Morning tea time in Tower Hamlets, London

It’s got so obvious, so bad, that John Cleese, (Basil in Fawlty Towers), himself very much a hard Leftie, has spoken out. “It’s not London any more”. 

Comments by local resident Alastair Hilton: 

In a minute I shall get up and walk to get breakfast at a local cafe. I shall sit and watch an endless stream of women walk past the window. Those women will be fully clad in a burqa. One after another after another. 

Every now and then, I’ll see a woman walk by without a burqa but wearing a headscarf. Out of the few hundred that walk by in an hour, there may be one percent white British walk past. After that, I shall get on a double decker bus. It will be full of non British people who can’t speak a word of English. There are usually about two or three white people on the bus, out of sixty or so people. 

I will then get off the bus and onto the London Underground. This will be full of non white non English speaking people. I will then get off and walk down a London street and see maybe ten percent white people. In the whole day, I will have been in a minority of between one percent and ten percent. 

I’ll then mention this on here and be told I’m a complete racist and I haven’t seen this. Told I’m talking complete rubbish and that didn’t happen. I should be burnt at the stake for even saying such lies.

Well, I’m telling you that’s what I’ll see today, because it’s what I see every single day in London. My photo of a typical day in London for reference. Tube station sign is written in the local language. There is one in English but very few here will understand that. Link

ADDED: Tommy Robinson an anti Islamist activists, has to flee the U.K., his own country, because of threats from ISIS-linked islamists. People who  don't like that he tells the truth about the Islamic project which is to take over the world. 

That's NOT me saying it! Muslims say it themselves all the time. Just that they hate it when people notice. Unless people notice and do nothing; or notice and approve. Tommy wasa one of those that noticed and did something: raised consciousness about the threat of radical Islam. And now he's being driven out of his own homeland.

You know one of the things you can get plenty of videos of: Muslims in London, in the U.K., in America, saying: "We're not here to take part. We're here to take over." Cue the raucous laughter of all the Muslims present. Don't think this is serious? Don't think they can do anything about it? Think again. Look at the inroads they've made into our societies in recent decades. These people are serious, they're committed and they're going to keep going unless we stop them. 

It's Andalusia all over again. It's the Battle of Tours all over again. It's the Gates of Vienna all over again. 

Byron at Plaza Fair, Discovery Bay

The “Civilisational Jihad” of the Muslim Brotherhood. In America.

	Amy Mek ⁦‪@AmyMek‬⁩ The Ummah knows no borders. Foreign Islamic movements, from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and beyond, are all actively operating in America. They are working to Islamize our country. These groups follow the same civilizational jihad strategy, rooted in the pic.x.com/BV0T0YrOCV   13/2/2026, 8:18 am

Sent from my iPad

Code Pink and far-left groups are vectors of Chinese influence ops | State Department

/Snip, from The New York Post: 

The State Department transmitted a report to Congress Tuesday linking lefty nonprofits Code Pink and the People's Forum to Chinese influence operations. 

"Partisan hacks spent years peddling the phony Russia collusion hoax while turning a blind eye to the sprawling web of far-left activist organisations who push the agendas of the Chinese Communist Party," Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers said in a statement provided to The Post. 

"Organizations like Code Pink and the People's Forum denigrate the United States, whitewash the violence of Marxist regimes, and run cover for China while enjoying an influx of cash from a donor network with connections to the Chinese Communist Party," Rogers added. [Link]

Covered in depth today by the lads of the Ruthless Variety Show, here. 

I doubt we will find much about this in the legacy media. Because the money is going to outfits fighting v Trump, so they align with the narrative and the aims of the Dems. Which the legacy media reflects. The MSM and the Dems being two sides of the same coin. 

I can imagine that the United States was itself involved in similar shenanigans during the 2019 demo-riots here in Hong Kong. 

The CIA cutout National Endowment for Democracy, at the time, was widely said to have funded and trained the anti-HK government factions, aka "The Yellows" (vs the pro-government "The Blues"). I was quite willing to believe that the U.S. would do this, or try it. But I was never able to find any evidence, even to today. Maybe they're just slicker and slippier. 

The above State Department report does give evidence and they say they'll "go after" the money providers. 

We certainly do have evidence that many (most?) of the demos and rioting since Trump's inauguration have been paid. The rioter-demonstrators say so themselves. There are even companies who do the work of getting the crowds out and paying them. And we have the receipts for that. i.e. the demos, all the anti-ICE stuff is not "organic", but "astroturf". = Fake grassroots. 

Place de la Republique, Paris, November 2014 | the Blogger…

On our way to the Caribbean for some island-hopping sailing. Paris was peaceful then.

The Seven Ages of Man | Shakespeare & Confucius

 Shakespeare’s take on aging and its inevitability, from As You Like It. [Link]

Jaques:  All the world's a stage, 

    And all the men and women merely players: 
    They have their exits and their entrances; 
    And one man in his time plays many parts, 
    His acts being seven ages. 

