Thursday, 9 January 2020

Consequences of leftist policies

The left are the experts in presentation. Everything they do is in the name of ideals such as equality, fairness and inclusivity. But when they actually get into power whatever they say they are doing ends up in actual consequences which simply cause suffering. I have made a list here of what actually happens in society when these policies are actually carried out.

1) Travel restrictions. Like the Soviets, the first thing leftists do when gaining power is make it difficult for ordinary citizens to move around freely. Whatever the alleged cause ('safety', 'climate change' etc.), all they actually do is restrict movement for everyone and cause huge delays, and make it more expensive to do so through:

a) Road narrowing, humps and closures
b) Division of exisiting roads into bus and cycle lanes, which are usually very rarely actually used
c) Bans on certain types of car
d) Additional charges to drive in specific areas
e) Increases in fuel taxes, which make everything more expensive and hurt the poor the most.
f) Low speed limits, all they do is make people drive below the natural speed, check their speedometers constantly, and run cars which are not designed to be driven in low gears. They also show it has no effect at all on deaths and injuries as proved in Bristol who carried out a full scale test.

2) Liberal or unlimited immigration, causing

a) Overcrowding
b) Pressure on services such as surgeries and hospitals
c) Language difficulties, especially in communication by professionals such as doctors and nurses who can't understand their patients and may give the wrong treatment, and schools where teachers are forced to teach classes where hardly anyone speaks English
d) A glut of cheap unskilled labour
e) Few checks on criminals who continue their criminality in their new countries.
f) Almost impossible to build houses and find more land to do so to accommodate them.
g) Impossible to carry out long term economic plans as no one knows how many people will be here.

3) High taxation. This means

a) Once you earn more than a certain amount, often anything above the average salary, it is not really worth earning any more as you may only keep half of it or less.
b) People who do earn more leave the country
c) There is little incentive to start a business or career knowing you will not be able to keep the fruit of your labours
d) You will no longer be able to pass money on to your children as inheritance

4) Equality and diversity. These are tied up in immigration and high taxes, but also mean:

a) Minority groups hold disproportionate amounts of power
b) Family values are eroded at the cause of alternatives.
c) People are refused work and educational positions to make way for minorities
d) Laws are made to protect minorities at the expense of the majority who have to make allowances for religions and cultures with no connections to their own.

5) Energy policies. Climate change management has simply made life tougher for everyone except those companies who sell 'renewables' (these are normally the alleged 'big oil' and 'fossil fuel' companies they pretend oppose this, while in fact they are the same companies who simply provide energy in any ways which create a profit).

a) All energy prices rise (the Kyoto Protocol stated energy usage must be reduced), making the poor pay the most in proportion.
b) Thousands more people a year have died of cold as a direct result of this in Britain alone
c) Business have closed down when their vehicles have been banned and they can't afford to replace them.
d) Wind and solar panels use expensive foreign resources, last under 20 years, and are almost impossible to recycle.
e) Electric cars use batteries which run down over a period of years until the car needs a new one which costs many thousands of pounds. They are not free to run, owners pay for electricity and can never guarantee they will have a charging point when they need to recharge.

6) Economics. The mechanisms the left view as being behind economics mean people who make money simply take it from somewhere or someone else in the economy. Growth is not understood, or the concept of wealth creation or adding value, so they have policies which make these things very difficult.

a) As soon as people earn 'too much' it is returned to society.
b) Businesses doing well are seen as stealing this money, removing it from the economy, and not deserving of the wealth so have it removed.
c) Manipulating the market to allow failing businesses, products and individuals they approve of to do well.

7) Sociology. The left believe we are moulded by our environment, so treats humans as the same at birth with only their surroundings responsible for their differences. This means:

a) They will always try and force people unsuitable for educational and career positions into them, often preventing those actually suitable from taking up those places.
b) They fight any selective education, as they believe anyone can earn a PhD given the same conditions.
c) Rather than allow people to choose their own careers, set policies to direct everyone into the same areas on a quota basis.
d) Because society refuses to become equal voluntarily, carry out constant policies of social engineering to pay people to take up courses, change marking to favour disadvantaged groups, and force unsuitable people into positions they would never have managed under a free market.


