#doublestandards

Merkel’s “border camps”

B3ED5AF6-3BCF-4840-AD85-110E7BF91A88.jpeg

Perhaps the most telling piece of this article were the words, “to save her government.” Expediency and politics go hand in hand. Pretty much every country. No surprises there. The recent federal election was a clear sign that a growing number of Germans had had enough. The anti-immigrant AfD became the second largest party from relative obscurity. The result was a direct reflection of the mood of discontent over Merkel’s misguided altruism – failed migrant policy. Germans are as welcoming and liberal a society as any, if not more but they clearly have limits when their seemingly endless generosity was being repaid with diminishing levels of gratitude.

As an aside, there is a touch of irony. As socialists in the US are calling for the abolishment of ICE and an open border with Mexico, Angela Merkel, the matron saint of the liberals has done a complete backflip on their beliefs that a “come one, come all” policy has nothing but positives.

While plenty of arguments will be made by the mainstream media to show the relative opulence and dedication of care in operating ‘border camps’, in Germany vs the US the reality is that it is a tacit admission that screening is an absolute necessity. Merkel will now turn back those that have been processed for asylum elsewhere. Presumably they’ll burn their documents and start again with new identities to get around this. That is another story.

Digging below the surface reveals that the German state authorities hold much deeper concerns which they have not openly publicized. CM will spell this out a little later,

Before that, let’s get one thing straight. CM is a vigorous defender of helping those in proper need. Many years ago, CM donated considerable sums to help rebuild a school in the north of Thailand after flooding ruined it. There was no greater reward than seeing the smiles on the faces of kids on new playground equipment and studying in the new library. Naming rights were rejected out of hand. CM was never after a personal return to appeal to peers but solely to allow total strangers to benefit.

True victims of hardship will always seek to give back to those that have helped them out. They cherish the opportunity of a new start. They rarely try to exploit the good will of those that extend a helping hand. Many Vietnamese that came to Australia as asylum seekers have integrated their rich culture and become model citizens. It is not hard to see Germans wishing those they help to integrate and share common values in the same way.

So before the race-baiters and SJWs look to criticize CM’s opinions, they should ask themselves what they’ve “actually” done to personally do something about things they complain so vehemently about. Posting outrage on social media to such things does nothing. Appearing to do good is not the same as doing it. How many people protesting these laws would open their own homes to illegal immigrants, asylum seekers or others in need? It would be a safe guess to say hardly any would practice what they preach in this regard. True backers of causes actually invest the time and effort to fix problems.

There is no doubt that many Germans, a culture steeped in perfection, saw the migrant policy get exposed for its lack of due diligence in application. When women in Cologne were told to cover up to avoid harassment by their new guests, we shouldn’t be surprised if they grew upset when being asked to give up individual freedoms for people they were indirectly helping. When swimming pools became segregated to cater for the beliefs of new arrivals and sexual assaults of minors and women become more than a statistical  anomaly, no amount of media gag orders or police cover ups could have prevented a surge in people trying to take the law into their own hands. It only fueled the anger.

Despite the German crime stats being recently downplayed on social media to bash Trump’s tweet on the subject, politically motivated crime has surged. In 2017 (the latest available data), the BfV (German Domestic Intelligence Service) registered 41,549 offences in the category of politically motivated crime, an increase of 29% over the 2014 figure.

Right wing extremist party membership has risen from 22,600 in 2015 to 23,100 in 2016.

1,600 registered cases of violent criminal offences with a right-wing extremist background occurred, 1,190 of them directed at foreigners (+30%), the highest since the current definition of politically motivated crime was introduced in 2001.

Left wing extremist party membership has risen from 26,700 in 2015 to 28,500 in 2016.

In 2016, 5,230 criminal offences were classified as left-wing politically motivated, 1,200 of those violent. While marginally down, they are still way up on 2001 levels.

The BfV is so concerned they openly encourage programsto weed people from the left and right extremist groups (see below).