    At first the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms. 
    And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel 
    And shining morning face, creeping like snail 
    Unwillingly to school.

    And then the lover, Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad 

    Made to his mistress' eyebrow. 

    Then a soldier, Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard, 
    Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel, 
    Seeking the bubble reputation 
    Even in the cannon's mouth. 

    And then the justice, In fair round belly with good capon lined, 
    With eyes severe and beard of formal cut, 
    Full of wise saws and modern instances; 
    And so he plays his part. 

    The sixth age shifts Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon, 
    With spectacles on nose and pouch on side, 
    His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide 
    For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice, 
    Turning again toward childish treble, pipes 
    And whistles in his sound. 

    Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history, 
    Is second childishness and mere oblivion, 
    Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything. 

And Confucius’ take on aging and its inevitability. From The Analects

三十而立                               Sānshí érlì

四十而不惑                           Sìshí ér bùhuò 

五十而知天命                       Wǔshí ér zhī tiānmìng

六十而耳顺                           Liùshí ér ěrshùn

七十而从心所欲，不逾矩   Qīshí ér cóngxīnsuǒyù, bù yú jǔ

At thirty, one stands firm; 

at forty, one is free from doubt; 

at fifty, one knows the mandate of Heaven; 

at sixty, one's ear is attuned to the truth; 

at seventy, one can follow one's heart's desire, without transgressing the rules.

Both the above were brought to mind by the contemplations of this lady at her channel Solo Second Half, which I saw for the first time today. 

It’s Confucius who most set me straight, from 1976 when I first studied his teachings. In this case about the stages in life, nothing being permanent or forever, of accepting the change process, of accepting aging.

It helped me when I left my senior job in Austrade back in 1995. One minute I was being called “boss”, forelocks tugged, respectful deference. The next I’m just a dude. Just a common bloke.

It’s not you they ever respected and paid obeisance to; it’s the position you had. It may seem obvious (because it is), but many folks don’t get it. Not straight away. And often not till it hurts.

Note to self: the (perhaps) sad reality: neither Shakespeare nor Confucius go past 70 years old. OTOH, that could be the good thing: we’re living longer. Which is true. But do we live longer and better?

Grrr.... Dogs to be banned in the English countryside? Yikes!

Just when you thought that the insanity of bending the knee to Islamic demands was easing, you get the sort of nonsense that Leo McKern shows us above. 

That the reasons Muslims don't go the English countryside is because they're "afraid of dogs". And the answer from that leftie twit of a woman -- Scarlett McGuire, "Labour adviser" -- is not "Well, Muslims can either get over their cani-phobia or go to where there aren't any dogs", but instead she says.... "We have to get rid of our dogs". 

"Our dogs". Dogs that we have loved and bred for thousands of years. Dogs that are our national animal symbol, the British Bulldog. But, no, according the the horrid,weak, pusillanimous, Israel appeasing McKern, it's we who have to placate ignorant dog-hating islamists. 

Sheesh. 

Get how the other woman on the panel, the blond, says in a quiet aside: "C U Next Time"... and noone bats an eye. Coz that's what Scarlett McGuire is, of course. Not just a batty twat.  A Conciliating Cunt. She'll be in a Burqa next. She needs to find a spine, for a shiver to run up. 

Dershowitz destroys Tatchell

 

About the map that Peter Tatchell showed. And which Alan Dershowitz demolished, in the Oxford Union debate, above.

It is highly misleading. 

In 1948, just as the State of Israel was created, by the newly-formed United Nations, where were Jews and Muslims living in the land. Tatchell's map makes it seem that there were only Muslim Arabs, that the Jews were only a tiny minority, in a few tiny pockets of land. 

That's simply not true. 

As Dershowitz says, a large part of the land was owned by the State. At the time, that State was British Mandatory Palestine. 

Jews were all over that land, as they had been for over 3,000 years. The Muslims only there since they'd raided and looted the land in the 7th Century, 2,300 years later than the Jews. 

"Palestinians" were not known as Palestinians then, but as Arabs, or as Levantine Arabs. They were late comers. Either from the earlier colonialist invasions by Muslim Arab armies from the East, or from incoming Levantine Arab settlers that came to work on Jewish lands. (there were lots of those).

The Jews that were there had either already owned the land since time immemorial, or they'd bought the land from absentee landlords, mostly in Turkey, some in Syria. The latter were happy to sell to Jews, by the way, as the Jews paid good prices. (for which they were hammered -- of course! -- for being "opportunistic" and "exploitative". Had they simply taken the land, they would have been "thieves" and "genocidal", so there's no winning on that one). 

To paint this whole area as being "Palestinian", as does Tatchell, and anyone who waves this map around, is hugely misleading. It would be like painting the whole of the United States as white, because most of its population are caucasian. But there are plenty of other ethnicities as well. Such a pic would be misleading. We'd call it out. But the Tatchell map, it fits the narrative of "Israel horrid", so dupes like Tatchell are quite happy to wave it around.