Ultimately leftism is based on an ideology, and one which when it does not correspond with society, simply tries to force society to fit it rather than accept that it is wrong. This must be recognised, rejected and stopped at all costs.

Tuesday, 3 December 2019

Scientists who disagree with man-made climate change

We are (wrongly) told there is a 97% consensus that scientists agree on man-made climate change. Wikipedia had a list until recently which was removed, so I have had to begin to rebuild it here with no access to their original site. I will conclude with some of their studies. Bear in mind they are equally as qualified as every other scientist in the mainstream, many with PhDs..

Ferenc Miskolczi, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Joe Bastardi, Joseph D'Aleo, Roy Spencer, Ian Plimer, Piers Corbyn, Judith Curry, Nils-Axel Morner, Indur Goklany, Martin Agerup, Nir Shaviv, William Gray, Syun-Ichi Akafosu, Tim Ball, Richard Lindzen, Jennifer Marohasy, Robert Carter, Scott Armstrong, Joanne Nova, Patrick Michaels, Matt Ridley, Stewart Franks, Christopher Essex, Kesten Green, Miklos Zagoni, Gordon Fulks, Anastonios Tonis, Rameshwar Bali, Qing-Bin Lu, David Evans, Fritz Vahrenholt, Nic Lewis, Norman Page, Ole Humlum, Oliver Frauenfeld, Michael Beenstock, Charles Wax, Dennis Hollars, Joseph Postma, Myron Evans, Yury Izrael, David Douglass, Michael Economides, David Legates, David Archibald, Paul Berenson, Tom Segalstad, Philip Lloyd, Oleg Sorokhtin, David Stockwell, Theodore Pavlopoulos, Geoffrey Duffy, Vincent Gray, Richard Keen, Robert Austin, William Vaughan, Dave Middleton, Stephen McIntyre, Eigils Friis-Christensen, Freeman Dyson, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Claude Allegre, Zbigniew Jaworoski, Antonino Zichichi, Christopher Landsea, Hendrik Tennekes, Sami Solanki, Paul Reiter, Kiminori Itoh, David Bromwich, Edward Wegman, Joanne Simpson, William Happer, Peter Ridd.

78 so far.

Wednesday, 5 September 2018

Palestinian tactics

Palestinian tactics

It is largely unnecessary to explain the motives and methods of the Palestinian terrorist system, as unlike many western criminals, they are proud of their actions and believe they have Allah on their side. As a result they have frequently (in translated Arabic and English) boasted about, for example, breeding so many children they can continually sacrifice as many as possible for the 'Palestinian cause' (the destruction of Israel with total removal of all Jews, and in some cases tracking the remainder worldwide to also be targeted for slaughter).

The fact the western media do not report it is because few establishment figures like either Israel or its people (Jews), so have no problem continuing to represent the Israelis as the aggressors and the poor (with billions in funding from the EU and Iran alone) Palestinians suffering purely because of those millions of nasty Jews who moved into their paradise of swamp and desert in the 1920s onwards.

Here are enough examples only a holocaust denier would dismiss:

1) Hamas forcing people to remain in buildings after Israel warned of bombings of arms dumps:

2) Arab boasting how they can breed martyrs to forward their cause:

3) Mobile missile launchers sending missiles from schools and hospitals and storing arms inside to make sure they are then bombed.

4) Hamas pays families of murderers for life:

5) Yasser Arafat stole aid money so Arabs would hate Israel:

6) Boasting about the use of human shields.


This covers every aspect of why it is not Israel which is guilty of anything more than protecting their borders. More added when discovered.

Thursday, 8 February 2018

“What is political correctness”

Answering the question posed by a radio presenter, it is a fairly simple question to answer. It is drawing a line which extends (initially) beyond the legal limits of actions to outlaw the triplet of actions, words and opinions. This means otherwise legal or valid acts become possible to lose ones job or livelihood simply by breaking rules set by others outside the law but are enforceable enough by common practice to get the user into a great deal of trouble if caught doing so.

