Monthly Archives: November 2017

The Remainders keep telling us that they are defending democracy and doing it for Britain and are not at all trying to stop Brexit and return us to the crushing embrace of the EU…..this of course tells the lie of that…

The time has come for Theresa May to tell the nation: Brexit can’t be done

Alistair Campbell

You can hear this classic line from Alistair Campbell as he condescends to Gisela Stuart [8 mins 20 secs]…oh…he doesn’t care about the EU, he cares about Britain…can’t quite remember who elected him or who funds the EU propaganda rag that he edits…..

At least Campbell is honest about his call to stop Brexit, others less so and the BBC all too often allows them to get away with it.

Time for the BBC to be more robust and more honest when dealing with the likes of Clegg, Soubry, Umunna, Adonis and Cable and call them out on their dishonesty when they claim to be seeking only the best deal for Britain and they respect the referendum result.

'If we want peace we need one thing – less Islam'. New, in today's Sun: https://t.co/kN03199KAr

— Douglas Murray (@DouglasKMurray) June 4, 2017

‘Out thought and undereducated.  We have lost the ability to think, to acquire knowledge, to advance intellectually and then we wonder why our community is in such decay.’

 

‘Islam choked in the vicelike grip of orthodoxy….It was the end of tolerance, intellect, and science in the Muslim world. The last great Muslim thinker, Abd- al Rahman ibn Khaldun, belonged to the 14th century.’

MarkyMark in the comments draws our attention to this in the Guardian which illustrates why the BBC peddles the ‘glorious history’ of Islam in order to persuade us that the realities of Islam within our society today are  not the real Islam…Islam is peaceful religion that embraces human rights, women’s  liberation and forward thinking on many issues from the economy to science and philosophy…in essence Islam, the BBC insinuates, is not a threat to you or your culture and society…..

The scale of hostility in Britain towards Islam and Arabs is revealed in a YouGov survey showing most UK voters believe Arabs have failed to integrate themselves into British society, and their presence has not been beneficial.

The three characteristics most closely associated with the Arab world by British people are gender segregation, wealth and Islam, with extremism and a rich history the next two identified characteristics. The degree of association with innovation or forward thinking is miniscule.

In a survey that also reveals widespread self-confessed ignorance about the Arab world, a total of 63% say they believe Arabs have failed to integrate themselves into western society and live in isolated communities.

Faisal J Abbas, editor in chief of Arab News, said the poll showed on the one hand a shocking lack of knowledge of the Arab world.

“What is concerning is that these opinions are based on very limited knowledge about the region. The Arab world is home to some of the poorest countries in the world.

So we have have a shocking lack of knowledge about the Arab world.  Really?

Even Arabs admit there is a problem with ‘Arab’ countries:

Self-doomed to failure

An unsparing new report by Arab scholars explains why their region lags behind so much of the world

The barrier to better Arab performance is not a lack of resources, concludes the report, but the lamentable shortage of three essentials: freedom, knowledge and womanpower. Not having enough of these amounts to what the authors call the region’s three “deficits”. It is these deficits, they argue, that hold the frustrated Arabs back from reaching their potential—and allow the rest of the world both to despise and to fear a deadly combination of wealth and backwardness.

The most delicate issue of all, again carefully skirted by the authors of the report, is the part that Islam plays in delaying and impeding the Arab world’s advance towards the ever-receding renaissance that its intellectuals crave. One of the report’s signed articles explains Islam’s support for justice, peace, tolerance, equilibrium and all good things besides. But most secularists believe that the pervasive Islamisation of society, which in several Arab countries has largely replaced the frightening militancy of the 1980s and early 1990s, has played a significant part in stifling constructive Arab thought.

[Islam]….discouraging critical thought and innovation and helping to produce a great army of young Arabs, jobless, unskilled and embittered, cut off from changing their own societies by democratic means. Islam at least offers them a little self-respect. With so many paths closed to them, some are now turning their dangerous anger on the western world.

So Islam creates Jihadis not just by virtue of its teachings but because it also destroys the innovative and creative thinking that produces jobs and a civil, employed society…thus we get angry young men who ironically fight to defend the Islam that is the source of their problems.