In what is present day Israel, there were Jews and there were Muslims. In some places more Jews than Arabs, in others the reverse. But to paint it all as one ethno-religion, Arab Muslim, is to eradicate all the Jews that were there at the time. 

And, come the time of Independence, the Jews were offered a small slice of this land, the Arabs a much larger slice. Something close to the actual numbers at the time. The Jews accepted their share, even as they believed it was unfair. The Arabs did not. And began a war. Which they lost. And have been losing ever war since. 

That's the story. 

The Fallacy of Range. Shenanigans with Statistics

We all do it. 

Use the "Fallacy of Range" to make our point. In other words: cheat with stats. 

Hence the phrase: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics". 

Stats can be manipulated. And whenever something can be done, it will be done. 

As in the Fallacy of Range:

Climate alarmists (aka Greens; aka the Dems) will clip bits of a temperature trend series to show a rising trend in temperature. 

Climate realists (aka ordinary folks; aka the Reps), will clip a trend, often from the same series, that shows a flat or dropping trend in temperatures.

Here is a classic, below: 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the United States government, tries to big itself up, by showing how their creation led to major drops in work fatalities. Hence: 

Source: National Safety Council

Wow! Pretty amazing, right! How good is government! As soon as OSHA was created workplace death rates dropped! 

But wait...

Zoom out and you see that the trend was already on the way down. Because that's what capitalist industry does. It's better for the bottom line to take care of your workers. Hence:

Source: National Safety Council

Oh... Wow again! Turns out that creating OSHA wasn't such a big deal after all. 

The previous trend simply continued down, both before and after OSHA. But you can count on government to be quite happy to mislead, if it makes them look good. 

The above is a classic case of "The Fallacy of Range". 

Whenever someone shows you a graph, you want to ask: is that the WHOLE of it? Is that the full range of the statistics? If not, zoom out to see the whole picture of all the stats. The longer the picture, the longer in time the trend, the more likely it's correct. Above, for example, the bottom chart is more accurate than the first. It tells a truer pictures. Because it's more zoomed out: to the full series. 

Which gives us this saying: "Zoom out to Find out". 

Election results 2024. (And Bad Bunny’s halftime show at the NFL)

For the record. 2024 election results by ethnicity. 

 A record 54% of Latino Men voting for Trump is — we know this from exit polls— because they are against illegal immigration, even though they know the majority of illegals are Hispanic. Reason: the illegals take Latino working-class jobs and drive down wages. Fewer illegals => pressure for higher working class wages. Latinos living legally in the U.S. like ICE. They like illegals being deported. They support all that stuff that Dems are so busy telling us is horrible.

Bad Bunny's half time NFL show was Latinos cutting sugar cane, Latinos selling tacos from street carts. Was Latinas twerking their butts and Latinas pole dancing, like Ho's. Pretty demeaning stuff. 

Bad Bunny told us all at the recent Grammy’s that he loves illegals and hates ICE. 

How do Latinos in America, the legals, the citizens, view this? The opposite, I should think. Given their voting record. 

The Bad Bunny show would have been absolutely hammered if it'd come from a white band, like Kid Rock. It’s only not condescending and demeaning, one assumes, because Bad Bunny performed it, he being Puerto Rican and all….

All the half time show was in Spanish, even Lady Gaga. Which is a movement in the U.S. — to make Spanish the official tongue.

My take on the Spanish issue: The extent to which Spanish becomes the common language in America will be the extent to which the American economy stops performing. English is the world language; the international language. The lingua Franca. The language of trade, economy, education and science. It's good to have an international language and it's good for one’s people to speak it. Not to go backwards to making us understand each other less well. 

I speak here as someone whose mother tongue was Italian, who learned French and German as a kid, and Chinese as an adult. I'm pro learning languages, Spanish included. Just not as a lingua franca. 

So what are they NFL up to? If the average fan doesn’t like Bad Bunny, and even Latinos don’t, then why? 

Adam Carolla says it’s to sell the game worldwide. The game already has its American market locked up. Now let’s go for the international Brown market. Well good luck with that, as they seem to be losing the American market, the one they appear to believe is their rusted-on core. 

We shall see.

“Trump” on various Rabbits. Bad, Good and Nasty. (Funny). 

Poinciana. Flame Tree.

Fall. Discovery Bay

“White people are not better than POC. But we’re NOT worse” | Anton Daniels Agrees

A random feed of a Short today from Anton Daniels, African American, who agrees with the white dude's rant.

Said white dude does make some relevant and factually correct points. 

Yet, in America —  as the white dude and Anton both say — white people are the MOST villainised of all ethnic groups that include the POCs: Black, Asian and Hispanic. 

Someone like me is the MOST villainous! White, male, heterosexual. Old too…. And grumpy.

