Sunday, April 10, 2016

Liz Conor's blindness

Greenie Liz Conor is a very angry lady. She absolutely pours out vituperation at Westerm society generally and her fellow Australians in particular. And she uses a lot of unusual words, in an apparent attempt to sound learned and profound. Race and racism is her shtick and like all Leftists she has a genius for telling only half the story about that. 

She even seems to think it a credit to herself that she is married to a Ceylonese burgher.  But although the burghers tend to be brownish, they  have a lot of European descent and have largely European characteristics. A burgher lady I knew at one stage was pretty assertive too. They even speak English, mostly.  So she hasn't really put her money where her mouth is.

I knew two blonde anti-racist women who did:  Barbara M. and Christine A.  Both married Aboriginal men and just accepted the limitations that imposed on them -- including syphilis in the case of Christine.

Under the heading "A Little Brown-Eyed Babe Washed Ashore", she is very good at blaming the death of Syrian boy Aylan Kurdi on the wrong people.  She completely ignores that fact that he was already dead before he arrived in Europe.  But if he was dead before he arrived in Europe how are "we" to blame?  Liz seems to think "we" are. She even takes it personally.  When she saw a picture of the boy, she found herself "erupting in shame and anger". The fact of the matter is of course that he was one of many victims of Muslim fanaticism.  He and his family were driven from their homeland by the incredibly barbarous ISIS.

And Liz OF COURSE does not mention that his family already had refuge in Turkey when they set out.  They could have stayed in Turkey in peace if they had wanted to.  Their journey was a journey in search of money.  They hoped to exploit Western kindness to get a better standard of living. The very risky journey was motivated by greed, nothing else. The father even put the safety of his children at risk to get more money. The death of the boy was a horror but the Western world had nothing to do with it.  "We" are not to blame.

The person I grieve most for is the mother.  She showed such loving care for her little boy, only to have it all thrown away by a scum father.

I could go on to fill out other incidents that Liz misrepresents but I think you get her typically Leftist strategy of mentioning only those bits that help to fuel her hatred for the rest of us.

But I want to address  another one of her articles in the far-Left "New Matilda".  She is even critical of the Australian Left's favourite Muslim:  Waleed Aly.  Aly had an article in "The Australian" that described Australians as "weird" because we are generally unbothered by the fact that there were Aborigines in the country when white men first arrived.  The fact that we make extensive welfare provision for them cuts no ice, of course.

I have already pointed out at length that Aly's article is just an extended exercise in fantasy so does Liz think similarly?  No. She sees his fantasies as fact.  So how has he raised her ire?  He did something that is a great unforgivable sin to Leftists, including American Leftists:  He praised America!  How heinous can you get?  The bounder!  The cad!

So Liz coped with that by accusing Aly of having ignored the raw deal that American Indians got from white settlers. And there is no doubt that there were real atrocities and betrayals during white settlement of America.  But that is all of the past.  The past is a different country.  The only thing we have any control over is the present.  And in the present there is extensive welfare provision and concessions that benefit the American Indians of today.

Like Australian Aborigines, they have big problems with alcohol but to deny them alcohol would be "paternalist" and "authoritarian", would it not?

So Liz is deliberately blind to most of the things she writes  about.  I guess she hopes that she can deceive a few naive people into sharing her hatreds. She completed her doctorate in Australian cultural history at La Trobe University so she cannot masquerade as simply ill-informed.

Oh dear. Is the fact my wife was a bus driver the final proof I'm stupid? 


An item in yesterday’s paper brought back a fond memory of my late mother, one winter evening in our London flat in the early Seventies.

My journalist father had arrived home from a marathon session in his favourite Fleet Street pub, and had promptly fallen fast asleep in his armchair. My mother was sitting in hers on the other side of the fire, knitting him an Aran sweater. Home from school, I was sprawled on the sofa, reading a book.

After ten minutes of silence, my father began to snore as only he could — a stentorian, earth-shaking roar of a snore, to rattle the windowpanes and awaken the dead. (My wife tells me I’ve inherited this ear-splitting attribute, but I refuse to believe her.)

