Monthly Archives: January 2018

Voice-over by Sky’s Julie Etchingham but policy confirmed by Tory MP Ben Bradley.…

A Conservative MP has apologised for a 2012 blog post in which he suggested benefit claimants should have vasectomies.

In the post Ben Bradley, made Tory vice-chairman for youth in last week’s reshuffle, hit out at what he called a “vast sea of unemployed wasters”.

Did think it was in a way actual Tory policy as they cut benefits for families with more than two children thus encouraging birth control with financial incentives.

The BBC et al of course are up in arms, shocked at Bradley’s suggestion couched as it was in rather harsh language, but is it any different to what is the generally accepted notion that if you want children you should be able to afford to bring them up?

Jeremy Hunt made similar remarks in 2010:

A Cabinet minister has provoked a storm by suggesting that the workshy should stop having children if they cannot afford them.

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt called on the jobless to take responsibility for their families.

He said it was not the duty of the state to fund an increasing number of offspring with benefits.

Of course Toby Young was similarly hung out to dry for merely attending, briefly, a conference about intelligence which had some speakers who voiced ideas that appeared to support eugenics.  Young was actually researching for a speech he had been asked to make at a well established and respected organisation about intelligence later in the year, he was not visiting this conference due to personal interest.  That didn’t stop the usual lynch mob from attacking him.

Curiously the BBC doesn’t hold everyone to the same standard….such as the beloved Hillary Clinton who has fully endorsed a woman who actually practised eugenics on Blacks in the US.

Sec. Clinton Stands By Her Praise of Eugenicist Margaret Sanger

‘Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.’

Mrs. Sanger, of course, wasn’t the benevolent advocate for human rights that Clinton’s remarks make her out to be. In fact, Sanger’s “vision” for birth control seems to be united to a eugenic vision. In the October 1921 issue of The Birth Control Review, Sanger wrote that “the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aim of Eugenics.” Sanger laid out the “principles and aims” of the American Birth Control League in an appendix to her 1922 work, The Pivot of Civilization. Two and a half pages are devoted to the principles of the American Birth Control league, which begins:

The complex problems now confronting America as the result of the practice of reckless procreation are fast threatening to grow beyond human control. Everywhere we see poverty and large families going hand in hand. Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly. People who cannot support their own offspring are encouraged by Church and State to produce large families. Many of the children thus begotten are diseased or feeble minded. Many become criminals. The burden of supporting these unwanted types has to be borne by the healthy elements of the nation. Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to the maintenance of those who should never have been born.

Maybe this from Sanger might have alerted Clinton that Sangar had views that are frowned upon today:

It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets. According to one writer, the rapist has just enough brain development to raise him above the animal, but like the animal, when in heat knows no law except nature which impels him to procreate whatever the result. Every normal man and Woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells in thinking deeply, are never sensual.

Still, Clinton is untouchable at BBC Towers whilst anyone on the Right is demonised and written off as a Nazi.

Quality of life or untold riches due to mass immigration?

The BBC wants you to believe that we can have a thriving economy only if we keep importing millions upon millions of cheap workers.  They tell us that the benefits are enormous.  Are they?  Are there in fact any benefits?  The best figure they can come up with is the economy may increase by 50p per immigrant…so great value….never mind the massive housing problem created, the NHS in crisis, schools overflowing, the roads chocablock, infrastructure such as water under huge pressure, the prisons in meltdown and the police and legal system unable to cope with the extra demands….add to that terrorism and attempts to undermine British society by immigrant communities and it all adds up to a potent mix that tells us mass immigration is an extremist ideology with very dangerous consequences for us all the only ones who benefit are the fat-cat bosses who leech off the cheap imported labour and the liberal/left extremist ideologues who want to destory the West and to ethnically cleanse Europe of white people.

Here is an article that suggests the wonderful picture that the BBC et al paint of mass immigration is not true…

While it may come in many guises, Ponzi demography is essentially a pyramid scheme that attempts to make more money for some by adding on more and more people through population growth.