AE355743-1663-493C-BFFC-C07A784868C0.jpeg

Let’s make it absolutely clear that all asylum seekers Germany has imported are not of Islamic faith nor those that are identify as jihadis. Many are legitimately escaping horror, including needy Muslims willing to grasp a new chance. Who would not seek to help them? It only needs to be several bad apples to spoil the rest which is exactly what is happening. Muzzling citizens doesn’t help breed a culture of mutual tolerance. The BfV wrote in its latest Annual Report,

Islamic Extremists

Salafist movements in Germany have risen from 8,350 in 2015 to 9,700 in 2016 with the BfV noting on the whole, that all Islamist following in 2016 amounted to approximately 24,400 individuals, slightly down over 2015. BfV did note:

Although this total number is smaller than in the previous years, the threat situation has not at all eased. On the contrary: the shift towards a violence-oriented/terrorist spectrum has revealed a new dimension of the Islamist scene, which was also illustrated by the attacks carried out in Germany in 2016However, Salafism in Germany enjoys undiminished popularity. Its continuous attractiveness shows the importance of Salafism being subject to a debate in society as a whole and of intelligence collection carried out by the community of the German domestic intelligence services. This is even more significant as adherents of the jihadist tendency of Salafism not only reject the West – symbolised by the free democratic basic order – but also actively fight against it: either by travelling to so-called jihad areas or by mounting attacks in the West.”

In the area of politically motivated crime by foreigners, 2,566 offences with an extremist background were registered (2015: 1,524), including 427 violent offences (2015: 235). The total number of criminal offences in this category thus increased by 68.4%, the number of violent crimes even by 81.7%. 

The BfV documents concerns relating to the threat of returning ISIS fighters. Many other publications can be found with respect to deterring jihadism (see picture below)

04CB44C8-7621-41CC-B61F-9CB48313BF8E.jpeg

Whether one fears being labeled all manner of insults to admit it or not, the unsavory aspect is that the BfV has no other sections surrounding “issues” with other faiths. It isn’t racist or bigoted to acknowledge the facts of what a government agency reporting to a deeply socialist and virtuous political party posts on its own website. The data are there.

In a sense the wave of populism across Europe is a direct result of poor policy execution with respect to migrant policy. CM has made the point countless times that poverty and income inequality has been growing over the last decade. When those citizens not sharing in prosperity see monies allocated away from helping them into the hands of those who seem to take it for granted of course they will be upset, even if their assumptions are way off reality. Parties which feed off this sentiment only speak volumes of how big the problem is.

Yet when citizens see misguided altruism requires them to give up freedoms to limit the outward appearance of social fraying, the authorities exacerbate the very gap they’re trying to close. Whether one wants to wag the finger at Poland, Hungary or Austria for their callousness in what they see as defending their culture and societal norms, it is absolutely 100% acceptable to expect those they help save from a certain death sentence to integrate and seek to be model members of society.

Citizens are seeking shared prosperity, not shared misery. As their concerns haven’t been answered they’ve gravitated to parties that do and tolerating vigilantism to enforce the types of norms the government is not willing to.

Merkel has invited this problem with little regard for the obvious impacts. Last year she was offering financial incentives (€3,000) for the “less needy” to go home. Now a “wall” is being erected as testament to the silent admission of failure. It is a sad state of affairs because the truly needy are suffering at the hands of people that cheapen their plight by abusing the system. Moreover they’re creating ructions in the communities the needy would be willing to contribute to by those that won’t.

The messaging has been so poorly dealt with by the likes of Merkel et al that reversing the mistakes will be all but impossible because the people trust her less than those the people she opened the gates to. Don’t expect to get the media to admit it though.

The irony of the Ivanka bashing was that it was an Obama era policy

Never let the facts get in the way of a narrative. Liberals were incensed over the treatment of kids on the border which led to Samantha Bee calling Ivanka Trump a “feckless c*nt” for not doing anything about it. What so many on the left have failed to grasp is that the policy mess they’re seeing was introduced by the Obama administration in 2013. Pictures of how kids were being locked in cages like animals at the border were circulating this week when they were taken in 2014.