My mother and I looked at each other and rolled our eyes. After a deafening snort from the figure slumped in the armchair, silence reigned again — only to be broken a few minutes later when the snoring resumed. And so the evening wore on.

Suddenly my mother laughed. ‘I’ve just remembered something your grandfather said when I got engaged to your father,’ she told me. ‘He looked at me sadly and said: “Oh well, my darling daughter, at least with him you’ll never be bored!” ’
The report that reminded me of this scene was yesterday’s finding, by U.S. researchers, that women who fancy brainy boyfriends are less likely to be interested in male-dominated careers, such as science, technology or engineering.

I thought of it because my mother was the most home-loving and traditionally feminine of women, without any sort of worldly or career ambition. She loved nothing more than cooking, knitting, sewing, cats, the odd gin and tonic, going to church and generally looking after her husband and four children.

My late father was exceptionally brainy (stop me if I’ve told you this before, but Margaret Thatcher was to describe him on his death as ‘quite simply, the most distinguished Tory thinker of our time’).

True, as his many friends and admirers in politics and journalism will testify, he had enormous charm and a life-enhancing sense of humour — when he wasn’t snoring in his armchair, that is.
But I’ve often thought his chief attraction to my mother, the quality which convinced her this was the man she had to marry, was the stunning brilliance of his mind.

I’ve read several surveys suggesting that most men are terrified of dating highly intelligent women (though I hasten to assure my wife that I’ve never been among that majority).

But what no one can surely deny is that a certain sort of woman just can’t resist a clever man, no matter how little else may appear to be going for him. Think of the romantic successes enjoyed by Stephen Hawking, Andrew Neil, Bernard Levin or Salman Rushdie — hardly matinee idols, let’s agree — and I rest my case.
What I do know, because my mother told me, is that her parents were shocked when she fell in love with my father.

My maternal grandmother in particular — a crashing snob, if truth be told — had very different ideas about the sort of man her beloved and beautiful daughter ought to marry. Grandma had dreamed of a handsome war hero, at the very least, preferably of the rank of earl or above, with plenty of money in the bank and a stately pile to call home.

The heir to the Duke of Norfolk, as a Roman Catholic like her, would have suited her nicely as a son-in-law.

But instead my mother presented her with my odd-looking father-to-be — Anglican, frighteningly skinny, a chain-smoker with awful teeth and not a bean to his name, who lived with an aunt in a pokey flat in Bloomsbury.

Worse even than this, in my grandmother’s book, he spoke with the distinct trace of a Liverpool accent. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, he was blind, having lost his sight to infantile glaucoma at the age of nine.

Indeed, the only thing that seemed to be going for him was his extraordinary brain, which had won him a dazzling starred double-first at Cambridge.

But this cut no ice with my grandmother, who would have preferred even the most gormless baronet to this poverty-stricken brainbox who couldn’t see. She foresaw nothing but misery for my mother and tried desperately to make her change her mind.

She couldn’t have been more wrong. In fact, my parents’ marriage was one of the happiest I’ve come across. Yes, they had plenty of healthy rows (don’t most couples?). But they adored each other — she, endlessly proud of him, he blissfully content to be dependent on her for everything except the family income, which was his department.

When he left her a widow at 61, she found his memory companion enough for her remaining 24 years. No one else would do.

I have a strong feeling that the researchers from the University at Buffalo, who compiled the survey reported yesterday, wouldn’t have approved at all.

True, my parents’ marriage conformed exactly to their finding that women who go for brainy men tend to favour traditionally feminine occupations, such as home- making or the caring professions. But the scientists make no secret of their belief that it’s a very bad thing for the fairer sex to avoid careers chiefly seen as masculine.

Professor Lora Park, the study’s author, says: ‘Women who had a preference of wanting to date someone smarter than themselves were the ones who distanced themselves the most from STEM fields,’ (she means science, technology, engineering and maths).
‘In general, women have made many advances, but in certain fields of STEM they haven’t made much progress.’

