The Anti-Globalization Brexplosion: “If You Ain’t Got Nuttin’, You Got Nuttin’ To Lose”

July 1, 2016 ~ greenteeth ~ Leave a comment

Populism, nationalism, and xenophobia are all being blamed for the victory of the “Leave” campaign in the United Kingdom’s recent referendum on membership in the European Union. Europhiles and people who naively believe globalism benefits the ordinary people ans if we all join hands and sing Kumbaya all the people of the world will come together (oops, pardon) and live forever in peace and harmony are in denial about the true nature of the European Union and determined to put the blame for the failure of their campaign on anything but the animosity aroused by their arguments beig based on class hate and the contempt of the wannabe elite for ordinary people. But the false arguments of bitter Remnants float only serve to distract from something far more significant, a fundamental change in the relationship between the elites and ordinary people.

Since the birth of modern capitalism, these aspects of human activity have generally been at loggerheads. While the market tends to expand geographically as its participants pursue economic benefits, the state seeks to control everybody and everything within its jurisdiction.

How to reconcile the three way conflict between the people, corporate business and the corporate state is the central concern of politics today, just as it was for Adam Smith in the eighteenth century, Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx in the nineteenth century, and John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek in their long debate on the topic through the middle decades of the twentieth century.

For economists there are two hypothetical extremes in the state – market relationship and both marginalise the people.

The first is a seamless global market in which corporations can maximize their material benefits without any state intervention. The problem with this scenario is that you may live in a country that is vulnerable to all the negative consequences of no-holds-barred globalization, such as currency devaluation, labor exploitation, the flouting of intellectual property laws, and so forth.

The other extreme is a world comprising entirely isolated collectivist states, where individuals are protected from external economic forces and the state has full autonomy over domestic affairs. In this scenario, you will have to forgo all the well-known economic benefits of global trade.

Between these two extremes lies most of the world as it is, characterized by cross border trade and commerce. In the second Industrial Revolution that followed the Napoleonic Wars the way of trade favoured capitalism and tariff – free markets.

After WWI, the pendulum swung back toward the authority, big government, socialism, the welfare state led to higher taxes that funded vastly improved public services. Financial capital in the West was weakened politically, and an emancipated working class empowered by universal suffrage took the opportunity to demand pay, conditions and social-welfare programs that ran counter to the logic and rules of a globalized market.

In the run-up to World War II, beggar-thy-neighbor policies and rampant protectionism ensued – with Britain leaving the gold standard in 1931 in response to a run on the pound. The Economist declared that Monday, September 21, “the definite end of an epoch in the world’s financial and economic development.” After the passage of Brexit, the same journal warned, “Britain is sailing into a storm with no one at the wheel.”

The 1944 Bretton Woods conference marked another swing back toward the market, but this time allowed for some degree of national autonomy. Until the late 1960s, a harmonious balance of international openness and national autonomy allowed for widespread prosperity.

By the 1970s, however, as the slow growth, high prices, “stagflation” and a global energy crisis pushed the pendulum back toward fully liberalized markets – a shift from the Keynesian to the Hayekian world, helped along by Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the United States.

This brings us to the present. The dotcom bubble and bust of 1999 and economic crisis of 2008, and the global economy’s failure to devise a way for economies to recover, put an end to the project begun by Thatcher and Reagan. As in the post-WWI period, workers came to see themselves as left behind by globalization, with political leaders favoring financiers and big business at their expense as the wealth gap between rich and poor grew at aaccelerating rate. In the case of Brexit, the “Leave” camp voted for more national autonomy, less globalism and more power vested in local government rather than supra national bureaucracies.

An American version of Brexit may not be far behind if the next US president scraps the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans Atlantic Trade And Investment Partnershio trade deals with Pacific Rim countries and the European Union respectively. At a time when global trade negotiations are almost dead, and the Baltic Dry Index published by London’s Baltic Exchange showing the amount of goods moving around the world at an all time low for the industrial age, clearly things have gone very wrong for the brave New Workd of globalisation.