While more visible in industrialized economies, particularly in Australia, Canada and the United States, Ponzi demography also operates in developing countries. The underlying strategy of Ponzi demography is to privatize the profits and socialize the costs incurred from increased population growth.

As has been noted by Nobel laureate economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen as well as many others, current economic yardsticks such as gross domestic product (GDP) focus on material consumption and do not include quality-of-life factors.

Standard measures of GDP do not reflect, for example, the degradation of the environment, the depreciation of natural resources or declines in individuals’ quality of life.

According to Ponzi demography, population growth — through natural increase and immigration — means more people leading to increased demands for goods and services, more material consumption, more borrowing, more on credit and of course more profits. Everything seems fantastic for a while — but like all Ponzi schemes, Ponzi demography is unsustainable.

When the bubble eventually bursts and the economy sours, the scheme spirals downward with higher unemployment, depressed wages, falling incomes, more people sinking into debt, more homeless families — and more men, women and children on public assistance.

That is the stage when the advocates of Ponzi demography — notably enterprises in construction, manufacturing, finance, agriculture and food processing — consolidate their excess profits and gains. That leaves the general public to pick up the tab for the mounting costs from increased population growth (e.g., education, health, housing and basic public services).

Among its primary tactics, Ponzi demography exploits the fear of population decline and aging. Without a young and growing population, we are forewarned of becoming a nation facing financial ruin and a loss of national power.

Due to population aging, government-run pensions and healthcare systems will become increasingly insolvent, according to advocates of Ponzi demography, thereby crippling the economy, undermining societal well-being and threatening national security.

Low birth rates, especially those below replacement levels, are considered a matter of national concern. Without higher fertility rates and the resulting population growth, the nation, it is claimed, faces a bleak and dreary future.

 

“Economic growth requires population growth” is the basic message that Ponzi demography wants the public to swallow. No mention is made of the additional profits they reap and the extra costs the public bears.

 

Despite its snake-oil allure of “more is better,” Ponzi demography’s advocacy for ever-increasing population growth is ultimately unsustainable. Such persistent growth hampers efforts to improve the quality of life for today’s world population of nearly seven billion people as well as for future generations.

Moving gradually towards population stabilization, while not a panacea for the world’s problems, will make it far easier to address problems such as climate change, environmental degradation, poverty and development, human rights abuses and shortages of water, food and critical natural resources.

The sooner nations reject Ponzi demography and make the needed gradual transition from ever-increasing population growth to population stabilization, the better the prospects for all of humanity and other life on this planet.

John Humphrys [sexist pig] was interviewing a GMB union representative this morning [08:10] about Carillion and its downfall.  The BBC seems to want to shift the blame away from Carillion for some reason and onto the banks and politicians judging by this report….however apparently Capitalism is in the dock even if Carillion management are not.

The GMB rep. made no mention of Capitalism or smashing the system and yet Humphrys kept bringing it up suggesting that the Rep. was telling us the demise of Carillion signified the end of Capitalism…or ‘the system’ as Humphrys called it.  But Captalism isn’t a ‘system’ just the natural way of doing business and way of life for people who create and produce products….it is not an ideology such as Socialism which only works at the point of a gun, and even then doesn’t actually work.

Let’s think…hmmmm…which politician is advocating the smashing of Capitalism and the imposition of a Marxist Utopia?  Could it be the BBC’s favourite terrorist supporting Far-Left Marxist wrecker?  It certainly could, step forward Jeremy Corbyn…or is he too busy writing the BBC’s business reports?   Such as this one which could indeed have been written by Corbyn or one of his lackeys packed full of half-truths, strawmen and conclusions based upon dubious associations and interpretations…..

Was 2017 a bad year for capitalism?

2017 was the year the budget watchdog in the UK finally gave up waiting for the usual historical rise in productivity to return – with painful consequences for the public finances and the chancellor.