We are told by the Guardian that…’The emerging picture – fear, ignorance and hostility – underlines the tensions in UK society about attitudes to Islam and the Arab world in the UK’….Well there’s fear and hostility…but based on knowledge not ignorance.  People look around and see what Muslims do and say, they look at the Muslim world and what Islam has done for those countries, they look at countries where Islam has infiltrated and they look at the result…they also look at countries where there is little to no Islam and look at the result…and they choose which one they like…No Islam.

Labour’s [ex] Nasreen Khan asked ‘What good have the Jews done?‘

The Jews, in 70 years, have turned the desert into a highly productive, innovative, forward looking democracy…and that’s just Israel never minds Jews around the world…despite Israel being under attack for all of that time by Muslims who have produced what?  They have oil, but they didn’t find or develop that…the West did…and what do they do with the revenues?  Playboys and funding Islamists in the West….mostly.

The we have this from the Guardian…

The degree of association [of Islam] with innovation or forward thinking is miniscule.

That’s because Islam crushed innovation and forward thinking…don’t take my word for it, take a Muslim’s……

What has Mehdi Hasan got to say?

He states that there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world….and between them they have a total of 10 Nobel prizes.  The Jews, with a population of 12 million have 150 Nobel prizes.  All 6 Jewish Universities are in the top 20 in a world ranking.  There are no Muslim universities in the top 200.

He goes on to say:

We wonder why we are losing battles, we are not being out fought, we are being out thought.

We are not under armed, we are undereducated.

We have lost the ability to think, to acquire knowledge, to advance intellectually and then we wonder why our community is in such decay.

Pervez Hoodbhoy is professor of nuclear and high-energy physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad. This article is based on a speech delivered at the Center for Inquiry International conference in Atlanta, Georgia, 2001.

In the twelfth century Muslim orthodoxy reawakened, spearheaded by the cleric Imam Al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali championed revelation over reason, predestination over free will. He refuted the possibility of relating cause to effect, teaching that man cannot know or predict what will happen; God alone can. He damned mathematics as against Islam, an intoxicant of the mind that weakened faith.

Islam choked in the vicelike grip of orthodoxy.

It was the end of tolerance, intellect, and science in the Muslim world. The last great Muslim thinker, Abd- al Rahman ibn Khaldun, belonged to the 14th century.

For Muslims, it is time to stop wallowing in self-pity: Muslims are not helpless victims of conspiracies hatched by an all-powerful, malicious West. The fact is that the decline of Islamic greatness took place long before the age of mercantile imperialism. The causes were essentially internal. Therefore Muslims must introspect, and ask what went wrong.

Britain’s standing in the world has been reduced [BBC fact] and we may lose our place on the International Court of Justice the BBC informs us….the unspoken term?  #duetoBrexit.  Note in the video Dimbleby once again denying that the BBC uses the term ‘inspite of Brexit’ or other forms of implying that.  Charles Moore also got similar treatment….and Guido has helpfully listed many examples where Moore and JRM are proved right and Dimbleby wrong.

Loads more BBC bias out there…..list it all here……

 

“Full employment never meant zero unemployment,” says Christopher Pissarides, professor of economics at the London School of Economics.

Philip Hammond said there was ‘no unemployment’….naturally, with 1.4 million people without jobs, the usual suspects jumped all over him in politically motivated attacks….

Philip Hammond says there are ‘no unemployed people’

Hammond, or ‘Spreadsheet Phil’ as he is also known, is a dry technocrat who allegedly lives and breathes figures [though seemingly unable to master the detail of his brief….hence ‘white van man’ and NI debacle]…..when he says ‘No unemployment’ he didn’t mean there are no unemployed people, he meant there was full employment, a  technical term which he clearly made a hash of explaining…. he should have expected the reaction he got…but perhaps might have expected better from the BBC who frequently state that there is a natural level of unemployment in any economy that is more to do with churn than actual inability to get jobs….and here is the BBC telling us that itself.….

“Full employment never meant zero unemployment,” says Christopher Pissarides, professor of economics at the London School of Economics.

Instead there is what the free market economist Milton Friedman termed a “natural rate” of unemployment, where nobody stays out of work for long, unemployment fluctuates between 5% and 6% with jobless workers quickly being hired in growth sectors of the economy.

‘No unemployment’ was a clumsy way of saying ‘full employment’

And here is the BBC again as Osborne proclaimed he was aiming for ‘full employment’ in the economy…

There are a number of different definitions of full employment:

Sir William Beveridge, the architect of the welfare state, thought it should be when 3% of the workforce is unemployed

Other economists have spoken of a higher “natural rate” of unemployment, where nobody stays out of work for long, with joblessness fluctuating at between 5% and 6%

And in August this year…

The increase prompted some economists to suggest that wages may finally be responding to an economy which is closing in on full employment.