The final and frequent consequence of the social outlawing of such actions is legislation, such as that in Canada and California which (under the guise of “hate speech”) make it illegal to ‘misgender’ an individual by calling a man he who wishes to be called something else or vice versa, or criticise Islam (apparently Judaism and Christianity are exempt from protection). Therefore while causing no actual practical harm, inciting violence or crime, an innocent person can collect a criminal record simply by saying something which is negative about a protected group within society, while saying exactly the same or worse about anyone or anything else remains part of free speech.

The three sectors break down as follows:

Words: Previously technical or innocent words, including spastic, backward, negro, coloured person, cripple, mongoloid, fireman, retarded or blackboard have been chosen as derogatory, usually by left wing councils, and then made into lists which employees are not supposed to use. Anyone in the public eye dropping one of these in is subject to sacking, such as the Conservative politician Anne-Marie Morris, who innocently used the old-fashioned phrase ‘nigger in the woodpile’, with absolutely no malice, and immediately was demoted. No harm was either caused or intended but the sacrifice had to be made to the god of cultural Marxism as an example to others what will happen if you break their conventions. Then as previously mentioned compliant leaders such as Justin Trudeau of Canada then make such rules into criminal law, while others such as David Cameron in Britain tried to make new laws against ‘Hate speech’ which were ultimately totally subjective and wide enough to take in any and every rude word in the language.

Opinions: The liberal establishment have their own versions of right and wrong, and while remaining political preferences or personal choices, they have elevated their opinions to right and all others as wrong, or as they now say, Nazi. Therefore if, without any religious view or homophobia, simply think marriage cannot be extended beyond it’s official meaning of between opposite sexes, or that despite heavy surgery and medication people can’t change sex you’re a Nazi. Questioning global warming (now called ‘climate change’ as it doesn’t always warm) is another of their top five transgressions, and like using the wrong words certain people want to make ‘Climate Change Denial’ a crime no different to holocaust denial or incitement to genocide. Of course elevating opinions to the level of facts and then legislating their enforcement is pure fascism, which is the underlying current of Cultural Marxism. Fascism is not left or right wing, only when arbitrary rules are enforced against citizens for the benefit of the ruling elite.

Actions: Cultural appropriation, stereotyping, and in some places even drinking milk, are labelled racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Nazi by the enforcers of PC. If you make harmless jokes against any minority, use their accent, ‘blackface’, wear dreadlocks, make curry if you’re not Asian, wear fancy dress costumes based on ethnic cultures, you are a Nazi. End of. I think you get the picture.

I am not going to further analyse or offer any opinions, this is laying out my own view of the reality and practice of what is no more than an extreme political movement and you can judge for yourself now.

Thursday, 2 November 2017

Third world Europe

Most people think societies progress over time. Britain and Europe took centuries to change from a feudal agricultural society to industrial democracies, and created many of the greatest inventions now in use, from the car, the telephone, television and radio. People take for granted this progress will go forward over time and continue permanently. Taking a snapshot when I was young in Britain in the 70s, most families had the father working and the mother looking after the family, not because they had to but because they could. Mortgages were capped at around 2 1/2 times income, and people either rented council houses or privately, with subsidies or rent caps or owned their own houses.

Fast forward to 2017. Mortgage limits were removed, ten times income were common till the 2008 crash, and despite the crash today's average prices in England are now 7-8 times income, with a house rising from 30% of income for mortgage payments to up to 80%. This means well under half ones incomes are now spent on housing and far less is left for general spending, meaning the actual economy is being reduced by so little being spent on non-housing areas. Of course governments tell you higher house prices make you rich, so will never reduce them, although in fact if your price goes up 100% (which is typical over about 10 years nowadays) as soon as you move you'll just spend even more on the new one than you would have originally as they have gone up even more than yours assuming you trade up.

