Socialism

Overthrow the Monarchy? What would the left do without it?

52000C3D-E1D1-4EBC-ADCA-149651BC8069.jpeg

Kenan Malik of The Observer wrote of the need to ditch the monarchy. His view was that adding skin colour to the mix won’t change the overall desire to throw it in the dustbin of history. He said,

Nor can I work out why adding a few more black dukes and duchesses, or even kings and queens, should be a step forward. Equality does not mean making inherited privilege more “diverse”. It requires us to get rid of the whole shebang. Adding a splash of colour to a feudal relic is not my idea of social progress.

So typical is the envy of the left that they want to strip everything from the Royal Family and make them all commoners. Why not turn Buckingham Palace into a soup kitchen and boarding house? Put Queen Elizabeth into a waiting list for public housing. Ignore that Prince Harry and others in the Royal family have served their country in the armed forces. Harry put his life on the line in defence of his country. It is a wonder whether Malik has served his country with as much distinction. What fine men the princes have become despite the tragic loss of their mother.

However we should examine the hypocrisy of the left to overthrow the monarchy. BBC, the socialist biased state broadcaster rejected its charter and couldn’t help itself throw President Trump under the bus in terms of comparing crowd numbers at the Inauguration versus Harry & Meghan’s wedding. Three things;

1) were it not for the overwhelming popularity (18mn watched it in the UK alone and 100s millions worldwide) of the Royals then the BBC couldn’t have an opportunity to bash the President in this way;

2) for the Queen to accept a divorcee into the household to marry her grandson shows how ‘progressive’ Her Majesty is. Good luck getting the Japanese Imperial Household Agency accepting something like this. The left should praise her open mind not censure her for being an out of touch bigoted granny and;

3) the wedding was all about diversity which the left loves so much. The 14 minute self-indulgent hijack (sorry, sermon) from a black bishop to a black cellist to a black choir. The music was indeed delightful. Harry even drove away in a ‘save the environment’ electric Jaguar E-type although one could argue that an original petrol version might not have started.

Malik should study the 2015 survey by Yougov which found 68% of the British public believe the monarchy to be good for the country and 71% think it should remain in place. The total annual cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer is £292m. Brand Finance Research believes the monarchy tips in around £1.8bn per annum to the UK economy. That is to say they more than pull their weight.

He shouldn’t envy the Royals but pity them. Think of what the Queen has sacrificed in the 66 years she has ruled. Sure the accommodations at Buckingham and Windsor Castles are comfortable, not to mention the numerous butlers and servants who make life easier but think of what she has had to give up in terms of privacy to serve her country. Think of the paparazzi who hounded Diana to her death over 20 years ago. The Duke & Duchess of Sussex will be increasingly scrutinized by the media. The mainstream media would die without the monarchy.

Yet Malik drones on about his real hidden agenda suggesting, “As for the belief that Meghan will break down barriers for black people and make minorities more accepted as truly British, that’s as anachronistic as the monarchy. Faced by an abusive skinhead or by a police officer about to stop and search me, my first thought has never been: “If only there was a black Windsor, then I might be accepted more.”

How in the name of all that is holy that he can talk of how poorly minorities are treated by the British police in 2018? Perhaps he should look at the shameful cover-ups over ‘Asian rape gangs’ by the police over decades to show how the complete opposite is true. Or answer why two ‘white’ fathers were arrested by the police for trying to rescue their underage daughters from rape dens? They were charged with illegal entry and disturbing the peace. Or the arrest and deportation of EU citizen Martin Sellner and his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone looking to make a speech at Speaker’s Corner and conduct an interview?

Society may be far from perfect but to run these identity narratives using the monarchy as a beacon of bigotry serves no purpose when the facts are examined. Perhaps he should take up his victimhood with London’s first Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan because voters are so against minorities. No, it’s just easier to imply that white Brits are xenophobes and the monarchy embodies that same white privilege. Until we guillotine the Royals, the sharp remedy that will cure this lack of diversity awaits.