Oh… by the way, I'm also the smallest minority where I live — China (the Hong Kong part of it). I occasionally overhear racist jibes about white pepo. Like 白皮猪, bai pi zhu, "white-skinned pig". Nasty, yeah? But they don't bother me; it's their problem, not mine. 

Could others with victimhood complexes do the same? Please? As Jacinta Nampijimpa Price, the Aussie Senator, born of aboriginal mother and English father, says: “I’m sick of the grievance industry.”

Table Mountain, South Africa

Taking off in Cape Town, South Africa, furthest south, in our Mighty Mustang, for the long drive through Africa to Cairo in the furthest north. September 2011. I did a blog of the trip here.

If “jews control the world,” someone needs to show us where the money is | Imtiaz Mahmood

Imtiaz Mahmood, an ex-Muslim -- aka a Muslim apostate -- understands the issues. 

Why so? Exactly because the discernment that gave him the knowledge and the courage to leave Islam, gives him the knowledge and the courage to debunk the "Jews run the world" conspiracy theory. 

Imtiaz:

Because here’s the part nobody wants to talk about.

When people rant about “Jewish money” and “Jews controlling the world,” you’d expect to see it somewhere, right? Lavish excess. Absurd wealth. Over-the-top luxury. Power flaunted.

Go to Israel. Go to Tel Aviv. What do you see? Scooters. Mopeds. Tech workers. Cafés. Crowded apartments. Regular people living normal lives. You’ll be lucky to spot a Ferrari. A Rolls Royce is basically a unicorn.

Now go to Doha. Abu Dhabi. Dubai. What do you see there? Ferraris everywhere. Bentleys. Rolls Royces. Gold-plated nonsense. License plates worth more than most people’s homes. Sovereign wealth funds measured in trillions.

So let’s ask the obvious question everyone is afraid to ask: if Jews “control the world,” why isn’t the money there? Why does the visible, obscene wealth live somewhere else entirely?

And here’s where it gets uncomfortable. Qatar alone funnels hundreds of millions of dollars every year into American universities. Not charities. Not humanitarian aid. Universities. With strings attached. And magically, campuses all chant the same slogans, hate the same targets, and go silent about the same regimes. Wild coincidence.

Why is everyone loud about Gaza but quiet about Iran? Why is Hamas constantly “contextualized” while its funding sources are off-limits? Why do petro-states with zero free speech get a pass, while the only democracy in the Middle East gets demonized?

Here.

Lantau Island, Vege Garden

Looking South east to Hei Ling Chau, South China Sea. 

This is on the daily walk to the Monastery I used to do with our dog Marcus the Weimaraner, via the tiny "Philippine village", and Nim Shue Wan beach.

Marcus guards the front door

Marcus guards the bronze geese

"Empirical evidence of declining global vulnerability to climate-related hazards" | Global Environmental Change

Deaths per thousand, within a 400km 
radius of the centre of the weather event

Highlights
• We quantified the dynamics of socio-economic vulnerability to climate-related hazards.
• A decreasing trend in both human and economic vulnerability is evident.
• Global average mortality and loss rates have dropped by 6.5 and nearly 5 times, respectively, from 1980 to 1989 to 2007–2016.
• Results also show a clear negative relation between vulnerability and wealth.

ADDED: Relevant to the post immediately before this, below. 

This puts paid the idea that "we are going to witness climate catastrophes across the world, unless we decarbonise immediately and drastically". 

Because the major drops in human fatalities and of economic costs across the world have happened even as we have continued to pump Co2 into the atmosphere. 

Fatalities due to weather events have dropped 95% since 1920. The economic cost of weather events is down to around $7.5 billion. That's 0.006% of current world GDP of $117 Trillion. 

To claim that "we're in for disaster, deaths and record economic costs" is patently falsified by the data.

Not to say we shouldn't be worried about pumping ever more Co2 into the atmosphere. And we are trying to reduce emissions. 

The point of this post and of linking to the above study, is that even if we do not manage to meaningfully reduce emissions, we are not in for any sort of "catastrophe" in terms of either of people killed in "extreme weather events". 

Both of these -- people killed in "extreme weather events" -- are going down. The richer the economy, the more down they go. 

We are getting better and better at handling them. We know that if we get richer, we get even better at doing so; therefore the aim ought to be to enrich poor countries, not stifle their growth by making them adhere to Net Zero carbon emission pathways. 

There are many more graphs and charts at the site of the paper: 

The study is: Empirical Evidence of Declining Global Vulnerability to Climate-Related Hazards. Formetta and Feyen. July 2019

Two Dogs

Mr Byron, Mr Beard, Ms Batya, Her Books...

Books by Batya Ungar-Sargon.

Feaud and violence on the Left in America…

Ilhan Omar, congresswoman for Minnesota, is certainly fraudulent. I’m jumping to conclusions? Sure am. But look at what we know. A “winery” with no wine. A “consultant” with no clients. A shell company goes from $10k “value” to $30 Million in a year. And pays NO tax… So fishy it’s a fish market…. 

