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.

Tuesday, 3 January 2017

Everyone's different

A lot of what I do here is stating the obvious. A combination of wishful thinking and deliberate deception has created a situation where scientific truth is rejected based on failed ideologies and downright frauds.

The greatest one may be the claim that all people begin exactly the same. I've already pointed out the proof this is wrong by extending it to its extreme, as people with Down's syndrome can never improve regardless of their environment. Just because other differences are more subtle doesn't mean they don't exist. Dogs and cats are quadruped mammals, both are born into similar environments when domesticated, but dogs like to go out and are happy to travel and follow their masters, but cats rarely enjoy being moved and prefer staying in their territory and can come and go as they please, never straying from home. Then different dogs have been bred for their specific characteristics, and a labrador will rarely vary from being friendly, gentle, intelligent and inquisitive, while a rottweiler will usually be a handful and need a lot of training to control. Where an animal is born won't make any difference to their inbred natures, and working dogs will do the same work such as hunting or guiding while others will never manage it given the same training.

I hope everyone can accept the proof regarding animals and people with mental defects, and if so then why can't they accept individuals within the same race have an inborn range of IQ which is a potential, so reaches its limit with the best environment, and such characteristics can be seen in families, and as races are simply much larger families as proved by DNA similarities, then people within races have to share their own ranges of all characteristics whatever they're environment.

Because this upsets many people there has been a long running effort to deny the innate differences between individuals, races, sexes and anything else by the left wing of ideology, which insists given the same conditions people will be the same. This rejects the fact siblings are brought up together and completely different, while identical twins who have been brought up separately grow up very similar to each other. Yes, we can learn and be made better or worse by our environments, but we can't turn into different people, including a man becoming a woman or vice versa. That is one battle the left have won for now but can never stick as it isn't real.

Thursday, 22 December 2016

International government fraud.

Market fixing is both immoral and illegal. It involves controlling price and output artificially to gain excess profits. There are two roots to this picture. It begins in the post-war Common Market, whose Common Agricultural Policy forced food prices up by restricting its production. This wasn't all based on fallow land, where fields were subsidised not to produce to restrict supply, but on getting rid of food when the quota was reached. Once farmers produced the amount of wine, butter or wheat the policy dictated (as in the USSR planned economy), the rest would be destroyed. The wine lakes and butter mountains were the remainder of the amount beyond the quota which was thrown out. The EU destroy food to keep prices up. Is it illegal? Not under their own rules. Is it immoral? Totally.

Part two goes to Ponzi schemes, moving money around with no real product. In the 90s Enron created one based on CO2 trading. They invented future profits in CO2 reduction which were then traded as faux currency, and made them millions for a few years before they were caught out selling imaginary products which were essentially worthless. Was it illegal? Yes. Was it immoral? Yes. But a couple of years before they were busted for the greatest organised fraud in history, they sold the idea to President Clinton and his right hand man Al Gore. Clinton went on to develop carbon trading (tax on CO2 emissions) and Al Gore set up a private carbon trading company which made him a billionaire.

In order to do this Clinton had to change the law, as when Enron were convicted it was for carbon trade fraud. Clinton simply made it legal, so he was free to legislate, and Gore was free to set up his company, identical in all ways to Enron, but now legal. And the EU run carbon trading compulsorily, so we all have to be taxed on our emissions which are then traded on the markets, and in true EU fashion not only sell immoral but legal nothing, they set a minimum (floor) price, so have actually fixed the market by making a minimum price to sell, well, absolutely nothing. Immoral and previously against international law. And could they ever have got away with doing it with the voters? Only if they believed it was for a good reason. Hence the imagined threat from CO2, people saw this fake trading as one of the solutions to the fake problem, and it was coined.

And without international cooperation (globalism), led by the UN panel on climate change, it won't be possible to organise. The fraud must be universal otherwise the money will shift to the free countries. So they all sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and every treaty since (with exceptions who still apply the same rules outside it), and bingo, we have a world mafia style government.

And who comes along responding to the citizens' calls to fix it? Donald Trump. From 20th January 2017 the entire system will begin to collapse.

Friday, 14 October 2016

The left want to go against nature

Before politics and in the remainder of the animal kingdom nature rules. Darwinism, social and biological is the only law, and men and women have roles not decided by politicians but by what is practical. If you give everyone in a country £20,000 then in five years some will have made it into £100,000 and others will have wasted it all. If you keep taking the money the better off have earned and give it to the others then they will continue to waste it and suck off the successful like a parasite. Of course a basic income would solve poverty overnight, so everyone had enough to live on and then whatever else they earn could be taxed at a flat rate to provide the general income, and there is your only needed welfare state.