#SpareMe & #ThankYou

DEC1A621-096A-41D3-910B-5CDC944DDF1C.jpeg

They say pictures speak a thousand words. One wonders whether there are a thousand threads in these pictures at the Cannes Film Festival. For all of the sanctimony we hear from celebrities about how important the #MeToo movement is, what better opportunity to let down the side than to minimize cloth to skin ratios. These ladies know they are walking billboards, overtly flaunting their assets to gain attention in the hope they are short listed on the next blockbuster given the likelihood of widespread media coverage. Why else would they wear the equivalent of postage stamps held together by dental floss? Who can blame them? Where are the male actors strutting in sequin g-strings? Hardly fair that only women get to show off the flesh!

By all means, these ladies who graze on lentils and alfalfa while completing grueling gym sessions 6 hours a day, have every right to dress as they please given they work so hard cultivating those figures. Isn’t objectification the intention? Appreciating beauty is certainly not a crime and it does not border on harassment. Should red-blooded males be shamed for seeing protruding nipples and exposed cleavage fall into their peripheral vision? Can we honestly say hand on heart that some in the Hollywood set didn’t/don’t willingly trade flesh for a $5mn role? It is not to condone the behavior rather to say that if in the end a budding actor/actress is willing to ‘pay in kind’ to nail a big role that is still consensual. Jokes about Weinstein’s sexual antics were made for years at award ceremonies before he was finally outed. If he is convicted of sexual assault/harassment then may the full extent of the law deal with the crime. However #SpareMe the sanctimony about how none of them knew. Staying on the lucrative gravy train and buying more global property was more way addictive than doing the right thing by standing up for the true victims.

It is surprising that the feminists haven’t been up in arms about Cannes. They managed to take down the F-1 grid girls effectively enough. Isn’t it ironic that the people most upset by the ban were the grid girls themselves. They liked what they did, got paid handsomely to flaunt figures they no doubt work so hard to maintain and welcomed the attention. Now they are out of a job! Yet it’s is we who must get in step with the times. Perhaps the F-1 teams could have been asked to pay a grid-girl tax and donate the funds to promote charitable causes that the girls themselves felt passionately about. It will be interesting to see whether the MotoGP franchise owners, Dorna, go the same route as F-1 which will be pretty hypocritical given the web pages dedicated to the brolley dollies at each round.

Maybe the bigger laugh was the Israeli 2018 Eurovision song winner, Netti Barzilai. She said that in the auditioning process that she overheard whispers about whether they could field someone prettier or skinnier. So sex appeal was preferable to ability? When was the last time we truly heard a properly decent song that didn’t have some singer surrounded by scantily clad women twerking?

Still the virtue signaling continues. Cate Blanchett was on the stairs at Cannes demanding equal pay, when she herself is one of the higher paid actresses in town. Her mate Benedict Cumberbatch is refusing to star in movies unless there is equal pay.  Such actions are nothing but self-indulgent attempts to create free publicity. Say he is offered $25mn for a role and his never seen before female sidekick is not granted the same? Will he protest, divide his own pot or star anyway? One wonders.

Here is an idea for celebrities. CM thinks that Hollywood should be run by a government agency which will ensure equality in all outcomes. Movie roles will be distributed evenly. Each movie will have exactly the same budget. It will have equal numbers of men, women, LGBT, races, religious representation and sexual orientation regardless of how factually incorrect a true story may seem. Movie directors will have no say in who is cast for each part. Box office revenues will be evenly distributed at the end of each calendar year to ensure that flops will get subsidized by the hits. The actors who star in blockbusters will receive exactly the same outcome as those whose films end up almost immediately on Netflix.

All actors and actresses will be required to work exactly the same hours, have the same contract terms and be required to attend the awards ceremony in exactly the same garb. No makeup will be permissible, no eyebrow stylists flown around the world at last minute and no speech longer than 10 seconds. As there is to be equality at all costs, there will no longer be gender based awards at the Oscars. Or alternatively Best Actor – male, female and the 63 other gender categories. “The winner of the Best Actor in the hermaphrodite category is….”