That both presumptive US presidential candidates say they oppose the trade treaties, promising what would be tantamount to an “Amexit” from the global trading system may seem counter productive unless you accept that barack Obama has been the most corporate friendly, neo – con US President ever, and his two trade pacts were not really about free trade but a massive transfer of power from democratically elected assemblies to corporate lawyers.
The Brexit referendum, not won by the Leave campaign because working and middle class Britons are xenophobic and racist, but because these social groups feel angry that their concerns and interests have been sidelined, was a symptom of profound political discontent that will continue to manifest itself wherever in the world technocrats and corporatists usurp democratic bodies as has happened in the European Union, until we return the people-government-capital relationship to a healthy equilibrium. The problem is that no one knows how to do this.

Some propose re-harmonizing international markets with national autonomy, but the international economic order was built for the pre-globalization age, and we cannot put the genie back in the bottle, even if it were possible to do so. Brexit marks the beginning of the end of the latest era of globalization. What comes next is anyone’s guess, but we can be certain that it won’t be the final destination.

In conclusion, this comment, made by Steve Hurst, very appropriate…

“Its inevitable the empty wallet movement overcomes the treasure chest party at the ballot box as the number of empty wallets steadily increases driven by inequality mechanisms.

If you aint got nuttin you got nuttin to lose.”

There is a welfare system in place but its effect is emasculating and longterm unemployment is correlated with psychological problems. The longterm and well established trend in growing youth unemployment is a timebomb at so many levels

RELATED POSTS:
Is Brexit A Harbinger Of Doom For The ‘Experts’
The Brexit vote, the decision by a democratic majority in Britain to leave the European Union has sent shockwaves around the world. Not only does the EU now face a tsunami of departures, the usurpation of democracy by ‘experts’ ( technocrats ) has been challenged and exposed as a sham.
BREXIT vs. GREXIT – The Truth About The European Union And How It Treats Members
EU Will ‘Gradually Unravel’ With or Without the UK – MEPs
Big Wins for anti EU Five Star party in Italian mayoral elections
Little Englanders Jibe Lost The Debate And Probably The Referendum For Camereon
Brexit Economic Forecasts Are Nonsense And Pure Scaremongering

The Hypocrisy and Snobbery Of The Remain Campaign And The Antidote
The Labour Case For Brexit by Kate Hoey M.P.
Dutch Referendum This Week Shows why We Should Leave The EU.
French, Belgians, Dutch, Italians Follow Britain in Euroskepticism
Head Of European Institute: Brexit â€˜Betterâ€™ For Everyone
EU Refuses to Block Eurozone Integration to Reach Agreement With UK

It’s Not Just The British Want Out Of The EU – Eurosceptic PODEMOS in Spain Are Surging Ahead Of Election
EU’s Bureaucratic Dictatorship Is Losing The Support Of The Most Loyal Nations
Why Do The Western Powers, The United nations And The EU Continue To Tolerate The Terror Sponsor Erdogan And Turkey
EU Based Global Corporations ‘Controlled by a Small Number of Rich Families For Generations’
Over 10% of Germans Believe Country Needs Fuhrer

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … Daily Stirrer …[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]

London’s Muslim Mayor Rejects Brexit Vote At Gay Pride Event

June 26, 2016June 26, 2016 ~ greenteeth ~ Leave a comment

London Mayor Sadiq Khan told the crowd of thousands that Europeans in London are “our friends, our families and our neighbors.”

Khan says “I recognize the huge contribution you make to our city, you are welcome here. I make you this promise as your mayor. That won’t change.”

One of the Gay BLT revellers said of the atmosphere: “There’s this feeling of not knowing where you belong – and that’s to do with Brexit, not to do with being gay.” (The fact that he’s a smug, pretentious CUPID STUNT is everything to do with to do with being gay of course.)

Sadiq Kahn did not say whether he supported calls for a second referendum on British membership of the European Union, although many of the gays, lesbians, can’t make their minds ups and trannies made it clear they did.