The reason could be, says her team, that women on the hunt for intelligent men are ‘limiting their STEM talents’, deliberately or subconsciously, in order to make themselves seem attractive.

But isn’t there another possibility, quite as plausible? Could it not be many women avoid traditionally masculine occupations because they genuinely prefer those considered to be traditionally feminine?

Indeed, I often feel sorry for today’s girls, under constant pressure to believe there are no psychological differences between the sexes. A whole generation is growing up, encouraged to think there is something to be mildly ashamed of in preferring stay-at-home motherhood or nursing to, say, soldiering or heavy engineering.

We seem even to be reaching the absurd stage where we have to pretend there are no physical differences between men and women. Witness how novelist Ian McEwan has been made to apologise for making the straightforward, if banal, observation: ‘Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to think of people with penises as men.’

After a barrage of abuse from the forces of political correctness, he now says: ‘That the transgender community should want or need to abandon their birth gender or radically redefine it is their right, which should be respected and celebrated.’

Strewth! At this rate, what hope will there be for boys who just want to be boys, or girls who want to be girls?

But back to that American study, and a thought that has been troubling me from the moment I read it. If it is really true, as the survey finds, that women who don’t fancy clever men are drawn to traditionally masculine occupations, then what does this say about me, as the husband of a former bus driver?

In defence of my intellect, I will say only that it was not so much from choice as from pressing financial necessity that my wife drove London double-deckers for two-and-a-half years. I confess it was a miserable time for me, because I felt in my old-fashioned way that her slightly manly job rather undermined my manliness.

Though she never made a fuss, she can’t have been all that happy about it either. I say this because on the very day I moved to the Mail, ten years ago next month — with a hefty pay rise that meant we no longer needed her wages — she handed in her notice at the bus depot.

Now she works part-time, for a lot less money, as secretary to the head of a pro-life campaign group. She’s much happier in her more distinctively feminine occupation. I’m much happier in my masculine role as chief breadwinner.

Heaven knows, I wouldn’t wish to discourage any woman who wants to pursue a career in a field traditionally dominated by men.  But are we really adding to the sum of human happiness by constantly telling those who don’t want ‘masculine’ jobs that they ought to?


British social workers will take your children away from you if they don't like your opinions but ignore children actually suffering harm

Social services were last night accused of failing a little girl who was murdered by her mother stamping on her chest.

Ayeeshia Jane Smith, who was just 21 months old when she died, was handed back to her violent drug-addicted mother Kathryn despite grave concerns about the toddler’s care.

In a shocking case with echoes of the Baby P tragedy, the child’s biological father twice reported injuries she had suffered to social workers but claimed they ‘weren’t interested’.

The toddler, who weighed just 20lbs when she died, was attacked with such force she suffered a fatal heart injury, three broken ribs and bit through her own tongue.

Experts said her injuries were so severe she resembled a high-speed car crash victim.

Social services had been supervising Ayeeshia and she was taken away from Smith for five months and placed with foster carers, during which time she gained weight and her health improved. But she was given back to her mother seven months before her death following a ‘positive risk assessment’.

Campaigners say it was one of a series of missed opportunities by social services to save the little girl. Social workers discussed taking Ayeeshia into care again three weeks before she died, then held another meeting just 24 hours before she was killed – but did not remove the child.

Smith, 23, wept uncontrollably in the dock yesterday after a jury found her guilty of murdering Ayeeshia as she cried ‘stop mummy, stop daddy’. Her ex-partner, Matthew Rigby, 22, was convicted of causing or allowing the child’s death, but cleared of murder.

Last night, Derbyshire Council pledged to investigate after Ayeeshia’s father Ricky Booth, 21, said she had been ‘let down’ by the system. It can also be disclosed that:

Concerns were raised about Smith’s ability as a mother even before Ayeeshia was born;

Ayeeshia suffered a number of ‘concerning’ injuries in the run up to her death, including a life-threatening brain injury, which apparently went unnoticed by doctors;

Smith’s social worker, Stephen Crean, 61, took early retirement last year while facing serious questions over his handling of the case;

Ayeeshia’s godmother said the youngster scavenged in bins after being starved by her mother.