The roles of women are not imposed in nature, they arise naturally. Until the 70s, when British house prices started becoming too high for one income then the previous (consensual) role of the housewife was lost to the vaults of history. How many women with a family given the chance would work full time till retirement unless they had to? Then we have the artificial construct of same sex marriage. The original difference between a lifelong partnership and marriage was raising a family. What did you say? Gay couples can raise a family? No, they can't, it's impossible. They can adopt a child sired by one partner and condemn it to be brought up without a parent, but of course nature does not allow for that so in order to twist so called equality law gay couples are now allowed to deliberately bring a parentless child into the world rather than adopt one that was already unwanted. Helping an orphan is totally different from creating a child from scratch and eliminating one of the parents by choice.

The amazing decision by the psychiatric community to remove one single type of body/personality dysphoria from being a mental illness but keep the others means politics has gradually crept into science. Not content with changing century long names for syndromes such as spastic, moron, backward and mongol, which were all recognised medical terms, they had to actually succumb to the insidious force of political correctness, and claim a person who actually believes they are the opposite sex are as normal as anyone else. They are still delusional, and had they believed they were an animal or another race and had surgery to look more like it no one would believe they were sane, as they aren't, but slicing off your equipment and calling yourself Mary with a voice and chin still like Marvin is no different however many psychiatrists say they are.

Equality is a total joke as well, as alluded to with the financial example. Every life is equal, every person is different. Family members are similar, and whatever the PC brigade want to order you to believe every racial group is a larger family and will naturally get on with and understand each other better than outsiders. It's not the obvious visual differences either. Being Jewish some people do obviously look Jewish, and many more do not. And throughout my lifetime I've got on well with many people for some time long before discovering they were Jewish. I had no idea till they told me, and when I meet Jews abroad we get on like long lost family, much like when I'd spent a few days in France and finally met my first family of English tourists. It wasn't the language as I could reasonably understand French and we went there to see our French friends there, but foreign is foreign and we all know how that feels when we're somewhere very different and feel totally lost.

So claiming it's fine for the entire third world to flood into Europe, as the EU countries have unanimously decided, is not in anyone's interests. How can it be racist to disagree with it? No large groups of people from abroad spread evenly in their new countries, but simply transplant from one country to an area in another where they are with their own people, often speak their own language, and open shops to supply themselves with the food and items they are used to, as we all would in the same position. It isn't short term with the next generation start to assimilate, but normally long term to permanent. They may move up in society but when they move they move together. And the so called liberals who attack anyone disagreeing with mass immigration to Europe forget nowhere in Asia or Africa has it, and no one complains, except a few far left academics who are determined to make Japan multicultural. Why? Because they hate the fact the Japanese are the strongest national culture on the planet and sets and example to everywhere else who wants to maintain theirs.

Nature is bigger than you and me and politics. The left hate it and want everyone to get the same benefits whoever they are, and claim given a few years of exposure to western values they will always rub off. Well of course the evidence shows the opposite. Career criminals who move abroad simply export it there, and the knife and gun culture of the West Indies (ask a Jamaican, it's not a racist claim) is now a regular occurrence in London, as are the Romanian robbery gangs. You can't turn anyone into something they are not, and the claim I first heard at school was that intelligence is down to your environment awakened me to the sheer denial of reality inherent in leftism. Siblings have very similar upbringings but are all totally different in their academic ability, and when they do well often take different subjects as they are all different people. Thank goodness with genetic profiling they have finally started to prove more and more qualities are decided at birth. Mensa made it fairly clear, you can always reduce intelligence with the wrong conditions but can never increase it. Just look at the extremes. If you have Down Syndrome then you are locked at that level. I can't see anyone arguing with that is it's so obvious. Just because it isn't so obvious with anyone else doesn't mean the subtler variations are any different.

Accusations of hate when anyone tries to use nature as the ultimate rule in life is because the left hate the fact we aren't all equal as individuals and totally different as groups. That can and will never change, and just as dogs are bred to have different qualities deliberately, so have human beings naturally, and trying to force that out of existence is a crime against humanity for motives of sheer and utter stupidity and immaturity. Understand reality and accept it. Nature isn't fair, it just is as it is, if you don't like it then find another reality to inhabit, don't try and spoil this one.