Voters in London overwhelmingly supported staying in the EU, but a majority outside the capital voted to leave. However in the London Mayoral election only 25.8% of Londoners voted for Khan, while 37.6% of UK voted for Brexit. I don’t hear any clamour from the left (Gay BLT or otherwise) to re-run the London mayoral election.

Silicon Valley Billionaire Goes After Online scandal Site Gawker

May 27, 2016 ~ greenteeth ~ Leave a comment

Gawker is a US based scandal sheet, a sort of online tabloid that speciaizes in sleazy celebrity gossip and repetition of unsubstantiated rumour. They’ve published stories that have attracted the attentions of copyright and privacy lawyers. There has always been a market for such sleaze and in the contemporary, celebrity obsessed atmosphere, gawker has found an eager audience.

But when Gawker went after wrestler and actor Hulk Hogan it all went pear shaped for the sleaze merchants. Hogan became upset over an intrusive article containing revelations about his sex life, which we would agree is a private matter. So the Hulkster decided to sue.

And a very wealthy and very secretive silicon valley figure, a man obsessed with privacy, decided to help him by hiring a team of the very best lawyers. And then it all went pear shaped for Gawker. Hogan won the case, which was justice. Punitive damages which were out of all proportion to the offence, but would certainly bankrupt Gawker, were awarded. And that was not justice but something very dangerous.

Society and the law are headed down a very dangerous road if the extremely wealthy can use their money and power to avoid scrutiny of their activities and thus can destroy publications they want to silence, not just scandal sheets that reveal sleazy details of their sex lives, but more respectable publications. One of the functions of a free press, we should remember, is to hold to account the rich and powerful and expose any crooked dealings they may be involved in. If the law is perpared to help such people suppress free speech and avoid being held to account, that is an intolerable threat to democracy and free speech. If megamoney damages awards in lawsuits are to be the new weapon in the arsenal of the super rich who believe they are above the law, few publications have the resources or the death wish to scrutinize them closely.

So the question is, in a battle between two piles of shit, which pile of shit should a fair minded person support.

from Talking Points Memo

A Huge, Huge Deal

By Josh MarshallPublishedMay 24, 2016, 9:57 PM EDT

Here and there we’ve reported on the Hulk Hogan lawsuit against Gawker. As you probably know, Hogan won the case and won a massive judgment of $115 million dollars and an additional $25 million in punitive damages. While it is widely believed that the verdict is likely to be reversed on appeal or at least the judgment dramatically reduced, Gawker had to immediately place $50 million into escrow. The anticipated need to produce that sum forced Gawker to sell an undisclosed amount of the company to a Russian oligarch named Viktor Vekselberg. Simple fact: It’s hard to feel too much sympathy when a publication gets sued for publishing excerpts of someone’s sex tape. But some new information emerged this morning that, in my mind, significantly changes the picture.

This morning The New York Times reported an interview with Gawker owner Nick Denton in which Denton said he had begun to believe rumors that some extremely wealthy person had been bankrolling Hogan’s suit. Read the Times article for the specifics. But the gist is that Hogan’s lawyers made key decisions which made zero sense if the goal were to maximize the plaintiff’s settlement. Denton said he thought the person was likely someone from Silicon Valley, where you have a strong overlap between people who have virtually unlimited wealth and people who are not accustomed to the intrusive and aggressive coverage Gawker and its sister sites specialize in. It was a little difficult for me to believe something like this was actually happening. But the evidence of the legal strategy was pretty compelling. And in recent weeks, in the aftermath of the Hogan verdict, there have been a spate of new lawsuits brought against Gawker that are unrelated to the Hogan case. All have been brought by the same lawyer who handled Hogan’s suit.

Now sure enough, this evening Forbes reported that the bankroller of the Hogan suit is none other than Peter Thiel, a prominent Silicon Valley billionaire who styles himself a libertarian but somewhat incongruously is a big time supporter of Donald Trump in addition to numerous other right wing causes, most of which have a distinctly Randian cast.

Regardless of his politics, this news should disturb everyone. People talk a lot about the dominance of the 1% or in this case more like a tiny fraction of the 1%. But being able to give massive political contributions actually pales in comparison to the impact of being able to destroy a publication you don’t like by combining the machinery of the courts with anonymity and unlimited funds to bleed a publication dry.