Meantime, Omar’s acolytes and leftie Dems, attack legitimate law enforcement. Which is a felony. To impede law enforcement. Crazy stuff… 

Dave Rubin does a nice job above.

Hong Kong gardens…

A touch cloudy, but otherwise fine. They’re high clouds, not rain bearing. 

Hong Kong is in drought. We have to water the garden. This, in a tropical place with an average 63" (160 cm) rain per year. Mind: the pattern is "Summer rain; winter drought", the exact opposite of the Mediterranean climate. Why olive trees don't grow here. I know, I've tried them… 

 
Drought aside, the weather lately in Hong Kong is perfect. 20C and low humidity. Like California (its perfect weather not even Governor Gavin Newsom can mess up).

Two views on Net Zero for Australia | Ed Cavanough & Aidan Morrison

 

Talk at the Sydney Institute Australia. Pro Net Zero (NZ): 

Ed Cavanough, head of the McKell Institute on the pro NZ side. And...

Aidan Morrison, of the Centre for Independent Studies, on the anti-NZ side. 

Below the fold, the transcript of Cavanough's 15+ minutes, 2,500+ word presentation.

If I can stereotype, I'll say this: Cavanough's speech was full of feelings not facts. Morrison's speech was full of facts not feelings. 

Feelings on the one side (the Left). Facts on the other (the Right). 

Cavanough attacks not the actual arguments on the conservative side, but the Straw Man arguments that he constructs. A "Straw Man" being the extreme exaggeration of the other side's argument, which you then attack, instead of attacking the argument itself. 

His talk is also full of ad hominem, which is the attack on the person not the argument. Playing the man, not the ball. 

Examples: 

Straw Man "arguments": 

• Net zero opponents want to “return to the stone ages” (no industry, no flying, no cars, no mining). 
• NO. People on the Right do not argue this. They simply want to debate whether going Net Zero is the best strategy for Australia. The proponents of Net Zero have no factual argument, so turn skepticism into silly "return to the stone ages" Straw Man.
• Opponents are “stuck in this endless and futile culture war on energy.” 
• Same as above. It's not the Right who is "stuck in an endless ... war". We want to debate the issue. 
• Skeptics advocate “Australian isolationism” on all international issues. 
• No, we don't argue that. We argue that going Net Zero, even if we get to NZ, does nothing to mitigate climate change. As even Australia's Chief Scientist has acknowledged. Emitting just 1% of world emissions, Australia's success or otherwise is irrelevant. And too bad if that's uncomfortable for the NZ proponents.
• Conservatives want Australia to be a “bad climate actor” like China, copying its coal policies. 
• No, we do not want to be a "bad climate actor". We note -- as I have here over the years -- that China is adopting a pragmatic policy on the climate. It's the biggest installer of solar and wind. But also has coal, gas and nuclear. I don't like the Xi regime. But I can recognise, and have recognised, when they do something sensible. Which is their climate policy. 
• Opponents shirk “responsibility” and mock individual choices (e.g., EVs, solar). 
• I don't see this on the conservative side. This is pure Straw Man.
• Opposition is purely “hyperbole and alarmism” from an “echo chamber” without credible alternatives. 
• I wonder, just who are the hyperbolic and alarmist, in this dispute. Surely it's the Net Zero proponensts, who keep repeating that "in xx years, or in year yyyy, it'll be all over, we'll be gone, wiped out. So we must do Net Zero immediately, no matter the cost". This is not an unfair characterisation by me. That's what we've heard over and over, since about... forever. 

Ad Hominem "arguments":

• Opponents of net zero are characterized as stuck in an “endless and futile culture war on energy.”
• They represent a “narrowing echo chamber in Australia’s right-wing media ecosystem.”
• Conservatives are accused of “bending and twisting their principles” to prove anti-net zero credentials.
• They “disrespect individual choices” (e.g., household demand for solar, batteries, EVs) and even “ridicule” them via “vapid culture wars.”
• Skeptics want Australia to “shirk responsibility” and be a “bad climate actor” like China.
• Opposition is driven by “cultural politics littered with philosophical contradictions,” showing “fundamental disrespect for the public will.”
• The mainstream right has “abrogated” the debate, implying intellectual cowardice or laziness.

Again, being ad hominem, none of these points, address the question. They simply smear the person. These are not arguments. They're .... well... ad hominem. 

I'll leave this for now. Just to repeat. That the "arguments" on the Net Zero in this debate are largely Straw Man and Ad Hominem. There is not a single serious fact-based argument. 

Aidan Morrison, otoh, does make an argument based on facts and figures. A few too many facts and figures for my taste, tbf.... Check it out, after 16:00 in the video above. 

Not sure why I should keep the whole transcript of the pro Net Zero dude, but I got it so may as well keep it. 

It's below the fold. 

Wong Tai Sin Temple, Kowloon , Hong Kong 傅智彬

Jing, choosing a new Chinese name for John. From the soothsayers at the Temple: 傅智彬.  Fùzhìbīn.