When you give up on improving productivity, some would argue that you are pretty much giving up on capitalism.

‘some would argue’…..er who’s that ‘some’?  Corbyn and Co perhaps?

Silenced during the financial crisis, the full-throated roar of capitalism should have been deafening.

And yet on many measures, 2017 was a bad year for capitalism, the system of free-market economics.

For starters it was the year it faced serious opposition.

In his conference speech, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said that capitalism faced a “crisis of legitimacy” after the 2008 financial crash and the time had now come for a new economic model, with a bigger role for the public sector, renationalised utilities and more investment in infrastructure and skills.

Labour Party membership doubled under Mr Corbyn, and having been written off by most pundits when the election was called, Labour ended up gaining 30 seats.

Experts who wrote off his chances soon claimed it was no surprise how well Mr Corbyn’s criticisms of capitalism went down given the economic reality of most people’s lives.

Capitalism’s central promise is that through hard work you – and your family – will have a better life. Of course, there are recessions from time to time but, generally speaking, the tide of economic growth will eventually lift all ships.

Well, that hasn’t been true for millions of people since the economic crisis of 2008 but in 2017 a new grievance was added to the decade-long austerity fatigue. After a two-year period in which pay rises narrowly exceeded negligible inflation, prices started rising faster than pay – meaning on average people were getting a little poorer every day.

 The main reason behind stagnant pay was, as every economist in the land told us throughout 2017, poor productivity. 

Where does the BBC think the money comes from to run a socialist utopia?  Business is where the money comes from, even Lenin acknowledged that Capitalism was essential to fund his socialist dream, at least, until it could stand on its own two feet….which of course never happens.  The only other way is socialist slavery where the workers do as they are told for meagre returns as in the Soviet Union…the Soviet Union only kept afloat by loans from the decadent West.  Want to nationalise the railways?  Where does the money come from to run them?  From the taxes on buinesses and from those employed in those businesses.

Interesting that last line about poor productivity as the main reason for stagnating wages…the BBC’s infamous ‘squeeze’.  OK…..not austerity then as the BBC has insisted for years now?

If productivity is the problem why is that?  All too freely available labour...in America where it comes flooding across the border with Mexico and in the UK where it floods across the Channel……

A crucial measure of how far from full recovery the economy remains is the growth of nominal wages (wages unadjusted for inflation). Nominal wage growth since the recovery officially began in mid-2009 has been low and flat. This isn’t surprising–the weak labor market of the last seven years has put enormous downward pressure on wages. Employers don’t have to offer big wage increases to get and keep the workers they need. And this remains true even as a jobs recovery has consistently forged ahead in recent years.

The EU’s forced freedom of movement destroys our productivity and our wages…..remarkably the normally anti-Big Business BBC bends over backwards to hide this and to push the case for Big Business to keep importing cheap labour undercutting our own people.

The reality is that the bosses have been raking it in at the expense of their workers…..productivity for them is fine if measured not by goods produced per man but per pound…..the same amount of goods are being produced for less money, lower wages…thus productivity isn’t down, wages are.  Just remember these are the same bosses who happily pack up a factory and ship it out to China or Turkey and yet the BBC fills the airwaves with stories of how much these fat cats are concerned about the British economy #duetoBrexit.  They don’t give a monkeys, all they are concerned about is their bank accounts.

The BBC continues in this report to push Labour’s lines on housing and social mobility….

Perhaps the most damning report on capitalism in 2017 was to be found in the housing and social mobility figures.

In truth, there have been very few good years for capitalism since the great financial crisis. In 2011, the Occupy movement invaded Wall Street and the City of London demanding immediate global change.

Those tents and placards are long gone.

But the effects of the crisis on earning power, living standards, home ownership and social mobility – all things capitalism promises to improve – remain with us as we end 2017.