So one again we see that for all the liberal, politically correct, ‘caring and sharing’ posturing of politicians, the world is increasingly dominated by big money and big power. And everywhere in what we have called ‘the free world’ power is being concentrated in the hands of the obscenely wealthy, and exercised on their behalf by the politicians they control

And whatever label people who support such a system pin to their clothes, liberal, progressive, left wing, socialist, the only label that truly describes it is ‘fascism’.

RELATED POSTS:

Armed Forces Minister: Obama ‘Woefully Ignorant’ of Threat EU Membership Poses

May 8, 2016May 9, 2016 ~ greenteeth ~ Leave a comment

One of the points President Barack Hussein Obama made during his visit to Britain in April 2016, was that the UK will be safer inside the European Union wheras if we vote OUT in the Brexirt referendum scheduled for June this year, we will face existential threats from foreign power. Presumably Obama was referring to Russia, after all he has devoted most of his foreign policy during his second term as president to talking up the imaginary threat posed by a resurgent Russia under Vladimir Putin in order to justify to some extent the USA’s warmongering against small, and largely powerless nations in the middle east.

In adopting this scaremongering approach Obama seems to have seriously underestimated the amount of influence his word carries in Britain and around the world, just as he underestimated first the capability of Syria’s secular, Shia Muslim regime under President Assad to mount a very effective resistance to the US backed attempt to depose Assad and make way for a Sunni Muslim regime friendly to US allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Oman. In taking this pro – Sunni position and trying to escalate tensions between Russia and the NATO alliance of western Europe and north America, the US President has shown his “woeful ignorance” of the hampering effect that being within the European Union has on Britain’s security, the UK defence minister has said. The minister suggested that rather than behaving as if he is an omnipotent monarch, Obama might think about asking the US diplomats in Euriope and the middle east, or maybe the CIA why creating a European Army or an EU-wide intelligence agency would not help to ease tensions with Russia.

Mr Obama spent a lot of his visit to Britain, telling the British people why he thinks they should vote to remain within the European Union at the IN / OUT referendum on June 23.
He has made it clear that he believes it to be in America’s economic and political interests interest for Britain to remain within a large European bloc rather than striking out alone.
His arguments on security in particular have been closely followed by Britain’s Armed Forces minister Penny Mordaunt, who has concluded that she cannot agree with what the President has had to say.
While she acknowledged the role that America and Britain have played as allies in the fight to promote freedom and democracy, she said “Where we part company, however, is in our views of the value of EU membership to this mission.”
Referring to a statement Mr Obama made in the Telegraph on Friday in which he said: “The European Union doesn’t moderate British influence – it magnifies it,” she responded: “Unfortunately this opinion betrays a woeful ignorance of the practical reality of the EU’s impact on our security, and the interests of the U.K. and the US.”

In his effort to persuade the British people to think as he does, he suggested that Europe owes a debt to the USA for saving it from the Nazis in World War Two, and has the European Project to tank for the last seven decades of peace in Europe . He is completely wrong on both, it was British obduracy and a Russian winter that saved Europe from the Nazis. By the time the USA entered the shooting war, the tide was turning; in North Africa, the Advance of the Axis (Germant / Italy was halted at the first Battle of El Alamein in July 1942 and in a second battle in October and November of the same year, the Allied army, mainly troops from Britain and Commonwealth nations including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, Nigeria, Keyna, and the Caribbean colonies, supported by ex – patriate forces from conquered nations in Europe, includinf France, Poland and Czechoslovakia began the pushback by defeating Gerneral Rommel’s combined German and Iralian army. Although The USA had been supplying Britain and Russia for some years, military involvement did not begin until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941 and in the early months was focued in the Pacific theatre. A small contingent of US troops was deployed to north Africa but serious US involvement did not begin until the invasion of Italy in 1943.