If you have been following the Rohingya story, you will have heard how the Myanmar army cleared itself of wrongdoing this week. Jonathan Head, BBC South East Asia correspondent tells us:

To no one’s surprise, the army has exonerated itself of pretty much all blame. But its findings lack credibility, both because the inquiry was solely carried out by the very institution accused of committing the abuses, and because of the overwhelming testimony of so many Rohingya, detailing appalling atrocities.

If you have been following the accusations of BBC bias during the last few decades, you will have heard how the BBC cleared itself of any wrongdoing on numerous occasions. But its findings lack credibility, both because the inquiry was solely carried out by the very institution accused of committing the abuses, and because of the overwhelming testimony of so many viewers, detailing appalling bias.

One of the worst and most ridiculous arguments goes like this: “the right say the BBC is too left wing, but the left say the BBC has a right wing bias, so it’s probably quite balanced in reality”. You’ve heard variations of this argument no doubt.

The BBC has many presenters, journalists, employees. Not all of them have the exact same opinion. Andrew Neil is clearly more right wing than Emily Maitlis for example. Laura Kuenssberg is clearly more right wing than a lot of Corbyn supporters would like.

Everyone is biased. Everyone has opinions and preconceptions, and anyway what would true neutrality even look like? Centrism is not unbiased, and even supporting democracy or economic growth are not unbiased. Everyone at the BBC is biased and they simply cannot help it.

BBC output can therefore be biased in different ways at different times, both right wing and left wing (whether this is all “balanced” or not is a different matter). Likewise, the Guardian publish some more right wing articles from time to time, despite their obvious left wing stance. The difference between the Guardian and the BBC is that the Guardian are openly left wing and don’t try to present themselves as some sort of neutral source of “facts” as opposed to “opinions”, like the BBC do. Another difference is that my bin isn’t full of nasty letters the Guardian sent to me because I didn’t pay for their newspaper license.

H/T StewGreen

The BBC is screening a new programme today…a play from the National Theatre. 

In the days following the Brexit vote, a team from the National Theatre of Great Britain spoke to people nationwide, aged 9 to 97, to hear their views on the country we call home. In a series of deeply personal interviews, they heard opinions that were honest, emotional, funny and sometimes extreme.

The writers?   Carol Ann Duffy and Rufus Norris.

Both of course voted to Remain…Norris was shocked by the result and set out to find out why it happened…though you get the feeling he thinks Leave voters are somehow misguided despite saying this…

“We’ve got to try to do what little we can to address the complete vote of no confidence in our system that that was,” Norris said.

“I don’t believe 17.5 million people are racists or idiots. I categorically don’t. I think we’ve got to listen.”

What does he mean by ‘address the complete vote of no confidence in the system’?  Does he mean change the system or ‘educate’ the Leave voters into why they are wrong in their beliefs about that system?  You suspect the latter though he admits “The challenge is to keep our own personal politics out of it; the point is to give a voice to other people.”

He tells us:

“I think what comes through very clearly is a strong rejection of modern politics, the selfishness, the career-driven nature of it,” he says, summarising the fury that emerges from the interviews. “Everybody is fed up with their communities being broken apart, the breakdown of the NHS, the wealth imbalance in this country. You feel a real kick against the misinformation, an awareness that everything they are being told is fiendishly biased.”

But then we get possibly the real Norris…

Norris, who voted remain, is nevertheless furious at the way the referendum was conducted, the way the media reported it, the lies, the propaganda, and the unfolding events in the US. He is uneasy at the powerful influence wielded by the Daily Mail. “How can we have an unelected person steering the country this way? Paul Dacre? Who the fuck is Paul Dacre? Who is he? Why does he have so much influence?” He has to pause, reminds himself to calm down, and laughs.

He is uneasy at the powerful influence wielded by the BBC….”How can we have an unelected person steering the country this way?  Who the fuck is Lord Hall Hall?  Who is he?  Why does he have so much influence?”

And as for Leave voters…not idiots he claimed earlier…now, the real view?….