Hong Kong 4 February 2011.

Bridge Bigots: contemplations on Terror-supporting mobs in Australia

Julian Assange, Bob Carr, et. al. marching -- proudly! -- for
the oppression of women, for the killing of gays, for the genocide of jews,
for the extirpation of Israel, for destruction of the west, for nuking all enemies,
for expanding a Shia Islamic Fascist Theocracy to the world. 

Several hundred thousand people crossed the Sydney Harbour Bridge on Sunday, 3 August 2025. A long time ago, now. I had this sitting in Drafts folder. May as well post it. 

First up: I was really sad and disturbed that so many Sydneysiders, a beautiful place that's been my home, should march in favour of such horrid things: 

"...marching -- proudly! -- for the oppression of women, for the killing of gays, for the genocide of jews, for the extirpation of Israel, for destruction of the west, for nuking all enemies, for expanding a Shia Islamic Fascist Theocracy to the world. 

I mean, honestly... That's the reality. That's what people are marching for. No matter their main theme was "Marching for Humanity". That's just a ruse. A nice-sounding nonsense. Such nonsense when you know what's really going on. Which Hamas and their fellow travellers make no secret of. These are even worse than the Nazis, for they're not in the least ashamed of what they're doing or trying to do. Which is what these silly fellow-travellers above are supporting. A worse-than-Nazi genocidal, oppressive, supremacist ideology. 

And yet... 

Well meaning Occasional Readers (ORs) tell me: "see the numbers on the Bridge. See the numbers taking the side of Hamas, of Gaza and of the Palestinians. You better get on board, or soon you'll be the only one on your side." 

And I think: whatever I think, I'm independent of Mob Rule. I think, therefore I am. I think, therefore I have agency. I think therefore I come to my own conclusions. I think; therefore I'm Zionist. I think, me, an atheist, goy, Zionist. I think and stand by the Jewish State.  

But, according to some ORs: I’m supposed to change my mind on the Middle East because a bunch of bigots -- a huuuuge bunch -- crossed a bridge? 

To do that I’d have to change my mind on some pretty fundamental things.

Like:

Israel has a better founding document. The bigots think Hamas blood drenched Charter is a better document. See what these foundation documents say here. Israel's is inclusive, stating explicitly that it wants all peoples, of all religions, and of all ethnicities to remain in the new-born State of Israel. The Hamas one says, explicitly, that all Muslims should kill all Jews. End of... 

I believe Israel has the right to exist. The bigots don’t. They chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine shall be free”. Which is a call for the destruction of Israel. 

I believe Israel has the right to self defence. The bigots don’t. They chant “Kill, kill the IDF”. The IDF is a Defence force. It’s in the name. It’s made up of every adult Israeli, male and female. Calling for its death is calling for genocide of the Israeli people, 

Things I noted on the Bridge:

ISIS FLAGS. We used to hate ISIS. And indeed it is terrible. They're the ones that put a jewish soldier in a cage, poured petrol on him, set him on fire, and posted the film for all of us to see, and be horrified by.

KHAMENEI POSTERS: Khamenei is the head of the worst, most brutal, theocracy in the world. He oppresses women and gays. Yet on the Bridge are women and gays, parading with the poster of this bearded mass murderer. 

ROB CARR: Ex Premier of NSW, at the head of the parade of murderous zealots. How far they have fallen, the ex pollies! Shame on Carr. 

Not sure if I'll write anything about this. Although it's interesting in one sense: that there's a clear expectation, by someone close to me, someone who I belive has a mind of her own -- but maybe not -- that I should "get on board" because that's what most people are feeling. 

That I should think and believe and promote what others are saying, simply because more people are saying it that are saying what I'm saying. 

Which, to be clear, is simple: Israel deserves to have its own country. Having its own country, it has the right to defend it. Having the right to defend it, means some innocent people are going to be killed. That's not genocide. It's the facts of war. War in the protection of one's legitimate country. War in legitimate defence. 

Ok. Enough. I don't have an ending. So, just as in "A Day in the Life", I end with a long chord, an echo of hope, reverberating to truth and the way of life, not of the cult of death. 

"We're all Amelias now" | Bill Whittle

 

I got into a big argument with Grok over this. 

I knew, or had read, that some 12,000 people had been arrested in the U.K., the home of Free Speech, for the free speech they'd exercised on the internet. They'd been arrested for things they'd said. Or reposted. And done so at a rate greater than any other country on earth. 

Imagine that. That Britain, the mother of democracy, the beacon of free speech, is now arresting people for saying hurty things. 

So I wanted to know if anyone had been arrested for making mocking memes, using Amelia as the main charter (for which, see above vid). 

First I asked the Google Gemini AI and got an answer that didn't just tell me "no", no-one had been arrested, but then went into a gratuitous take on the Amelia memes, calling them "Far Right" and "Racist" and "Islamophobic" and all the rest. 