Several times during the visit he reiterated the pro EU British government’s argument that Britain is more secure within the European Union.
Ms Morduant told the media, “Obama warned that divisions in Europe will weaken NATO, but often those divisions are caused by the EU itself. Obama confuses collective action and defence through Nato with the integration at all costs and damn the consequences ideology that too often motivates the EU, which Russia, understandably sees as a provokation if not a realistic threat.”
Mr Obama also used his statement to argue: “We must be resolute and adaptive in our efforts to prevent terrorist attacks against our people, and to continue the progress we are making to roll back the threat posed by Islamic State (ISIL) until it is destroyed.”

Ms Mordaunt agreed, but countered that membership of the European Union is inimical to that aim.
“The President must be unaware of the alarming weaknesses that allow Daesh [Islamic State] terrorists to move unimpeded across Europe are the result of the EU’s bull-headed desire to take down all frontiers on the continent,” she said.
“Even in this country, although we are outside the Schengen borderless zone, European free movement rules mean we cannot keep out those we suspect wish us harm if it is based on incomplete evidence.”
And Ms Mordaunt went on to dismiss Mr Obama’s claims that intelligence sharing is enhanced by the European Union, saying: ”Obama cannot appreciate how the ECJ has repeatedly undermined the arrangements which enable the UK and US to share intelligence. I am sure the CIA would be happy to explain to him why that the creation of a EU intelligence agency will not result in intelligence being shared EU-wide.”

In view of the realities in seems Penny Morduant’s description of Obama as ‘woefully ignorant’ is typically British understatement.

Far from being the answer to Europe’s security problems, it has often been the cause of them. Is Obama aware of what happened to Greece in the past five years? And the other nations, chiefly Italy, spain, Portugal and Ireland, that face economic ruin because of the appalling consequences of forced harmonisation of the Eurozone? Is he oblivious to the suffering, the resulting tensions, the distrust, the rise of extremism?
There is certainly an evidence based case to be made that Obama cares little about anything that does not relate to gay and transgender issues in the USA, yet European leaders continue to take not of his words and act on them, thus serving the interests of Washington and US Corporate culture rather than those of the people who elected them.

The EU has its own geopolitical ambitions including an expansion of the union beyond Turkey and Ukraine and into the middle east and North Africa, which, while detrimental to the people of its members states will secure places for members of Europe’s political elites in the global government bankers, businessmen and academics have been working towards since the United Nations was formed after World War Two.

It has been said of the EU that expecting it to act as a functioning geopolitical entity is like putting wheels on your grandmother and saying she is a car. I worry that in years to come we will see a major car crash because of the misplaced ambitions of Brussels.

Just a couple of points on this

The minister’s presumption of Obama’s “woeful ignorance” is ignorant. What Obama displays is rather “purposeful deception”. He believes in serving the interest of his globalist control agenda for Britain to remain in the EU, but he does not genuinely believe it is in America’s interests. He is working against the interests of free, self-governing, self-reliant people in America, Britain, and elsewhere. He wants to debilitate their freedoms, their economic sustenance, and their independent thinking to drive them into dependence upon the cold embrace of government. In short, he wants government to gain control over the now-free people in the world. Watch what he does and says – what what he’s done and said, then use your own discrimination.
Britain was the one nation in the Euroland that stood against tyranny and paid a tremendous price to ultimately prevented Europe from falling under it during WWII. It would be such a shame to see both the US and Britain willingly cede to those forces again due to the ignorant political correct/lefty components of their populations now.

It is always wrong to attribute to incompetence and ignorance that which is really motivated by malice and racist resentment. This blog would never defend defend Obama, who is part of a movement that aims to abolish democracy and freedom and put the world under the control of a new elite, similar in all way to the medieval aristocracy except that rather than being identified by birth this new class of superior beings will be identified by their conformity to a common ideal. The reality of the modern world is that nearly all the ‘leaders’ of western nations are spineless and incompetent and in thrall to the faceless people who make up ‘The Shadow Government’, the kind of people who met at annual jaunts like the Bilderberg Group or the World Economic Forum. Hardly anybody in the political or academic establishments has ever had real jobs, nor have they run businesses nor been in the military. All they did is go to the ‘right’ schools and write essays and debate clubs and then join political organizations (usually socialist, like Merkel). Thus one of the qualities they have in common is they are big on book learning and academic theory about how the world runs but pathietically short of life experience.