So Benedict and Cate, will you join a union which levels the playing field and calls for equality or do you still prefer that your acting skills determine how the free market sets your prices? If you choose the former, just don’t speak to Jack Nicholson. He is still collecting royalties from Batman. Just what I thought.

These are the Oscar stats. A 40% decline over 5 years. Is this a sign of a format that is no longer sustainable? Is the disintermediation/disruption caused by video on demand such that making a ‘date’ to go to the cinema is no longer a priority? Cinema attendance in the domestic US market is back at 1993 levels. In the 1990s Hollywood made 400-500 films annually. It now pumps out more than 700. The average revenue per film continues to head south. The strategy seems to throw more at audiences and hope it sticks. Are the movies the industry rates itself on actually reflected in the box office? Out of touch with the audience? It would seem so. 9 films in the last 13 have failed to breach $75mn. So instead of Hollywood being so preoccupied with espousing politics, perhaps it should look to the audience it ‘preaches’ to and starts ‘reaching’ them instead otherwise many of them will be staring at massive pay cuts. Or will that mean it is every man and woman for themselves again!?

ABC goes bananas but slips up on cold truths that split the narrative

02CD0689-EB3B-4276-BC19-15CA5633D0AA.jpeg

On March 18,  CM wrote about the gross inefficiencies at the ABC, which have rapidly deteriorated over time. We said,

Since 2008, the average salary of ABC’s staff has risen 25% from $86,908 to $108,408. Total staff numbers have risen from 4499 to 4769. Therefore salaries as a percentage of the ABC revenues have risen from 37.1% of the budget to 50%. The ABC’s ability to generate sales from content has fallen from A$140mn to A$70mn last year. The multicultural SBS has seen its budget grow from A$259mn in 2008 to A$412mn in 2017. SBS staff numbers have grown from 844 to 1,466 over the same period with average salaries rising from A$82,689 to A$88,267 or 7.2%. Which begs the question why is the SBS able to operate at 31% of the budget in salaries while the ABC is at 50%? Surely the ABC’s economies of scale should work in its favour? Clearly not.

According to The Australian, in response to the budget cuts coming over the following three years,  the ABC responded today with,

The ABC says there is “no more fat to cut” following the federal government’s announcement to slash $84 million in funding from the public broadcaster…News director Gaven Morris has hit back at the three-year funding freeze announced in Tuesday’s federal budget, which maintains more than $1 billion a year for the broadcaster.

“Make no mistake, there is no more fat to cut at the ABC. Any more cuts to the ABC cut into the muscle of the organisation…We’re as efficient as we’ve ever been…We’re the most minutely scrutinised media organisation in Australia…$84 million over three years, there is simply no way we can achieve that without looking at content creation and certainly looking at jobs within the organisation.”

Well perhaps if the ABC stop airing radical feminists who demand that parents seek approval from their babies when changing nappies or called conservative politicians who served in the military as “c*nts” perhaps it might justify for more budget.

It is a pretty simple. Online media pretty much allows such a wide array of choice that we do not need a taxpayer funded media (which readily breaches its code of conduct with regards to political bias) to provide so much content.

We have multiple ABC TV & radio stations plus multiple websites. One could argue for one each. We certainly do not need to give the ABC more money to expand its platforms to make up for a shortfall in quality content to arrest declining market shares.

Get consent from your infants you thoughtless parents

4D0294A4-6533-426B-BBD9-70463B9ECA44.jpeg

It shouldn’t surprise us with the left’s lunatic thinking that a child knows that it is responsible for soiling it’s own diaper. Of course only our national broadcaster, the ABC, would host such people on their programmes. Is it any wonder the ABC has had a budget freeze for the next three years. It should be heavily slashed given it wastes tax payers money on such inane stupidity. No wonder it’s viewership continues to decline.

We work with parents from birth… just about how to set up a culture of  consent in their home so, “I’m going to change your nappy now. Is that okay?” Of course the baby’s not going to respond, “Yes mum, that’s awesome. I’d love to have my nappy changed.” But if you leave a space and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact, then you’re letting that child know that they’re responsible…”

You can find the ABC’s budget malaise here.