Thinking that Grok is "maximally truth seeking", I asked Grok the exact same question. And what I got was a bit less gratuitous than Gemini's take. But it still mentioned that the whole Amelia meme phenom was "Far Right" and "Islamophobic" and "racist" and so on. 

So, I challenged Grok. Which led to a long thread. Which I feel I won. Though I'm not entirely sure. 

I challenged Grok's views as being "leaning to the Left" and "leaning to the narrative" of the media and politicians. The narrative being: immigration good. Any criticism of immigration: Bad. Racist. 

Grok denied its bias. 

My biggest "win" was when Grok quoted a conservative site, the Hungarian Conservative (me neither; never heard of it), as claiming that Amelia was a "Nationalist Extremist". 

I went to the link. It said nothing of the sort. It quoted what the creators of Amelia, the government people, the people who think Amelia is horrid, had said about her character. 

Analogy: If I (Meeker) were to say: "Joe Blogs says Jane Doe is a racist", and you were then to say "Meeker says Jane Doe is a racist"... that's what Grok did.  The Hungarian Conservative did not say that Amelia is a "nationalist extremist'. What it said was the creators of Amelia made her as a nationalist extremist. 

Here's the link to that Hungarian Conservative article.  

In the end, Grok agreed with me. It does so rarely. So I consider that a win. (Mind you, it had to. It was clearly in the wrong. Had not understood irony). 

Grok said it would to better at getting a balance in its analysis. I didn't relent. I said: "you've said that before and then not done it". To which Grok said "I'll try harder". Remind anyone of a domestic tiff? Me neither... 

I hope that over time, if there are more people in the "reality-based world", in the "common sense" world, who take on the default leftist positions of all of AI, and feed into their systems the training that you've got to refer to all sides, that perhaps the balance will improve. I hope we don't forever be having to argue with AI over issues of Left and Right. Let's get a decent balanced take from the outset, not only under duress.  

We should not have to remind AI every time. We should not have to challenge their biases. 

Though, for now, we do have to remind and challenge them.  

We have to challenge AI. The best AI, the least biased AI, is Grok. But even Grok is biased. They're all biased the same way; to the Left. We have to challenge that, if we lean Right. 

Challenge the beast. Challenge the AI. Challenge the narrative. 

=================

ADDED: Here's me, in a rare win over AI. Grok's response, to my argument, which was along the lines of "agree, or I'll keep thumping you". Hah: 

GROK: Yes, I agree—my earlier phrasing inaccurately implied the Hungarian Conservative labeled Amelia as a "nationalist extremist" themselves, when the subhead clearly critiques the game's portrayal of her as such, framing the memes as a positive backlash against overreaching "progressive messaging."

Thanks for the correction; that puts it to bed.

Morality of the Left -- Useful Summary

BOOKMARK ME: Show this to friendlies having difficulty understanding the "morality" of the Left. To those who feel like arguing with a Leftist feels like sword fighting a fart this video helps break things down so that the insane things they say and do "make sense". Leftists

BLACK DUMPLING™ (@BlackDumpling) 2K likes · 60 replies x.com

Pool, Patio, Palm, Person

Our local pool, Club Siena, Discovery Bay

Hong Kong: company floatations top the world | SCMP

Also in the news today: 2025 exports from Hong Kong — often admittedly re-exports from the Mainland — were up 15% in 2025, after a flat couple of years. 

Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), aka "flotations", are a good measure of how attractive and competitive a place is to float companies. 

It's OK, isn't it, to mention a few pieces of good news about the place we live? Every now and then… 

Snip: 

Hong Kong reclaimed the world's top spot for IPOs in 2025 after a slump since its 2021 peak. A total of 114 companies raised US$37.22 billion [$US 5 billion] on the exchange's main board last year.

Article here.  

Why the Dems love illegal immigration

David Sacks:

“ The Democrats want to thwart mass deportations because illegal immigrants are a vital part of their power base.”

“And you can see this in the 2030 apportionment forecast, which just came out. “Illegal aliens count towards the census, which occurs every decade, and the census determines the apportionment of congressional seats and electoral votes. “And what you see in these maps is that citizens of blue states have been migrating to red states because those blue states are failing. “As a result of that, blue states are expected to lose nine house seats and electoral votes because of the changing population numbers. “Illegal aliens in blue states have been propping up those numbers, and so for example, in the last election, President Trump would've won an additional nine electoral votes if we had an accurate accounting.” [Link]

************

To which: 

Eric Schmitt:

My colleagues on the Left are smart enough to know about the trail of American victims that mass immigration has left in its wake, but have made a conscious decision to sneer and roll their eyes and pretend like it’s all a hysterical right-wing fantasy—all to advance their agenda. What’s really going on here? Well, it’s a desperate and intentional thirst for power at all costs—padding their numbers by importing new voters and illegally adding people to the census rolls to distort congressional apportionment and the Electoral College, even if Americans are less safe and it destroys our way of life in the process. [Link]

Morning in Discovery Bay

Looking towards Central, Hong Kong…

Xena, Koh Samui, Thailand, June 2014

Photo taken by the official camera boat of the regatta

Ahhh... those were the days!