Yes, the politicians do know the reality, and talk about it in private. They don’t mean harm, but they are completely incompetent in what they do – they simply don’t have the moral courage to do what is right for their own citizens.

Another common misconception is that these leaders are spineless jellyfish who have to go the way the current flows, in fact they constantly take up strong positions that go completely against common sense and public opinion popular sentiment.

Merkel has a 67% disapproval rate with the German people but keeps holding the line with her immigration stance.

Obama/Kerry “negotiated” the Iran arms treaty in secret while (illegally) circumventing congress and while the polls showed America’s citizens were against it 2-top-1. Many people attribute the chaos that he’s cause in the middle east by his actions in various countries there (Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Syria,…).

However if you look at the series of now double-digit “errors” they fall to the advantage and power of globalist corporations and Muslim extremist groups (and of course, for every 1000 Muslim Syrian refugees the west is importing importing, only 5 Syrian Christians are being received in the west, and the Christians are the ones experiencing genocide there). If all these were truly a result of incompetence, would the results of them so consistently disadvantage western Judeo-Christian free society and act against rights like free speech and values like freedom of religion and to the advantage those that want societies controlled by government micromanagement of individuals’ lives.

But if this what you want, vote to remain in the EU.

Did Corbyn Sell Out To The Establishment The Day He Was Elected

May 5, 2016 ~ greenteeth ~ Leave a comment

Compare Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s comments on the EU from before and after he became Labour leader.

CORBYN
Eurosceptic comments
Photo: EPA

On the EU president: “The creation of the post of president is a triumph for the tenacity of the European long-sighters. The project has always been to create a huge free-market Europe, with ever-limiting powers for national parliaments and an increasingly powerful common foreign and security policy.” Read more

On the Lisbon Treaty: “There is a strong socialist argument against the Lisbon Treaty and the economic consequences that flow from it. What is also explicit in both the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty is the imposition of a market economy on Europe, a control on borrowing made by any member states’ government and serious control on the political choices open to any one member state.” Read more

On corporate interests: “The EU is too beholden to corporate interests, and the behind-closed-doors negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) confirm this. This poses a huge threat to our environmental standards, consumer protections and workers’ rights.” Read more
Pro-EU comments
Photo: Eddie Mulholland

On staying in: “The Labour party is overwhelmingly for staying in, because we believe the European Union has brought investment, jobs and protection for workers, consumers and the environment, and offers the best chance of meeting the challenges we face in the 21st century. Labour is convinced that a vote to remain is in the best interests of the people of this country.”

On engaging with the world: “You cannot build a better world unless you engage with the world, build allies and deliver change. The EU, warts and all, has proved itself to be a crucial international framework to do that.”

On employment rights and environmental standards: “EU membership has guaranteed working people vital employment rights, including paid holiday, maternity and paternity leave, protections for agency workers and health and safety in the workplace. Being in the EU has raised Britain’s environmental standards, from beaches to air quality, and protected consumers from rip-off charges.”

The Separation Of Bathroom & State

May 2, 2016 ~ greenteeth ~ Leave a comment

When the US city of Charlotte, North Carolina passed a local law which became known as ‘the bathroom ordinance’ which gave ment the right to use women’s public toilets, sports facilitity changing rooms and so on, in effect a spineless caving in to the hate politics of the Gay BLT lobby, the state of North Carolina’s response to it — has taken on a life of its own.

In late February 2016, the Charlotte, North Carolina, city council passed the “antidiscrimination” law, scheduled to go into effect on April 1. It was aimed at protecting what, in the view of the city council, are the rights of those in the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. The centerpiece of this law was a clause that prohibited businesses providing bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers from segregating usage of those facilities by biological gender. Biological males or females must be allowed to use the facilities of the opposite sex if they claim that that is the sex they identify with psychologically. (Note, no proof was required.)