Saving the planet one flight at a time. 2% of passengers offset carbon emissions meaning 98% don’t care

D84EE645-B3D1-4B2C-8F1D-8C507ECA5450.jpeg

Apart from the 100% certainty of me being screened for explosives at Sydney Airport (yet again today), the  one other certainty of life is that the growth in air travel suggests that more and more people are happy to save the planet, provided that someone else offsets on their behalf. CM has long argued this position. Our consumption patterns dictate the “true” state of care of the environment. It hasn’t stopped SUV sales dead in their tracks and last year the IATA forecast that the number of airline passengers is set to DOUBLE by 2030.  Could it be that taking a holiday outweighs saving Johnny Polarbear (whose numbers are growing by the way)? Is it conceivable that many of those that are climate alarmists don’t practice what they preach? Well if the UNIPCC COP summits are anything to go by, 50,000 of these pilgrims fly half way around the world every year to kneel at the altar of the climate alarmists pagans.

Virtue signaling airline Qantas has had a long history of emissions offset programs. Now you can choose how to waste your money.

ABD69469-A9BB-43F3-AF97-1AE3E4C07D34.jpeg

So to offset my flight to Haneda, CM is calculated to pay $11.21 AUD. I can put it to ‘local action’ (fund activism?), ‘developing communities’ or ‘global renewables’. In its 2017 Annual Report, Qantas boasts,

We have the world’s largest airline offset program and have now been carbon offsetting for over 10 years. In 2016/17, we reached three million tonnes offset.”

Carbon calculators tend to work on the assumption of 0.158kg CO2/passenger kilometre.

In the last 10 years Qantas has flown around 1 trillion revenue passenger kilometres. While the literature in the annual report denotes one passenger offsets every 53 seconds, the mathematical reality is simple – 2% of miles are carbon offset. So that means that 98% of people couldn’t care less.

Perhaps more embarrassing is that The Guardian noted in Jan 2018 that,

Qantas [was the] worst airline operating across Pacific for CO2 emissions

Kind of a massive load of hot air when you do the maths!

Compelled speech in kindergarten. Use of “best friend” banned

7889AAD9-6392-48D4-8862-A9DD879CBA1F.jpeg

This is probably the stupidest thing I’ve seen from the left. It is utterly bonkers. It is a race to the bottom in who can introduce compelled speech from as early an age as possible. CM is waiting for the kindergarten  that wants to waterboard kids for disobedience. From Rasmussen Reports,

“A Massachusetts preschool has banned students from using the term “best friend,” saying it can make others feel excluded. But most Americans balk at prohibiting the use of “best friends” and think parents are far more influential in a child’s future than anyone else anyway.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 11% of American Adults favor schools prohibiting students from designating someone else as their best friend. Seventy-seven percent (77%) oppose it, but 12% are undecided“

People on the left howled at Betsy DeVos’s appointment as Education Secretary. Will they protest the cultural  Marxist that proposed banning kids from being kids? Perhaps they can have their friends preselected? “Tommy I see you’re missing a gender queer Hispanic friend in this sand pit. You are on detention. Prinipal’s office, NOW!” How are these educators within 100ft of a classroom?

It smacks of the same idiocy of a pre-school in Melbourne, Australia that tried to ban the celebration of Mother’s Day and Father’s Day because it might offend LGBTQ-iinfinity parents. So the 99.9% are required to roll over for the 0.1%. No scientific studies on whether offence might be caused. Ban it anyway. On the off chance it might. Once again, in the push for diversity and inclusiveness we happily dismantle common sense and tradition in the process.

If you ever wanted proof of Australia’s stupid energy policy look no further

Power Station - United Kingdom

Here is a cracker from Jo Nova on proof of how retarded the thinking is with our federal and state governments when it comes to energy policy. The free market makes a compelling case for taking the opposite view of the regulators. The real danger is if more businesses move off the grid (like the Chinese Bitcoin miners) to their own affordable power the cost of electricity to the “rest of us” will soar. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work that out. Joe and Joanne Public will be forced to rely on an already unstable energy source with fewer people to cover ever rising network costs. As long as we look as we are doing something about climate change, that will be enough. Nuts!