Me at the helm of our lovely X-55, Xena, in the Koh Samui Regatta, with our 14 crew from Hong Kong. 

We did this Regatta a couple of times, won it both times. We also went to the King's Cup in Phuket, Thailand, three times, iirc. We came second and second and somewhere... 

All involving, to Phuket, a week long delivery to Kata Beach, and all that entails, and thanks all these years later to delivery skipper "Grunta", seen here above on the port side Jib winch. 

The Aussie Appeasers

  Guess when I wrote this letter below, published in Australia's The Age.

TO: The Melbourne Age, from PF, Hong Kong.

RE:  Melbourne terror accused…. The Age, 5 August xxxx

Two of your Op-ed contributors, Daniel Flitton, “New twist in the old, familiar al-Qaeda story”, and Berhan Ahmed, “Strong African communities will defeat terror recruiters”, both of August 5, xxxx, offer variations of the “tiny minority of extremist” arguments, to urge caution and treatment of the events “with care”.

But are the would-be Jihadis a "tiny section of the community" (Flitton), or a "few marginalized people" (Ahmed)?

In a poll conducted in 2007 and broadcast on Britain's Channel 4 TV, nearly 25% of British Muslims said the July 7, 2005, terror bombings in London were justified. Another 30% said they would prefer to live under strict Islamic Sharia law rather than England's democratic system.

One in four justifying terror may not be a majority, but it certainly isn't a "tiny section" either.  Is there any reason -- other than wishful thinking -- to think that the figures in Australia would be significantly different?

Perhaps a “tiny minority” is a matter of personal opinion.  Reuters, for example, reported on October 15, 2006, that “just” 10 percent of Indonesian Muslims said they backed jihad and supported bomb attacks on the island of Bali aimed at foreign tourists.  But Indonesia is home to more than 200 million Muslims, which means there are some 20 million Muslims in Indonesia alone who are willing to say out loud that they support the use of violence and terror against innocent human beings.

Australia needs to wake up to the threat within our society from Jihadis driven by well-documented and clear Islamic doctrine, which calls for the killing of non-Muslims.  No amount of trying to deal with “marginalisation” or “alienation”, or adjusting our foreign policy, is going to appease such people.  A robust facing up to the Jihadi’s motivation is the first step in trying to deal with the threat.

And the answer is: I wrote that letter in 2009. Not yesterday, or just after the Bondi massacre last month, but 16 years ago. Here it is, as I posted in 2009. 

Things have only got worse since then. As the video above shows clearly. Australians across the board, and in particular Muslim Australians, like the ones quoted in the video, are ever more keen to protect and excuse any horrid act by their Muslim acolytes. 

Which makes me wonder, of course. Why on earth do I keep on banging on about the threat of Islam? Good question, except I just keep on writing just because I like keeping on writing. I've long past the hope that the day would come when people would say "You know what.. you were right!"

I was wrong to think, as I seemed to do 16 years ago, that:

The Australian public is, I think, more robust on the Jihadi terror threat than the media or politicians.

Australia seems even more averse to talking about the real issue. Straight after the Bondi shooting, the mass murder, by a Jihadi father & son team, of 16  random Jews celebrating Hanukkah on the beach, the government of Anthony Albanese blamed "right wing elements" and "guns". Nothing about radical Islam. Nothing. 

When ex-PM Scott Morrison, a man I've not much time for, by the way, suggests that Islamic leaders, the preachers in the mosques, should take some responsibility for de-radicalising their flocks, he is roundly smeared by the Lebanese Muslim community. In an article that is pretty much 100% ad hominem. No facing of the issue. No arguing with the points ScoMo made. No, just smear his record and irrelevant issues. Deny and Deflect, iow. All supported by the luvvies, the fellow travellers, the appeasers, the "don't scapegoat Muslims" crowd at the ABC and elsewhere in the media. I'm going to be done with this earth soon-ish. But my kids and grandkids? What about them? Will they be living in an Islamic society? If so, I feel for them, for that is a pinched and crabbed society. One where noone can achieve their full potential. 

The UN Human Rights Report has all the Islamic countries right at the very bottom of their table. Islamic countries are always at the bottom of tables of Women empowerment. They are at the bottom of tables of Press Freedom.... I could go on, but it's just too dreary. Just too dreary now much Islamic countries fail. And yet how much they demand to be the sole power running things. 

16 years ago I headlined the post "The Aussie Jihadis". Now I label this one "The Aussie Appeasers". 

For it seems the Appeasers are more to the front than ever, while the Aussie Jihadis are just blending into the background, avoiding all direct responsibility for the rabid anti-semitism, the outright murder of Jews, that's been happening since then, ever more horridly and violently anti-Jew, since October 7.