Much of the criticism of the Charlotte bill was centered around two issues: the ‘religious’ freedom of business owners and the privacy rights of people, particularly women, using public bathroom and shower facilities. Most sane people would I think, contend that the issue of religious freedom is irrelevant, providing separate facilities is a matter of common decency.

Similar ordinances have been used to force small business owners like florists, bakers, photographers and bed-and-breakfast owners and others either to conform to a government-dictated viewpoint in violation of those sincerely held religious beliefs or to face legal charges, fines and other penalties that have ultimately caused some to go out of business. I attacted a lot of hate mail when blogging on a case of a bakery in Ireland that refused to supply a celebration cake bearing a message supporting same sex marriage was charged under hate crime laws. My offence was to point out that why a gay couple could demand they business serve them and be backed by law, my wife and I could ask the bakery to make a cake saying “best wishes to Dave and Debbie, thanks for giving us a grandchild,” and the business would have every right to refuse simply because they did not like the look of us. Freedom always has to be a two way street.

In the face of public outrage from the herterosexual majority who were quite happy with the status quo, the state of North Carolina’s responded by imposing a law at state level that ruled all toilets (or rest rooms as the somewhat prissy American left refer to them) and changing facilities did not have to be politically correct and non discriminatory. This prompted the Gay BLT lobby (yes, I know that is offensive, if the politically correct clowns claim the right to ffend me, then in the name of equal rights and diversity, I claim the right to offend them,) and their supporters the progressives to take up arms against sanity and demonstrate once more that when they screech about equal rights, what they really mean is very unequal rights or privileged status for favoured minorities.

In fact the North Carolina law did not discriminate agains transgender freaks or men who, usually for highly unsavoury reasons, want to ‘identify’ as women in order to use women’s toilets and changing rooms, what it did restore freedom and property rights to business owners while respecting the rights of people, mostly women, to share facilities only with people of their own gender and to guarantee those rights across the state. In fact it should surprise me that the feminists and ‘progressives’ who have screeched about womens rights for fifty years are now prepared to brush aside womens’ rights because the cause of chicks-with-dicks rights is more fashionable.

I say it should surprise me because I have been exposed to the double standards, hypocrisy, authoritarianism and sheer selfishness of US ‘progressives’ and ‘liberals’ that nothing they do or say could surprise me now unless they all succumbed to a plague of common sense and decency.

Now as a man I am not particularly worried about who I share public toilet facilities with, but I do understand why women do not want to share with us lads as we curse, fart, scratch our bollocks and exchange crude remarks. And I understand why males who are going through the lengthy gender ‘reassignment’ program would feel unsafe in a mens’ facility. But if such people are sensible and do not make a big deal of the fact that they have dangly bits or make typically male comments (e.g. “nice tits love, show us your knickers”) to women then there is no problem.

However, under the Charlotte law gender specific facilities would be illegal, people would be forced to share. And that is not acceptable, what’s more there is nothing liberal or progressive about imposing the moral values of a minority on the majority.
The law in North Carolina that ‘progressives’ (i.e. fascists) are angry about does not prohibit businesses from having bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc., that allow use by people of all genders defined biologically, psychologically, or whatever. In a “myths vs facts” explanatory statement put out by the governor of North Carolina this was made quite clear:

Can private businesses, if they choose, continue to allow transgender individuals to use the bathroom, locker room or other facilities of the gender they identify with …
Answer: Yes. That is the prerogative of private businesses under this new law. …The law neither requires nor prohibits them from doing so.

In other words, where the US Constiution codifies the separation of church and state, the state of North Carolina has now gone a step further and codified a basic libertarian principle: the separation of bathroom and state.
The only places in North Carolina where bathrooms, showers, etc., must conform with biological sex is in government owned facilities — courtrooms, city halls, schools, etc., where this separation is not possible. So yes, in North Carolina prurient 14 year old old boys, as defined by certain biological features, may not use the girls’ locker room and showers after gym class at the local public middle school. In private middle schools, governors are free to do what they want. If not accepting this is unjust discrimination makes me a bigot, then so be it. Under the Charlotte arrangement the aforementioned prurient 14 year old boys can use facilities according to how they self identify. If you cannot see what is wrong with that arrangement then you know nothing of: a) fairness and b) 14 year old boys.