Mainstream media reports had surfaced that federal agencies had lost 1,500 kids. 80% of illegal immigrant parents were skipping court appearances to get their kids over the last 5 years for fear they’d be deported so they moved from the addresses they provided to make it difficult to track them.

So the irony is the outrage over Ivanka’s supposed insensitivity was based on an Obama era policy. Will the left acknowledge their identity politics hero ended up funneling unaccompanied kids via human traffickers? That innocent kids were abandoned on the border to die after they were used to get into America. Even the Washington Post reported at this but alas no liberal outrage. It only matters to play the man not the ball.

Kindergarten level agenda behind Kinder Morgan buyout

DB8FB78C-4983-44C9-AF1B-6463106AB020

The Canadian Liberal government is paying $4.5bn for a 60yr old pipeline that was sold a decade ago to Kinder Morgan for $377m for an asset RBC values at $2.5bn. Another $7.5bn will be spent to “create jobs”. Apart from Canadian tax dollars going to fund a US company’s ability to expand and compete against Canadian suppliers, the real truth of Trudeau’s intentions probably don’t become any clearer when examining the sponsored summer jobs programme (where businesses could only get greenlighted if they shared “his” values). Yes, taxpayer dollars were approved by Trudeau to help activists protest a pipeline he’s just bought. This was an ad posted by Dogwood:

“As an organizing assistant through the Canada Summer Jobs program you will work directly with a Dogwood Provincial Organizer and the field organizing team to help our organizing network stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker project, as well as help us strengthen the public call for stronger, more accountable and transparent democracy.”

He has already been crashing in the polls. This will help to no end. So much for transparency.

Twitter – why Stephen Fry quit

03D43709-298B-4FE0-8775-81009F0E3813.jpeg

Stephen Fry quit Twitter two years ago and so eloquently explained why:

What fun twitter was in the early days, a secret bathing-pool in a magical glade in an enchanted forest. It was glorious ‘to turn as swimmers into cleanness leaping.’ We frolicked and water-bombed and sometimes, in the moonlight, skinny-dipped. We chattered and laughed and put the world to rights and shared thoughts sacred, silly and profane. But now the pool is stagnant. It is frothy with scum, clogged with weeds and littered with broken glass, sharp rocks and slimy rubbish. If you don’t watch yourself, with every move you’ll end up being gashed, broken, bruised or contused … The fun is over…

…To leave that metaphor, let us grieve at what Twitter has become. A stalking ground for the sanctimoniously self-righteous who love to second-guess, to leap to conclusions and be offended – worse, to be offended on behalf of others they do not even know. It’s as nasty and unwholesome a characteristic as can be imagined. It doesn’t matter whether they think they’re defending women, men, transgender people, Muslims, humanists … the ghastliness is absolutely the same. It makes sensible people want to take an absolutely opposite point of view.

If only politicians put as much energy into policy as they do in the bedroom

09E22CE3-7BA4-4603-9458-A192BCD1AE76.jpeg

Everywhere we turn, social media is tagging another politician who can’t keep “it” behind closed zippers. It is nothing new. While not condoning extra-marital affairs, the media seems more intent on reporting infidelity in nauseating  detail than things that actually matter on the policy front. Growing deficits, unsustainable household debt, eye-popping unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities should be front and centre but the mainstream media (feeding junkies on social media) thinks it gets more mileage by pointing out bedroom antics. Who needs steamy soap operas with expensive stars? Politicians literally offer the best “bang” for the buck going for networks and media outlets. It is endless clickbait. We are also to blame for feeding this nonsense.

Perhaps that is what is meant by “moving with the times?” While we’re all told on one hand how we must behave and talk without causing offense in the new world, the thirst for reporting/sharing secrets from the bedroom seems to tell the real story of the sorry state of journalism. Our level of “being out of touch” has never been higher. We’d be well advised to wake up to the warning signs ahead. Sadly it will be too late when reality finally dawns. Watch social justice issues like climate change and identity politics slide to the very bottom as people realize prioritizing such nonsense doesn’t pay the mortgage or feed a family.