“What’s sad for me is that the referendum followed on from another referendum on these islands that was done very intelligently, where all the arguments were laid out clearly and everybody had a chance to look at both sides of the arguments and vote accordingly. The difference between that referendum and this one was massive. It was like the one we had was for idiots.”

And these Leave voters…what was the real cause for their vote maybe?  Extreme selfishness….

“With the death in belief of the great them – whether they are politicians, kings and queens or experts – what do we believe in? We believe in ourselves. Cameras now are only used to take photos of ourselves – not of anything around us. We know we are in an age of extreme selfishness.”

Clearly Leave voters were not thinking of the harm and misery that artists would suffer, the trauma of no longer being an EU citizen, never being able to go to Europe ever again, no more entente cordial, no more ooh la la…..how will they survive?  No idea that it is those who refuse to accept the vote who are selfish in the extreme then?

The Guardian’s take on the play…

I was struck by how often people’s fears, on a variety of subjects from the EU dictating the shape of bananas to the notion that asylum seekers are sending money home to “murderers and rapists”, seem to reflect the prejudices of the anti-European press…however well-intentioned, the show offers little in the way of fresh information or insights. We already knew that the EU had become a scapegoat for popular discontent and that there are serious fissures between, and within, the UK’s separate parts.

So he comes away with the idea that the Leave voters are all prejudiced and misled, that the EU is scapegoated and that Britain is divided.

It is a curious thing how the Remainers all like to paint Britain as a divided wreck, rent asunder by Brexit….why no such wailings after any general election…surely the country is even more split as the votes go to so many different parties?  Just a political trick to paint Brexit as a disaster.

And one more thing…apparently 96% of artists were pro-EU and yet…Brexit will result in more art being done by more people, by more ethnic people and be seen by a far more diverse crowd, not only that but artists will be [miraculously battling the drawbridges that went up after Brexit] increasing their cooperation and work with Europe and the world….some failure, some isolation and some withdrawal into the bunker of a ‘little england’….

Norris believed the vote would be a catalyst to increase collaborations with arts organisations in Europe and further. “We are a world leader and we are not going to give up that position,” he said. “For us it is going to spur an increase in our collaborations with European partners and our international work. Being isolated is bad for culture and is very bad for society and there is no way we are going to go down that path.”

Asked what the cultural landscape might be like in 10 years as a result of Brexit, Mitchell said: “The culture and the art we look at will be much more representative of the Britain that we live in: more black faces, more working-class types of art, more regional representation.”

In other words the bunkers and bubbles were in place well before Brexit and it was those most opposed to Brexit that occupied them…isolated and aloof from the real Britain.  Now they have to get off their backsides and really be creative and do some work.

‘Exodus’...the BBC’s name for its new programmes about the flight of Muslim immigrants to Europe….

Talking of the infamous £350 million the BBC always likes to say we don’t send the EU any actual money…and that the UK has a veto over any decision to axe the rebate should the EU, as would be likely, especially if we were to ‘rejoin’, thus…the rebate is safe and can’t possibly be included in any discussion on how much we pay the EU.

Strange then that the EU wants to hold onto our rebate.…how can they do that if they don’t get paid it?….

Europe is threatening to keep back Britain’s final rebate payment of €5 billion as part of the negotiations over 
the Brexit bill, The Telegraph can disclose.

Senior British sources said that 
negotiations over the bill, which the EU sets at €60 billion (£53.6 billion), had still not settled whether the UK would receive the €5 billion (£4.46 billion) payment as part of the final settlement when it leaves the EU in March 2019.

“There is a problem here, and the issue over whether the EU will pay us the 2018 rebate has not been resolved,” the source in Whitehall confirmed.

No veto then?  The EU was always likely to reverse the rebate, veto or no veto, whether we voted to stay or go….something the BBC doesn’t want you to understand.  You can guarantee it will go if we are forced by the Remainders to go cap in hand to the EU begging to be let back in….they will take us for everything they think we owe them and then add on the defunct rebate on top as well as imposing some draconian rules upon us in the City and on trade until we ‘prove’ our commitment to the cause and the Grand Project.

The BBC’s Reality Check tells us…

Reality Check verdict: He’s [Gove] right that the rebate is not a permanent feature of EU membership, but the UK has a veto over the process that would scrap or reduce it.

The level of the UK rebate is decided every seven years, as part of the EU’s long-term budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which is negotiated by the EU leaders.

