Author Archives: Tim Newman

Virtue-signaling and derangement in the wake of a massacre

Posted on by

Over the weekend a lunatic walked into a synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA and shot dead 11 Jews who were at worship. It quickly transpired that the murderer was a far-right headcase who thought the Jews were responsible for all America’s ills, including mass immigration. His social media accounts show he detested Trump, believing him to be in thrall to the Jews and not doing enough to halt their nefarious plans. The answer, he believed, was to murder a bunch of elderly Jews.

Despite the motivations of the perpetrator, and the fact that Ivanka Trump is Jewish having converted to get married, liberals and fake conservatives across America are blaming the attack on Trump. The reaction of non-American Jews wasn’t much better. Here’s a British chap who writes for the Jewish Chronicle:


Sugarman’s timeline is filled with how he mourns for his co-religionists in the US, yet the sanctity of the still-warm bodies is not so great that he can’t stand atop them to virtue-signal about Trump. My first question is why a journalist would think it appropriate to start talking about gun laws before the smell of cordite has gone from the air. Secondly, what is wrong with Trump’s response that if the worshipers had been protected with arms, things would have gone differently? Europeans love to scoff at the unsophisticated, redneck Americans who think armed protection is the answer to such massacres, but I used to walk by a Jewish centre one street over from my apartment in Paris on a daily basis. And have a guess what? It was guarded throughout the day by two soldiers wearing combat gear and each carrying a FAMAS. The protection was brought in after the kosher supermarket shootings in Paris which took place two days after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. I understand that many synagogues and Jewish cultural centres across Europe now have armed guards stationed outside, yet none of these leave British Jewish journalists unable to find words to express their hatred of the head of government. We needn’t think too hard as to why that is.

Laurie Penny, who is apparently now in the US involved with writing a TV show, has quickly learned which drum to bash in her new career:

If Trump’s speaking at a political rally shows he is rather callous towards Jews, I wonder what we should make of Laurie’s hit-piece on Ivanka which begins:

IVANKA TRUMP HAS WRITTEN a book about female empowerment, and it is about as feminist as a swastika-shaped bikini wax.

Because nothing represents solidarity with Jews like mentioning swastikas when attacking one in print.

There is also a lot of sentiment like this:

It’s hard to tell whether he genuinely thinks this, or whether it’s just an excuse to show his dislike for Trump. Emanuel Miller is a generally decent sort, but anti-Trump derangement infects many otherwise sensible people. Now Miller lives in Israel, and he will be fully aware of the opprobrium that was heaped on Trump when he moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Hell, the UN even held a special session to denounce it. He will also be fully aware that Trump, by scrapping the nuclear “deal” and re-imposing sanctions, severely clipped the wings of Israel’s greatest threat, Iran. He’s also halted funding to the Palestinians for using the money to buy weapons which they then use to attack Israel.

So we have Trump attracting the world’s wrath for brazenly pro-Israeli policies, while Jews wring their hands that he’s “careless” with words. Well here’s the thing. If Trump wasn’t indifferent to the supposed consequences of his words, and worried about what people would think of him, the embassy would still be in Tel Aviv, the Iranians would still have their deal, and workers in Palestinian rocket-factories would still have their dental plans. They’re both sides of the same coin: you could have that nice man Obama back – who of course was never careless with words or empowered extremists, oh no – but how good was he for the world’s Jewry? The Mullahs seemed rather fond of him, at any rate.

Sadly, a lot of commentary following the synagogue shooting consists of people lining up to virtue-signal over Trump, even if it means denying that he’s one of the most pro-Jewish presidents in living memory. Some have gone further, seizing the opportunity to equate any criticism of George Soros as anti-semitic and shut down all discussion over immigration. These are the much the same people who give fawning coverage to Linda Sarsour, ignore Louis Farrakhan, and wave Palestinian flags at BDS rallies.

In summary, it’s probably best to ignore most of what’s being said about the massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue, even by people who are normally sensible; it’s too much effort to separate genuine opinions from anti-Trump derangement and in-group virtue-signaling. Finally, there’s this:


If only the Jews had a word for chutzpah.

Share

The Desert Sun Podcast #001

Posted on by

A few people have suggested I ought to try doing a podcast, and everyone seems to be doing one these days, so I thought I’d give it a go. I’m not sure if I’ll have the time to make a weekly podcast while also writing the blog; right now I have no idea how much effort is involved in this. I’ve bought a good microphone and downloaded some decent editing software so it’s not like I’m just talking into my iPhone, but I’ve got a computer whirring beside me and the room’s a bit echoey, so it might take a few goes to get the sound right. And yeah, the intro music is staying, so don’t bother complaining about that.