In recent times, Australian Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has been in the spotlight for getting a staffer pregnant. How he chooses to conduct his private life is his (and her) business alone. Indeed another dysfunctional family is born. The main problem seems more about giving high paying jobs  on the taxpayers’ purse to his lover with the tacit approval of the PM. If the timeline is true then the actions by the Deputy PM were unethical to be sure and no amount of song and dance to defend it will find a comforting ear. Allegations of expense abuse only adds to the growing list of reasons to ditch mainstream parties.

Consenting adults should bear personal responsibility. It is not a question of Joyce’s infidelity but politicians (not limited to himself) taking taxpayers for mugs is an issue. Joyce only recently won back his seat of New England in an expensive by-election. At the time he must have been hoping his lover’s bun could stay in the oven.

If anything the manner in which our political class is handling this scandal only re-enforces the abysmal level of moral authority our government has. Even before Joyce’s issues came to light.

Prior to this fiasco we voted in a near as makes no difference hung parliament with a feral Senate. In recent times we’ve had by-elections over dual citizenship (still it did violate the constitution although PM Turnbull preempting the High Court’s ruling was daft), the Dastyari scandal with respect to leaking secrets to China or Foreign Minister Julie Bishop frittering away multi millions in aid dollars without any due diligence on the back of pop-star Rihanna’s Twitter account.

We are being run by clowns (not limited to Australia mind you) who clearly put their own survival above all else. Despite the polls showing a clear and present danger of the incumbent government being turfed out at the next election there seems to be a level of complacency within the Coalition’s ranks that believes that being less worse than the opposition is somehow virtuous and believing a self created myth that disenchanted voters will somehow reelect them again.

Infidelity doesn’t reflect well for politicians preaching family values. However  it would be fair to say that many voters would turn a blind eye to these indiscretions if those same bureaucrats would exercise the same amount of vigor in putting through sensible policy (that betters their constituents) as they do between the sheets.

Perhaps the media should be doing more biopsies on things that truly matter. That way there will be fewer autopsies. As it stands delving into the privacy of others seems far more important to ratings.

Zip It or be Zapped

EE607F58-63C2-419F-8427-7C4C0E6A322F.jpeg

It seems that everywhere we turn these days someone else is raising a flag to suggest “we need to move with the times.”  What are “the times?” Whose times are we required to move for? Mine? Yours? Theirs? A chat on social media the other day raised the conversation of an HR director saying that he would not sign off on a hire who didn’t agree with his subjective view over a trivial subject. He argued that it was for the best interests of diversity and inclusion not to hire someone who wasn’t offended by said subject. CM retorted “so if I don’t agree with your thinking on a topic which is completely unrelated to the job task that I might be hypothetically the most qualified for, you’ll sink it on that alone…sounds like a totalitarian power trip.” This confirmed the ‘unconscious bias, conscious bias‘ piece on HR last week.’ 2+2=5. HR departments are becoming all powerful autocrats.

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry! The conversation went further to suggest that I simply must accept change on the grounds of diversity. That word is chucked around as loosely as a Casanova saying “I love you” to his multiple conquests. It simply seeks to force compliance. Surely all things work better when there is mutual buy-in rather than threatening to burn people at the stake. Why is my subjectivity any more or less valuable than someone else’s?

The idea of forcing conformity is dangerous ground. As long as one’s views don’t openly impact others why should it matter? Why should HR apparatchiks use bullying behaviour which goes against the grain of every appropriate workplace behaviour training seminar staff are required to take? Well it is only “some” behaviour. So much for equality in the workplace.

Just like the same sex marriage (SSM) debate. Anyone with a rainbow screen saver could proudly display it in the office without attracting a whimper because they were ‘on message’. Anyone that didn’t believe it and had a “Vote NO” as a computer screen background would have been summoned before HR for hate speech and reprimanded or worse, sacked. Is that freedom of opinion? Is that diversity? Or inclusion? Accept or face the consequences is hardly a way to encourage it. Diversity and inclusion only creates division and exclusion because only some people are allowed to voice free speech.  When the government funded Diversity Council tells Australian workers that the use of the word ‘guys’ is offensive then just how far are we willing to trade everyday freedoms and cultural norms? If one is triggered by the use of the word ‘guys’ or a preferred pronoun then they need a shrink not an HR department to help them.