Leftists all over the USA and some on Europe are accusing North Carolina of bigotry while, in the name of tolerance, a growing list of pop stars, show biz luvvies and businesses are boycotting the state. Unfortunately, what has gotten lost in all the rhetoric surrounding this issue is the truth about both the original Charlotte law and the state’s response to it.

RELATED POSTS:

Another Science Fallacy.

April 25, 2016April 27, 2016 ~ greenteeth ~ Leave a comment

This blog is not a science blog but in our early days it had a reputation for winding up scientists because we wise old gits (well we’re certainly old gits and we like to think there is a bit of wisdom among us) like to ask the kind of questions scientists don’t want to be asked.

So maybe, as this blog is only to keep our original little Nicky Machiavelli posts alive now that our news site has moved on to The Daily Stirrer, we might as well continue to wind up the smug, condescending bastards whose attitude is “I said ‘science more time than you so that proves I’m more intelligent.’

Here’s a little something we found that shows once again a lot of what scientists tell you is illogical, ill thought out and just plain wrong.

Question
Do falling objects drop at the same rate (for instance a pen and a bowling ball dropped from the same height) or do they drop at different rates? I know a feather floats down very slowly but I would think a heavy object would fall faster than a light object. Thanks for your help. I have a bet on this one.
Asked by: Terri

Answer
If no air resistance is present, the rate of descent depends only on how far the object has fallen, no matter how heavy the object is. This means that two objects will reach the ground at the same time if they are dropped simultaneously from the same height. This statement follows from the law of conservation of energy and has been demonstrated experimentally by dropping a feather and a lead ball in an airless tube.

When air resistance plays a role, the shape of the object becomes important. In air, a feather and a ball do not fall at the same rate. In the case of a pen and a bowling ball air resistance is small compared to the force a gravity that pulls them to the ground. Therefore, if you drop a pen and a bowling ball you could probably not tell which of the two reached the ground first unless you dropped them from a very very high tower.
Answered by: Dr. Michael Ewart, Researcher at the University of Southern California

So you see, as few of us go around with a vacuum chamber in our pockets in which we can scientifically drop anything that slips through our fingers, the scientists are wrong. In the world in which things that breathe air must live, objects do not fallat the same speed, that only happens in an airless environment.

But scientists will never accept the evidence that is STARING THEM IN THE FUCKING FACE so I’ll back that up with a piece from The Physics Classroom:

1-D Kinematics – Lesson 5 – Free Fall and the Acceleration of Gravity

The Big Misconception

Earlier in this lesson, it was stated that the acceleration of a free-falling object (on earth) is 9.8 m/s/s. This value (known as the acceleration of gravity) is the same for all free-falling objects regardless of how long they have been falling, or whether they were initially dropped from rest or thrown up into the air. Yet the questions are often asked “doesn’t a more massive object accelerate at a greater rate than a less massive object?” “Wouldn’t an elephant free-fall faster than a mouse?” This question is a reasonable inquiry that is probably based in part upon personal observations made of falling objects in the physical world. After all, nearly everyone has observed the difference in the rate of fall of a single piece of paper (or similar object) and a textbook. The two objects clearly travel to the ground at different rates – with the more massive book falling faster.

The answer to the question (doesn’t a more massive object accelerate at a greater rate than a less massive object?) is absolutely not! That is, absolutely not if we are considering the specific type of falling motion known as free-fall. Free-fall is the motion of objects that move under the sole influence of gravity; free-falling objects do not encounter air resistance. More massive objects will only fall faster if there is an appreciable amount of air resistance present.

	More Evidence That H… on Gadaffi To Unleash A Wave Of M…
	greenteeth on Global Warming – The Sec…
	Too Many People, Not… on Stop The Pond Life Breeding?…
	Ralphsdeadbunny on Russian Boots on Ground in Syr…
	MichaelStMark on Former Establishment Figure Bl…