So I don’t know what format this podcast will take, in terms of length, content, or regularity. This first one is an experiment, to gauge how my voice sounds and whether anyone would be interested in me talking about other topics. I’ve chosen for my subject a talk I was supposed to give in Washington, DC last year called The Politics of Oil Production: an Engineer’s Perspective.

You can listen and download it below: my intention is to get it into Apple and all the other podcast services in due course. Do have a listen, and let me know what you think.

Share

Helicopter safety, again

Posted on by

I’ve written before about helicopter safety (1, 2). I always assumed they were more dangerous than fixed-wing aircraft, but when I made this claim on a blog someone pointed me to a link which said this wasn’t so (I thought it was on here, but I’ve scoured my comments section to no avail). Regardless, I try to avoid going up in helicopters and I think I’d only feel comfortable in operated by a military from a country with no green in its flag and where you can drink the tap water.

Yesterday, this happened:

The Leicester City owner’s helicopter has crashed in a car park outside the club’s ground as it left the stadium following a Premier League match.

Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha was in the helicopter when it came down at about 20:30 BST on Saturday, a source close to the family has told the BBC.

One witness said he saw Leicester player Kasper Schmeichel run out of the stadium towards the scene of the crash.

It is not known how many other people were on board the helicopter.

Leicester had drawn 1-1 against West Ham United at the King Power Stadium, with the match finishing about one hour before the helicopter took off from the pitch.

Witnesses said they saw it just clear the stadium before it spiralled out of control, with some describing seeing a fireball as it crashed.

Between pilot error and mechanical failure there just seems to be an awful lot to go wrong when flying helicopters; I understand insurance companies aren’t too keen on people flying about in them, compared with fixed-wing aircraft. Sadly, Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha won’t be the first executive of a British football club to die in a helicopter crash: Chelsea’s Matthew Harding met with a similar fate in 1996.

Share

The French and Brexit

Posted on by

The other day I read a story in The Sun, which was repeated in The Express, saying French President Emmanuel Macron was threatening to blockade the port of Calais once Britain leaves the EU. I was going to write something in response but found no evidence in either article that Macron had said any such thing: it was merely speculation by some remainer politicians ramping up project fear.

It was nonsense, of course:

French officials have rejected suggestions they could resort to a “go-slow” policy at the port of Calais if there is no Brexit deal.

The UK’s Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab warned on Thursday of major disruption in a “worse case scenario”, which might force firms to use other ports.

But Xavier Bertrand, president of the Hauts-de-France region, said ensuring “fluidity” of trade was essential.

Another official said closing Calais would be an “economic suicide mission”.

As most of my readers know, I’ve been living in France since before the Brexit vote. Here’s the aggregate view of the French from where I’m standing: we don’t care. Now some might think the decision was stupid, but the French are no strangers to making silly decisions in what they perceive to be their national interest, and so can perfectly understand why a majority might have voted to leave. They also share the view of many mainland Europeans that Britain’s heart was never really in the EU project, they were always moaning and asking for opt-outs, and so perhaps they’re better off leaving. The subject of Brexit rarely even comes up; unsurprisingly, the French have other things to concern them.

So even if French politicians decided to punish Britain for leaving by causing chaos at the ports, this would be unpopular with ordinary Frenchmen who already take an exceptionally dim view of Macron. The French might burn a lorry load of British sheep on the motorway or illegally ban imports of British beef in order to protect their own industries, but they don’t hate the British to the point they want them punished over Brexit, let alone ports blocked which would hurt them as much as us.

Last weekend I met a bunch of Frenchmen to play some music, all of them over fifty. During the break the subject turned to politics, and they expressed their dissatisfaction with the ruling classes in France and Europe generally. I understand the younger generation have grown up brainwashed on EU propaganda, but rather than resenting Britain, I think a lot of French and other Europeans have more in common with Brexiteers than we think. Not that you’d know this listening to politicians or the media: their view of Europe comes from people of exactly the same privileged social class as them, only sitting in a different capital city. That they’re seriously suggesting the French are going to blockade Calais shows how little they know about the countries they’re fighting to maintain their partnership with.

Share

All Mouth, No Trousers

Posted on by

I’ve written before about the Republicans and Obamacare:

If we are to believe the words that come out of their mouths, the Establishment Republicans were vehemently opposed to Obamacare and longed for the day they could repeal it. But if that were the case, they would have spent the necessary time and effort to come up with a viable alternative and presented that to the public loudly and often during those five or six years that they were in opposition and Obamacare was in force. Only they didn’t: for all their talk in the election about repealing Obamacare, when it came to the job of actually coming up with an alternative, they didn’t have a clue.