Ayeeshia, who was known as AJ, died from a tear to the heart which triggered a fatal heart attack on May 1, 2014.

Paramedics had been called to Smith and Rigby’s maisonette, in Stretton, Burton-on-Trent, shortly after 4pm that day.

The couple were arrested when a post-mortem examination revealed her injuries.

It also found she had suffered a number of previous injuries in the run up to her death, including bruises to her back and buttocks, head, neck, left eyelid and left leg, as well as a ‘life-threatening bleed to the brain’.

The prosecution said there was a ‘consistent pattern of non-accidental bruising’ which ‘must have happened when one or both were looking after Ayeeshia and about which both must have known’.

Smith and Rigby, both violent drug addicts, had denied having anything to do with the child’s death throughout their six-week trial at Birmingham Crown Court.

They initially tried to claim Ayeeshia had suffered a seizure and the child’s horrific injuries were caused when they attempted CPR. But experts said this simply was not possible.

The couple then turned on each other in the dock, with each saying the other must have been responsible for the toddler’s death.

But a jury convicted Smith of murder after hearing Ayeeshia had been subjected to months of abuse before the final fatal attack. Smith was also convicted of child cruelty after the court heard she was more interested in buying cannabis than feeding her young daughter.

Ayeeshia had eaten just a yoghurt, a chocolate biscuit and a packet of Quavers on the day she died and was ‘very thin’, with her weight in the bottom 2 per cent for her age.

Last night the child’s godmother Esta Barrett, 25, recalled visiting Ayeeshia three months before her death.

She said: ‘I had seen AJ picking food out of the rubbish bin and I told Kat who just told her off. But why would any child take food from the bin if they weren’t hungry?’

Officers who searched Smith’s flat found the toddler had been kept in squalid conditions and skunk cannabis was stashed in her Tommee Tippee drinking cup. When the jury cleared former warehouse worker Rigby of murder, he mouthed ‘Thank you,’ but broke down in tears as they found him guilty of the lesser charge. The pair will be sentenced on Monday.

Smith, who was adopted, fell pregnant in November 2011 when she was 18 but separated from Mr Booth before Ayeeshia was born.

Ayeeshia was taken into care in June 2013 amid concerns about Smith’s relationship with another violent man. The court heard that during this time in care, the little girl thrived and started to put on weight and saying a few words.

Social worker Mr Crean told the court the decision to give Ayeeshia back to her mother was based on a ‘positive risk assessment’ and the fact she had attended five out of 12 sessions of a domestic abuse workshop and ‘now understood what domestic abuse was’. Ayeeshia was returned to Smith in October 2013, by which time she was in a relationship with Rigby, who had previous convictions for assault.

The court heard the couple were ‘two peas from the same pod’ who had a volatile relationship but thrived on the turbulence and their love of cannabis.

In the months leading up to Ayeeshia’s death, Rigby was accused of smashing up their flat and setting fire to the child’s cot.

On the day of Ayeeshia’s death, Smith was said to be ‘annoyed’ because her father had borrowed £40 from her and not paid her back. Neighbour Tracey Roberts said she heard screaming and shouting coming from the couple’s flat and a child’s voice saying ‘stop mummy, stop daddy’ at around 3.10pm.

An ambulance was not called until after 4pm and by the time it arrived Ayeeshia was ‘incredibly pale’. Smith initially told police her daughter was covered in bruises because she had fallen off her potty.

The tragic case echoes that of Baby P, Peter Connolly, who was just 17 months old when he died after suffering more than 50 injuries – despite being on Haringey Council’s at-risk register.

Child cruelty campaigners said Ayeeshia’s murder showed lessons had not been learned from Baby’s P’s death and the subsequent Lord Laming report.

Claude Knights, of charity Kidscape, added: ‘It is extremely depressing to discover that one more vulnerable infant well known to children’s services suffered fatal non-accidental injuries while she was subject to a child protection order.’

The NSPCC called for Smith and Rigby to be ‘severely punished’.