The sad reality is that diversity should be won on the grounds of the argument rather than legislation. Just like the F1 race queen ban from this year. It doesn’t much matter to CM personally on what the F1 wants to do. Go on the MotoGP website and there is a “Paddock GirlssectionTo suddenly reverse a decision it so actively promotes would be utter hypocrisy. While the need to halt the objectification of women argument is bandied about, the women who do it are clearly happy to be objectified for a price. Instead of viewers being told to “get with the times” shouldn’t they be hammering the message to the umbrella girls to tell them they’re letting down their own side? Could it be they can exploit their beauty for some decent coin because they don’t share offense over the issue? Their looks are a virtue in their eyes. Are they wrong to use it their advantage? Would a Harvard MBA graduate apply to McDonalds for a cash register role so as to check his or her privelege to those that weren’t so lucky to study there?

Whether one likes it or not why not let sponsors decide how they want to spend their ad dollars and let consumers bury them if they find the use of advertising across a cleavage as “not with the times”? Why state control? Casey Stoner ended up marrying his pit girl and has a wonderful family now. If 10% of teams decided to keep pit girls but got 75% of the TV coverage before the start of the race could you blame them? Advertising is literally all about ‘exposure’. Or would race control demand the camera operators avoid them?

Further to that, perhaps F1 should ban the popular cockpit radio transmissions of drivers like Kimi Raikkonen who drop the F-bomb every other lap. Or is profanity now ‘in with the times’?

Should the forthcoming Tokyo Motor Show ban the use of scantily clad women standing next to cars? Last year Porsche, VW and Audi had several slick cut male models parading their products. Ladies were lining up to take selfies with these foreign himbos. If not for objectification, then what? Girls could be heard saying “cho kakkoi” (so handsome). As a male was I feeling insulted and triggered? No. I figured it was time to sign up for the gym, visit Hugo Boss for a sharp suit and book an appointment at a $300 hair stylist after I got back in shape. If I had made a song and dance about feeling uncomfortable at handsome men being treated like slabs of meat would I be granted the same rights to being offended? Not for a second.

Should pretty women be banned from starring in adverts?  Cosmetics companies have products that are pitched pretty much solely toward women but no one bats an eyelid when Giselle pouts a lipstick. Luxury goods stores also cater predominantly to women. No shortage of flesh showing off shoes, handbags or miniskirts. Why no outrage? Should Subaru be raked over coals for targeting same sex couples in its adverts? No. If it feels that is a market it wishes to tap then it should feel free to push for it. If I was offended then I could simply refuse to buy an Impreza WRX. I shouldn’t have a right to tell Subaru who it can and can’t sell to. That’s accepting diversity. Not enforcing my view of the world on others with respect to Subaru. Choice.

Put simply why should the subjective opinions of people (within reason) be such that we must comfort the wowsers at all times? Yarra Council is telling it’s 1,000 staff it mustn’t use the word “Australia Day” to refer to Janury 26, a Day celebrated since 1815! Aussie nurses and midwives are being told to check their white privelege and admit their colonial roots should a patient demand so. Shouldn’t the safe delivery of children be the only priority than have a “code of conduct” to force behaviours that have probably never if ever been an issue in decades? Bad bedside manner for healthcarers is one thing less likely to do with race, gender or sexual orientation than individual attitudes.

Still the message is zip it or be zapped. Next time you’re being told it is for diversity start running for the hills. Your subjective opinion is as equal as anyone elses provided you don’t disagree with the Marxist’s definition of ‘with the times

 

A vote for Palestine or a vote against America? Double standards hidden in other votes

DC5C729A-B770-4D4E-932B-0D7507601300.png

Why is anyone surprised by the UNGA vote on the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?  At the UN General Assembly emergency meeting on Thursday to “null & void” the move – 128 votes in favour and nine against, while 35 countries abstained. While it can’t be vetoed it is not legally binding in any way. If one was to break down the vote of the permanent members then without question most of those issued from Russia or China are to stick it to the Americans more than support/reject the cause itself and vice versa . When Turkey’s foreign minister starts talking of not selling out democratic rights of others perhaps he should look to his own boss and question the dictatorship, the lack of freedom of press or an independent judiciary that exists in his own country?

People can stick it to Trump all they want, but a decision was made in mid 1990’s by US Congress, with a clause that had to be signed every 6 months by whomever was President to delay invocation of this act. Between 1998 and 2017, there have been 37 presidential waivers, with the last one expiring a week ago. Trump has just put the ball into motion. After all Presidents Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama have all explicitly said on record that “Jerusalem has and always will be the capital of Israel” The irony of chastising the current president for doing what others said speaks of the hypocrisy of bashing a politician for fulfilling a promise. If only the global political class could catch this disease?!?

While it is hardly a surprise to see Trump’s reaction ‘to take names’ the flip side is that he should allow each UN member state to vote how they wish – period. He would be better off not pointing out the obvious. Indeed if “he doesn’t care” he should just act silently. The message will ring louder. All this posturing only seeks to make him look like a spoilt kid taking his toys home (then again one wonders if that is half the reason he does it. UN votes are meaningless to begin with and seldom have they ever achieved anything worthy.

The UN needs to be defunded in order to reform. It has promised many times to streamline yet it continues to expand into irrelevant quangos. The bloated tax free salaries, retirement packages and living allowances are obscene. Is there any wonder that the UN needs more funding, given 80% of the budget is swallowed up on remuneration alone? No wonder they don’t want progress.

While the truth may be that the US ‘pays’ a lot which ends up in the pockets of many countries, the US will likely go ahead and build the embassy in Jerusalem regardless. Political capital is often ‘bought’. It doesn’t make it right although one who gives to charity hopes that the money ends up supporting favorable causes. Indeed Nikki Haley when criticized for “bullying tactics” responded, “So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people, about where to locate OUR embassy, we don’t expect those we’ve helped to target us…The free money train doesn’t go on forever.

Virtue has and never will be rewarded in politics. To make the point made by the UN’s very own website, some nations lose their right to vote because “according to Charter Article 19, cannot vote because the amount of their arrears equals or exceeds the amount of contributions due from them for the preceding two full years.” So in short if you don’t pay your dues, you lose voting rights. So the UN is basically a ‘club’. Don’t pay your dues, don’t get a vote. Simple. By the same token, some clubs give special treatment for members that pay more. Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze etc.

Here is a telling part of the hypocrisy. Look at the efforts made by these unelected UN representatives when exploring the number of abstentions on certain issues such as “Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly“ So claiming victory and gloating about the embarrassment caused to the US, why  were there 77 abstentions in 2017, 73 abstentions in 2016, 75 in 2015, 79 in 2014, 75 in 203 and 72 in 2012? Notice a pattern? Surely if the evil Israelis don’t rightly deserve to call Jerusalem the capitol and are constantly attacked by the UNHRC for human rights abuses against the Palestinians, why are so many nations abstaining when it comes to investigating these crimes? Surely such evidence would justify the actions of rejecting Israel.

Claiming yesterday as a triumph for the world, the UN is still exposed for what it is. Few bother to look at how nations truly feel when exploring one derivative deeper. The lack of international will is telling. Then again when we only need look at the track record – WHO appointing Robert Mugabe as an ambassador, the proposal to  send in the blue helmets to quell crime in Chicago and the multiple scandals, the complete lack of governance and accountability with respect to the IPCC.

So until all those that vote to punish Israel don’t stick to the script on every vote then the truth is indeed told. Virtue signal on the surface and hide behind abstentions where it matters to ‘keep the funds coming’. Sorry, what was this about principles?