So we can see that in Britain (where I live) people now have well under half as much purchasing power as they did 40 years earlier. That is a dire economic foundation considering most politicians say we've never been as well off as we are now. The next issue is freedom of movement. I remember in the 70s how sorry we felt for people in the USSR who couldn't afford cars and needed permits to travel and many were unable to move outside their own country. We had free parking outside city centres, and new roads were regularly being built, along with improving existing ones, exactly as you'd expect. Run forward to today. The roads are far more crowded (there have been more immigrants to Britain since 1970 than between 1066 and 1970) and instead of improving them many councils are narrowing them and reducing the speed limits, giving priority to public transport, bicycles and pedestrians. Of course as the majority of traffic is private this means the combination of more people and deliberately worse roads makes the same journeys far slower than they would have been in the 70s. Now when we see urban road works it's nearly always to make the roads narrower or close them altogether. And when you do finally get where you need to it'll cost you 10% of your shopping bill for parking in many places.

Of course the governments make excuses for every awful thing they do, mainly global warming, the 'solutions' for which were making energy costs more expensive, driving and parking a lot harder and more expensive, and restricting many household appliances such as light bulbs, hairdryers and vacuum cleaners. The immediate loss is instant and measurable, while the future benefit is and can never be measurable nor knowable. Pedestrians don't belong on roads so slowing cars down for the idiots who walk into them is letting the tail wag the dog, while if they want bus and cycle lanes then build them, don't take them from the already limited road space. But without an excuse how would the authorities get people to accept these draconian measures, let alone stop actual riots?

Immigration has managed, regardless of the propaganda from the media it enriches our culture, to simply import millions (one million every three years in recent years) of immigrants, most from third world countries, who also bring their own cultures with them, to predictably turn huge parts of Britain into places which almost exactly resemble the places they left. Criminals such as pickpockets, bank card frauds, drug dealers, human traffickers etc. are also imported and carry out their professions here almost unhindered. Despite having centuries to reach our western standards in their own countries, instead of working to build them up as we did here, as China is now doing (despite an almost total absence of human rights), they simply move somewhere which has already done the work and let their own countries rot. Of course this is 100% the fault of the governments, as without their new open door policies it wouldn't have been possible for them to come here, as it was till the Blair era of the 90s.

As a direct result, despite the fact that anyone in authority will call you a racist for saying so, our schools, medical services and roads are crammed full and compounded by the fact many new arrivals barely speak English, with some forming tight communities where they all employ and mix with each other, with some never bothering to learn it for their entire lives. A few countries like Israel force all new arrivals to learn their language and make them leave if they haven't after attending compulsory full time courses. It can be done. And it doesn't help the third world either as they lose lots of their labour force and have no incentive to develop to the level of the countries they are flooding to. Although most people would prefer to live in their own homes, the pull of economic prosperity and political freedom are too strong to avoid for many, although bear in mind Europe was exactly the same in medieval times with rule by the aristocracy, mass poverty and regular bloody massacres. We evolved out of it, and these many countries are simply allowed to let their population shift en masse to instantly benefit from other people's efforts. But what they overlook is because many do not assimilate and take on modern values all they are actually doing is make more and more areas like the ones they left and the only difference being they get many free state benefits, which they have not contributed a penny to, which they can not in their original countries.

So in 40 years Britain has changed to a country where despite marvellous improvements in technology our successive governments have worked to undo more and more of the benefits brought with time, to return many roads to Victorian standards where they were only fit for horses, make it so expensive to house people that most of their money is spent on that with little left for anything else, shrinking the economy directly by reducing the money in circulation, and overwhelming the system with people who do not even fit in the society they are moving to and often stay as such for generations to come. Of course, as I pointed out already, people would prefer in most cases to be at home, and if they can not, then they make their new surroundings as much like where they lived before as they can. Meaning growing enclaves where shops, people, doctors, clothing and schools become almost the same as they would be in places like Pakistan or Poland. Leftist liberals may claim to welcome this and vilify anyone who objects at all, but when you are a minority in an area there is a massive difference between being a willing arrival who chooses to become an instant minority, to those born in a country where their area means they have become one without any say in the matter.