Being born broke doesn’t make you a better person so why do we hate the wealthy so much? Without them we’d all be the poorer

Please give yourself a point for all the following phrases that apply to you:

I don't know my dad.

My dad was a bus driver.

My family arrived in the UK from Pakistan in 1966.

I grew up in a council house.

I went to a failing state school on a sink estate.

I was the first child in my family to go to university, even if it was East Anglia.

I have mixed-race heritage.

If you scored more than one, congratulations. You have all the makings of an underdog. You came from nothing and identify with those who feel life owes them something to compensate.

No one will question whether you know the next stop on the Central Line after Tottenham Court Road or ask you in which month Glastonbury takes place. Because you know what it's like to be poor. You identify with the people.

In fact, you are the perfect politician. Look at Sadiq Khan. He's Labour's candidate for Mayor and front-runner for the role — mainly because his dad was a bus driver.

Did I mention his dad was a bus driver? Because Sadiq certainly did, around four-hundred times in the last three months whilst simultaneously standing by buses, riding on them, and even pretending to drive one for full proletariat points.

This blue-collar lark is all the rage amongst the Tories, too. Take a peek at Steve Crabb, who racks up a terrific 4 points in the Hopkins Proletariat Poll.

He was sent outside to play football when other kids were making Father’s Day Cards in class, and grew up on a sink estate in Wales, probably tying Weetabix to his feet in place of shoes.

If you were looking for a guy to head up Welfare and understand what it means to be poorer than the lawyer — sorry — bus driver's son, Sadiq Khan, Steve's your man.

Even if you aren't an underdog now, it helps if you can still remember times when you were the daughter of Jamaican migrants, and talk about them a lot. Or even pretend to still be one of the poor whilst doing things rich b*stards do.

Diane Abbott is the Queen of Poverty Misappropriation. She slated the rich for their elitist ways in seeking out unfair advantage for their children, while happily packing her own kid off to the private City of London School.

Happy to leverage her Jamaican heritage to its fullest extent, Diane has suggested the world is so stacked in favour of the rich, white and wealthy that even black cabbies won’t pick her up. I don't know if that is irony or just crass.

You see, if you can make people believe you are a bottom-dweller in the great pond of life, you are owed solidarity from the masses when you pretend to look up with a sneer.

Our schools are full of it. Classrooms are crammed full of kids moving at the pace of the slowest, judged against a downwards-sliding national average which focuses on the lowest common denominator.

I gave up attending parents evening at our local state school after one particular mongrel was given extra golden time for not throwing the brick through the window of the classroom.

It's no longer good enough to be an underdog. Now only complete failure will do. Young white males are achieving this in quite spectacular fashion, falling behind ten other ethnic groups here in the UK.

Young people have interpreted the British love of the underdog into a belief that success will make you a social pariah.

And woe betide you if that success comes easily, if you are from a private school or privilege. Worse still if your father worked in a more lucrative profession than bus driving and saved his money for you to inherit.

Try being a politician in this new era where wealth is a dirty word. For Zac Goldsmith, who inherited an estate worth between £200 and £300 million, it involves endless persecution, including trying to catch him out with questions about who plays at Loftus Park.

Is that where we are at? If you don’t score one or more on my test above you have to prove you watch football to compensate? My, how we all laughed at the posh boy.

In America wealth is celebrated. Donald Trump is revered for his success, for funding his own campaign. Whether he had a hand up the ladder from his father is not relevant in the US. What matters is he made it to the top.

Here in the UK the very opposite is true. David Cameron is being persecuted over his father's money and his own subsequent success - both professional and personal.

He only has 'posh boy' credentials, and these don't stack up when success requires siding with the poor or at least having points on The Proletariat Poll.

Why can't we celebrate the fact our rich fund this country. One in six pensioners is an asset-rich millionaire, passing on wealth, time and help with childcare to their family.

Do you begrudge them their success, too? The top 1% of earners pays 30% of all national income tax. Wealth, like Panamanian sunshine floods downwards.

The clear, deplorable message in the UK is this: if you want to lead, support the race to the bottom from where poverty, like damp, seeps upwards.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: