, it's the most important book you'll ever read, and it's engaging and funny.

Chirp, Chirp, Chirp

The Austrian Economist points out the crickets:

Those are the sound of the crickets coming from the world of Naomi Klein (link to the worst book of the decade not provided) and friends as the real truth about the relationship between crises and political economy is now right in their faces, providing exactly the evidence against the "shock doctrine" that some of us pointed out right away: crises cause the state to grow and the free market to shrivel. Disaster Socialism is back in business.

On a related note, will folks on the Left attack the Paulson bailout plan for the naked violation of the rule of law that it is?

Chirp, chirp, chirp.

Ugh!

Now I have a nasty internal conflict: IBM is the vendor of Informix, which I love, but it's now also clearly aiming its sights at the deeply unpleasant world-wide corporatist state agenda that I see coming over the next decade:

There are two things recent events have shown us these past weeks: how small and interconnected our world is. And that change is unavoidable.

Once our economies have stabilized, we will need to heed the call for change and address the systemic inefficiencies in our world's infrastructures—the processes that underpin the way billions of people work and live—and make our planet smarter.

Tell me that these words don't make your blood chill. Especially when you look at one of the successes they laud and where they are going:

We have just scratched the surface. Right now, IBM is working with thousands of forward-thinking companies, governments, universities and institutions to make our smarter world a better place to live where...

* Smarter roadways reduce traffic

We helped Stockholm implement a road charging system that reduced traffic by 20% and emissions by 12%.

Ugh. I can't believe my beloved Informix is part of this disgusting quasi-fascist bullshit.

Who says economics is dull?

Issue 5 in Ohio is attracting some interest (ho! ho!):

As a pimp and sometime loan-shark, I'm voting YES on issue 5! Since I make my living off of prostitution -- something that's banned by law but has shockingly not gone away -- it's clear that the more we can push things out of transparent, regulated markets where participants in a contract have access to legal remedies if things go wrong, the more money I can make.

My brother the pot dealer agrees with me 100%.

Once small loan places are closed down, I look forward to servicing their customers, who will have no less of a need for short term loans. Of course, I'll charge even higher interest rates than the legal shops, and if they don't pay up, we have ways of getting our money back. They involve crowbars and car batteries. I anticipate a high level of success in my collections.

I'm also thinking about opening up a used car lot. Because as we've seen in other states that pass similar bans, when people need a short-term loan and can't get it through legal means and don't want to go to what some might call the "underworld of organized crime and street thugs," they're likely to sell their cars at fire sale prices.

So in short, as a criminal who preys on the weak, I look forward to the additional business that the well-intended but economically-illiterate backers of this ban will give me.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Hat tip to the ASI.