The long-term budget determines EU spending levels and priorities and it has to be approved unanimously by all 28 EU leaders.

Last time, as part of the 2014-2020 budget negotiations, the UK rebate was preserved. It will remain in place in the current form until 2020.

When the EU starts to negotiate the next MFF, the rebate will certainly be on the table again. Many other EU countries would like to see it scrapped or reduced.

But with the EU leaders required to approve the MFF unanimously, the UK could use its veto to stop the erosion of the rebate.

Except is that right?  The EU will introduce majority voting on this as soon as it thinks it is necessary or find someother way around it…Cameron already surrendered the veto for majority voting on many issues last year and told us it was a great success by him giving away our veto.

BRUSSELS has today unveiled plans to abolish all member state rebates fuelling speculation that eurocrats were preparing to raid Britain for more cash if it voted to remain in the European Union.

And consider that the EU can always find a way of increasing the total we ‘owe’ the EU so that when the rebate goes through we still pay them what they want….like the supermarket inflating prices and then telling you you have a bargain when they ‘drop’ them…or ‘Britain could be put under pressure to compromise elsewhere if it wants to keep the rebate, European Commission sources say.’

The EU is no-one’s friend….it is about filling  its own pockets with our gold and a massive power grab for the unelected and unaccountable EU superstate that can change the rules at will to justify and licence its every unjust and illegal move…..and the ECJ is so politicised that it is essentially there to rubberstamp what the EU wants.

‘Omerta’…that’s a Vauxhall car isn’t it?  Apparently not, it’s the vow of silence that the EU national leaders have taken so that only Barnier gets to speak as the voice of the EU [H/T Craig at Is the BBC biased?] according to Katya Adler who was explaining why her, and the BBC’s, coverage seemed so biased and favourable towards the EU’s version of events.

I heard Adler this morning giving us her best effort to convey Brexit events and I, clearly rather rashly, thought immediately how one-sided her comments were…as usual.  I was being unfair…apparently…according to Adler who tells us…

As Europe Editor it’s my job to put across the European perspective. Now that might come across as anti-UK but actually it’s just putting across the other point of view.

So as an experienced and professional journalist with the ability to think, analyse and put together a coherent story linking it all together she can’t convey both sides of the story?  Just the one?  Surely, as ‘European Editor’, that includes reporting what the British side says as well and to do so without implying they are deluded and unreasonable?

The BBC always presents whatever the EU says as gospel, as the only reasonable view of events, their every demand presented as realistic and sober and that it is the British who are unreasonable, irrational, unprepared, led by a weak government in chaos.   The very fact that Adler claims that the EU won’t let her speak to the national leaders should say something about the EU…but the BBC doesn’t notice…nor do they notice that the EU is trying to annex Northern Ireland and split up Britain….you might think they would have somethng to say about a foreign power trying to takeover British territory, they have so much to say about Russia in America, but no.

It just isn’t true that the leaders have taken a vow of silence…..the Irish PM certainly  hasn’t, German politicians haven’t….Merkel continually makes comments as do her officials, not Poles, Mr Tusk was pumping out the propaganda only yesterday.  And Macron was in the Spectator a few days ago with a very strange piece.…Napoleon lives on…

The EU must be reformed through sovereignty and democracy. Here’s how I plan to do it

He starts off well enough but soon reverts to type…

The European Union contributes to its own downfall when it fails to stand up for itself through an excess of conformism and a lack of vision. What can we say about the February 2016 agreement that offered the United Kingdom an ‘à la carte Europe’, yielding to its blackmail?

As for not denouncing Brexit…funny way of not doing that…

Brexit expresses the weaknesses of a political class that found its scapegoat —Europe — and failed to explain that leaving Europe would lead to disaster. Protection from a public debate in which experts’ arrogance and demagogues’ lies were lumped together indiscriminately…..We must not allow our citizens or our ideas to be monopolised by rabble-rousers or extremists.

And if you think the EU will risk the rest of Europe having referendums…maybe not….The ‘project fear’ handbook is ready to smash you…..

For countries organising a referendum, a coordinated campaign must be organised to generate democratic debate at European level.

So no….national voices have not been silenced and Barnier is far from the only voice to be heard….the EU itself has Juncker and Tusk on the airwaves all the time.  Adler talks through her hat justifying her bias with complete twaddle and revealing the fact that she must be a terrible journalist who can’t access the decent sources.