It is totally wrong to allow government and media pressure to stop our freedoms, and the fear of being labelled a racist or worse still being charged with hate crimes, as they do in most third world countries (including blasphemy), although everyone suffers the same fates, and only a handful of dreamy eyed liberals enjoy queueing for two hours where they are the only people who speak English at a council office or hospital, few dare to speak out in public, allowing the policies to continue unabated. Combine that with the irrational fear of 'climate change' (varying weather patterns) and the public are restricted from fighting back through their own imaginations that they will get into more trouble for complaining than allowing the actual trouble they already have. Unless this stops we will end up where every country in the world is eventually a variation on the others, with no native race or culture, and like the USSR, needing a permit to travel. And do even the leftest of liberals really want that?

Wednesday, 8 March 2017

Climate change, religion and Munchhausen's by proxy

What have the above got in common? Those familiar with my material will have worked out undeveloped people have to have faith, and the lowest faiths of all attack everyone outside the faith. I'll also add body dysphoria to complete the set. What do they all have in common? Handing over your authority to others, and hating yourself or other people not part of the group.

The 21st century has the liberal left supporting all of these, including religion as long as it's only Islam. Do you wonder why the so-called progressives support the most backward, dangerous religion on the planet? Because at the back of all of them they're terrified of other people, and want the strongest authority to protect them from it. Islam hands over their entire lives to Sharia law, while the left hand it over to the state. One uses God while the other uses politics, but the lives led under such totalitarian regimes are reassuringly similar to those who feel the need to live under them.

The body dysphoria and Munchhausens by proxy come in as a direct replacement of the religious sharia law of Islam for hate of other people for the left. Munchhausen's by proxy overlaps the false religion of climate change, totally based on trusting others and hating humanity for causing it. They believe everyone else is killing them and their unborn grandchildren, so has become the most misanthropic movement since the Final Solution. It is only a modern variation of it after all.

The climate change cult ticks all the boxes of the cult tests, exclusivity, demonising outsiders, refusing to accept other views and taking vast amounts of money. Technically until the internet allowed people to check if scientists said the average temperature was slightly higher than it was in 1850 you had to accept it, and were virtually unable to check yourself, and totally unable to know it directly as no one can ever tell from personal experience. Despite three decades of nothing happening besides some melting Arctic ice (and growing Antarctic, the one we never hear about), everything else, especially the sea level, is doing just fine. It can all be checked from official data. But the regressive left, following the divisive hate of Marx, sees others as the enemy. Muslims are the notable exception as I have explained, as ultimately despite the totally different motivation life in Iran is very similar to a life of hard left government. The religious leaders are replaced by large monuments of Marx, Lenin and Castro but all equally idols to Satan.

And when you turn your Munchhausens or hate for others inwards what do you have? Body dysphoria. As yet no one has demedicalised anorexia. People who hate themselves so much they cut themselves or starve themselves are still accepted as mentally ill. But if they hate their bodies because they are the sex they prefer not to be they can cut themselves and drug themselves with the collusion of doctors because this one single illness has been isolated as normal. And then if anyone like Germaine Greer or Jenny Murray dares to say a man can never change sex they are again demonised, using Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals by using collective ridicule to maintain authority.

The left love anything negative. They jump on the perverted and decadent, just as they celebrate mental illnesses, talking about equality and minority rights, ultimately virtually worshipping people who see reality differently from the consensus. Under the illusory umbrella of human rights they single out fractions of a percentage of unfortunate people who have complex mental disorders and use them to assert their authority on the 99% without such disorders to make us bow to the abnormal. They are actually no different to the Asian beggars who maim their own children for sympathy to earn more money. It's just a far more sophisticated version, by looking for the most unfortunate and disadvantaged people and then forcing the rest of us to make allowances and see them as the normal ones. It's a form of attempted mass mind control, which can never last for long as each new generation of children will say 'Why has that woman got such a deep voice' or 'Why is that man wearing a dress?'. Try as you like you can't stop innocent children being honest, and in the end, as even Jesus said, the little children will save humanity from itself.