…

I suspect the Establishment Republicans are terrified at having to come up with a genuine alternative because it will involve hard work and taking on the enormously powerful vested interests that make providing healthcare in America almost impossible.

I compared the above with the Tories’ dithering over Brexit, but 18 months on the comparison is even more apt. Here’s an article in The Telegraph:

Every weekend it’s the same. Theresa May is on the brink. Tory Brexiteers are poised to strike. They’re just two letters away from a vote of no confidence. The end is only days away. Mrs May is doomed.

And then… nothing happens.

Every weekend. Every single weekend. Honestly. The Prime Minister’s backbench critics like to call her “weak”. Perhaps they could tell us: what word should we use to describe people who endlessly declare they’re about to depose her, but never go through with it?

A few weeks ago, Boris Johnson looked poised to launch a leadership bid, depose the hapless May, and sit down with the EU for some serious negotiations on Brexit. Instead, as the article says, nothing happened. The contribution to Brexit of Jacob Rees-Mogg, the man in whom many placed their highest hopes, is to moan about things on Twitter. Even his biggest fans are unable to contain their disappointment:

If Johnson, David Davis, Rees-Mogg, and all the others wanted to be taken seriously they would have drawn up a document of what they would present to the EU, publish it, and be on every television show and in every newspaper talking about it non-stop. That would give people something to vote for, instead of holding out hope over some vague rumours that one of them is going to grow some balls and usurp Theresa May. Hell, the backbenchers should have been doing this since the morning after the vote. What else were they doing? They’re no different from Paul Ryan’s Republicans, moaning incessantly about Obamacare but when asked to present their alternative, they don’t even want to try.

This is a colossal failure on the part of the Conservative party, who deserve to be consigned to the dustbin of history. It’s also a colossal failure of the Labour party, who should have capitalised on this long ago instead of playing teenage Trots with the magic grandpa. But I suppose if there were any serious leaders in either the Conservatives or Labour, Theresa May would never have become Prime Minister and we’d not be in this mess in the first place. It’s hard to imagine a time when the political landscape was so bereft of anyone with an ounce of competence or leadership skills. I suppose we ought to be fortunate that, with a few exceptions, the EU members states are in much the same boat.

Share

Special Farce

Posted on by

Given the modern British military is mainly an excuse to employ lots of middle class people in the MoD and do a bit of PR, they may as well do this:

Women will be able to apply for any British military role for the first time, the defence secretary has said.

Gavin Williamson announced that all combat roles were now open to women, including serving in special forces units such as the SAS.

He said for the first time the “armed forces will be determined by ability alone and not gender”.

A ban on women serving in close combat units in the British military was lifted in 2016.

…

As of now, women already serving in the Army are able to apply for the Royal Marines and the infantry. That will open the door for them to join special forces units such as the SAS after the necessary training.

Mr Williamson told BBC News: “We very much expect women to be joining the SAS and the Special Boat Service.

“The value that they’ll bring, the impact they’ll make will be phenomenal and all the services are looking forward to welcoming them.”

Williamson sounds like a bright-eyed head-office spokesman informing staff of a merger which everyone on the factory floor knows will be a disaster and cost half of them their jobs. What value will women bring to the SAS, exactly? What tasks are the SBS struggling to execute with their traditional, all-male teams?

Now this blog is fortunate enough to have ex-seaman Jason Lynch as a commenter, who often weighs in on the topic of women in the military. In the past he has said that, in damage repair drills, women can prove their worth by doing tasks which require small, nimble people rather than big, strapping lads. He also said women have been involved in actual damage repair operations and performed adequately. I have no doubt this is true, and I am not against women serving in military units if they can add overall value.

However, I am certain that for women to serve in the SAS, SBS, or even the Royal Marines physical standards will have to be lowered to the point of worthlessness. We’ve seen how these things go: first they say standards will not be lowered, then there are  complaints that no women are passing, then the instructors are told to cheat to allow women to pass, then the standards are abandoned altogether. I walk the Brecon Beacons along the SAS and SBS selection routes back in my early twenties when a few of my friends in the RMR were training for R-Troop (they passed). The difference was they were loaded down with monster bergens and I trotted along with a day-sack. I am also pretty good friends with this chap, who recreates SAS selection marches for civilians to test their mettle. The loads each man carries and the pace they move at is obscene: a common complaint among my friends was that 21 and 23 SAS only required 4km per hour, whereas R-Troop stuck with the regular SBS and 22 SAS pace of 5km per hour. Over the Brecon Beacons this is a blistering pace, and I knew blokes who practically ran the whole route. I was exhausted after a day’s hike with these guys, and I was carrying no weight and only did it for one day in good weather. I couldn’t even get my friend’s bergen on my back, and when someone helped me I found I couldn’t move. During selection, my friends were doing these hill routes day after day.

Unsurprisingly, some men picked up injuries, mostly knees and ankles but also backs. When my friends joined the regular forces and got a few years under their belt, a few of them tried out for regular Special Force selection (including the Royal Marines’ Mountain Leader’s course). The general advice was, if you fail the first one, you have to think very carefully about having another go because of the pounding your body takes. I know at least one guy who was talked out of going for SF selection because it would wreck his already suspect body, and he was a fit lad in his mid twenties.

The rest of the UK special forces selection process which follows “the hills” phase is also brutal: “officer’s week” and “the trees” (i.e. the jungle) are particularly appalling if my friends’ anecdotes are accurate. However, I don’t know whether these would present any great obstacle to women or not. What I am absolutely sure of is if women attempt the current SAS and SBS selection routes in the Elan Valley and Brecon Beacons they will pick up serious injuries at a rate which will later be considered criminally negligent. The course already extracts an awful toll on men at their peak fitness: about 10% pass the whole thing. I suspect the first time a woman attempts it she’ll fail so miserably the units will come under enormous pressure to get her through, which eventually they’ll succumb to.

The good news is once the last British jihadist in Syria is shot and we finally withdraw completely from Afghanistan, we’ll not be sending troops overseas any more, at least not for anything important we can’t leave to the Yanks. Give it another decade and our armed forces will be best known for mincing around a medical tent in a third-world disaster zone along with a bunch of Norwegians, Belgians, and Latvians in green clothes. That being so, why not let women serve in the SAS? After all, Williamson got one thing right:

the impact they’ll make will be phenomenal

Indeed.

Share

Protected Class Confirmed

Posted on by

This story is generating plenty of comment on social media:

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled a woman convicted by an Austrian court of calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not have her freedom of speech rights infringed.

The woman, named only as Mrs. S, 47, from Vienna, was said to have held two seminars in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Mohammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha.

…

Mrs S. was later convicted in February 2011 by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court for disparaging religious doctrines and ordered her to pay a fine of 480 euros plus legal fees.

After having her case thrown out by both the Vienna Court of Appeal and Austria’s Supreme Court, the European Court of Human rights backed the courts’ decision to convict Mrs S. on Thursday.

The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

For those who doubt the Daily Mail story, the original ruling is here (pdf). A lot of people are saying this effectively outlaws blasphemy, but I’m not so sure. For my part, I think it merely re-affirms that Muslims are a protected class in Europe and the ruling classes will tolerate no criticism of them or their beliefs. Despite this decision you can be sure criticism and abuse of Christians and Jews will still be acceptable, and even encouraged in some instances. This is hardly a new development.

In a statement on Thursday the ECHR said: ‘The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.’

You could write a whole dissertation on what’s wrong with the above statement, but what strikes me most is that there is even a danger of the “religious peace” in Austria being broken. The last time there was religious strife in Austria was when the Protestant Reformation swept the country in the mid 1500s, followed by the 30 Years War a century later. If there are now extremist religious elements in Austria threatening the peace, it is because the ruling classes, egged on by their counterparts in Germany and the EU, have invited them in from outside.

Now note the original conviction occurred in 2011. In 2017 Austria elected a new chancellor. Here’s how The Guardian reported his forming of a government:

At the weekend the new chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, of the Austrian People’s party, struck a deal with the Freedom party, a nationalist group founded after the second world war by former members of the Nazi party and now headed by Heinz-Christian Strache.

The coalition deal makes Austria the only western European country with a far-right presence in government. At 31, Kurz is the youngest head of government in the world.

Kurz’s People’s party won 32% of the vote in October’s elections, securing 62 seats in the 183-seat national council. The Freedom party came third with 26% of the vote and 51 seats.

Which suggests the Austrian people had become fed up to the back teeth of the sort of ruling elites who prosecuted a woman for saying mean things about Mohammed, and were happy to elect anyone who pushed back.

The new interior minister, Herbert Kickl, a former speechwriter to the Freedom party’s ex-leader Jörg Haider, is the author of widely criticised campaign slogans such as “More courage for Viennese blood” and “Daham statt Islam” (“Home instead of Islam”).

Well, if you go around prosecuting ordinary people for blasphemy against Islam, you stand a strong chance they will elect a staunchly anti-Islamic government in future elections. Similarly, as we saw in the US, if the political classes suppress all discussion of immigration people will vote for the guy who talks about immigration, regardless of who he is. And how’s this for a tin-ear:

Donald Tusk, the Polish president of the European council, said he looked forward to welcoming Kurz in Brussels. “I trust that the Austrian government will continue to play a constructive and pro-European role in the European Union,” he said.

One of the few critical reactions came from the United Nations, whose rights chief said that Austria’s rightward lurch marked a “dangerous development … in the political life of Europe”

That this “dangerous development” is a direct consequence of their own contempt for ordinary people didn’t seem to occur to Mr Tusk, and now another supranational European body has doubled-down on the mindset which brought it about. As I said yesterday, Brexit really is a sideshow.

Share

TV Advertising

Posted on by

Does anyone know anything about how TV advertising works in the UK? I’m doing a case study for my MBA and need to know a bit about how it’s structured.

I assume there is an intermediary, some sort of advertising agency, between (say) Coca-Cola and (say) ITV. So Coca-Cola produce an advert and rather than take it directly to ITV, they go through the intermediary. So, does anyone know:

1. Who the main intermediaries are in the UK?

2. What their role is? Do they get a list of slots from ITV, etc. with a price alongside each one, and fill them accordingly with ads their clients have given them?

Or have I got this wrong somehow? I’m looking for the basic structure of the business here, not whether it’s outdated, relevant in today’s world, etc. Any help would be much appreciated.

Share

The People’s F*ckup

Posted on by

On the subject of Brexit this is good, especially:

Meanwhile our elected representatives were doing no better, having been so softened by years of out sourcing decisions to the EU or arms reach quango’s that they had no vision nor skill of state craft to call upon, knowing only how to tinker with trivia whilst hoping no one rocked the boat they flailed around hoping that sound bites would once more get them through the day. These people we have for years elected to represent us, despite our wide-spread belief that they were dishonest, dishonourable and incompetent are revealed to be exactly as we judged them when we returned them to power time and again.

Read the whole thing.

Share

Brexit as a sideshow

Posted on by

I have an inkling that Brexit might be viewed by future scholars as the largest distraction in history. Consider this story:

The European Commission has told Italy to revise its budget, an unprecedented move with regard to an EU member state.

The Commission is worried about the impact of higher spending on already high levels of debt in Italy, the eurozone’s third-biggest economy.

Italy’s governing populist parties have vowed to push ahead with campaign promises including a minimum income for the unemployed.

The country now has three weeks to submit a new, draft budget to Brussels.

The Commission said the first draft represented a “particularly serious non-compliance” with its recommendations.

Now I knew some branch of the EU could fine countries if their budget deficits exceed certain thresholds, although the Stability and Growth Pact mysteriously got abandoned when it was France and Germany, rather than Spain and Portugal, that were found in breach. What I didn’t know is that EU member states had to submit their budgets to the EC for approval, and they could be rejected if they weren’t to the Mandarins’ liking. Now Italy has joined a club with certain rules, but how many Italians were aware their own elected government can have their budgets rejected by Germany the European Commission? Was this explicitly made clear by the politicians who signed them up, or are many only just finding out now? How many Brits were aware their governments’ budgets are subject to approval by Jean-Claude Juncker’s mob?

I once worked for a company who didn’t bother with job descriptions for many of its employees, and their employment contracts were shoddy at best. None of this mattered while things were going well and everyone was happy in their position, but as soon as circumstances changed these documents suddenly became rather important. Similarly, I don’t suppose the EC approving member states’ budgets was a problem so long as they just rubber-stamped them; now they’ve decided to reject Italy’s, the whole setup is going to get examined and I suspect it will be found wanting. I don’t know what the Italians will do, but this was their initial response:

“This is the first Italian budget that the EU doesn’t like,” wrote Deputy Prime Minister Luigi Di Maio on Facebook. “No surprise: This is the first Italian budget written in Rome and not in Brussels!”

His co-deputy PM Matteo Salvini added: “This doesn’t change anything.”

“They’re not attacking a government but a people. These are things that will anger Italians even more,” he said.

I doubt this will cause Italy to leave the EU, but it is one more enormous crack that has appeared in the whole edifice which those sitting atop the walls seem unwilling or unable to see. The EU’s censuring of Poland and Hungary is another example, as was their callous disregard for ordinary people in Greece. Britain leaving is a huge blow for the EU, but it’s not their most serious threat. That is populist governments getting elected in member states who then refuse to leave, but disobey, cause trouble, and eventually pull the whole thing down around them. If the EU Mandarins had any sense, they’d make the Brexit transition as painless as possible for both sides and get to work shoring up the foundations of what’s left. I have a feeling Brexit is just a sideshow for what’s coming.

Share