But the housing crisis is a result of mass immigration into this country, just how do you house 300,000 people per year? And lack of social mobility is untrue….never have people from all walks of life had more opportunity to get on in life than now.

This BBC report is just pure Corbyn propaganda…and Humphrys this morning just added to the mix.

Once a gossip columnist always a gossip columnist.

Jobby has been spreading fake news due to a inability to  get his facts right….as always.

From Guido:

LBC leftie and sometime Newsnight presenter James O’Brien helped fake news about the collapse of Carillion go viral yesterday. Keen to find a damaging line, O’Brien tweeted that the company’s chairman is “an adviser to the Prime Minister Theresa May on corporate responsibility”. Nope…

O’Brien was later forced to correct his assertion in another tweet:

Gets his news from the Guardian…that’ll teach him.

Carillion, was responsible not only for the design, construction and commissioning, but also for on-going operation and maintenance of the  £135 million project. Eric Shaw, in his persuasive book, Losing Labour’s Soul?: New Labour and the Blair Government 1997-2007, discusses how the NHS was taken to the cleaners when negotiating these PFI contracts. Not only did the NHS lack the commercial expertise, and were therefore required to outsource the project negotiations and management at enormous cost; but the contracts for operating the hospitals were developed on a deeply flawed risk model, paying the private companies a premium for assuming risk that was in fact still retained by the NHS as the operator of last resort.

If Carillion fails to conduct itself in a manner consistent with the expected ethical standards of the public sector, then it should not be considered for public services contracts.

From Socialist Unity 2012

Carilllion’s failure of corporate governance

It is high time that private companies making profits from public services recognize that they need to match up to the ethical standards that the public expects.

Labour Futures

Will the BBC be digging the real dirt on Carillion and seeing where the real blame lies or will they settle for putting all the blame onto the Tories?    Carillion was enabled by the Blair government and its policy of privatising the NHS and many public services by stealth as Corbyn supporting Socialist Unity reminds us today…..

The pending collapse of this PFI giant has huge implications.

It also should remind us that as a movement we are still living with the legacy of the Blair years, when PFI was extended further and further into the public sector.

Unlike the BBC’s Hijab Hitjob story this is real.  Don’t say we never bring you anything different…..

Designed for US aircrew flying in extreme climates.

A couple of weeks ago the BBC brought us a tale of rampant sexual harassment in Muslim Egypt where the victims were to blame…for disgracefully laughing in the street or talking too much and enjoying themselves:

Shaimaa Khalil recalls growing up in Egypt and her first experience of sexual harassment aged 11 #metoo.

We know such behaviour is endemic and blatant in Islamic countries….visitors to Saudia Arabia may tell you that even when dressed as a Saudi and fully covered up they fall victim to worse harassment than they have ever had in the UK or other Western countries.

This is the culture we are importing into Europe.  The BBC reports it in Egypt but covers it up when it is migrants in Europe doing the harassing.  In fact they try to put the blame not on the migrants but on some outside conspiracy…such as the far-Right or ISIS….

Remember Hugh Sykes telling us that Cologne was a Far Right conspiracy?….‘There are conspiracy theories in the air that the New Year’s Eve attackers were encouraged to make sexual approaches to German women, told that it was the normal thing to do on New Year’s Eve. If true, they may have fallen into a well-laid trap.’

Remember the BBC report that said Cologne was an IS conspiracy? …’Some analysts have suggested that IS has encouraged a link between refugees and terrorism in order to foster hostility to refugees in Europe, although it is not known if the latest attack was carried out in co-ordination with the IS leadership in Iraq and Syria.’

The BBC shaping the news to suit its own agenda.

Any more bias list it here…..

For days the BBC gave prominence to a story that a Canadian girl had had her hijab cut off in an Islamophobic hate attack.  Turns out this hate attack never happened….the BBC did report this surprising revelation but blink and you’d miss the retraction, it’s vanished from their pages unless you google it….the BBC doesn’t think it worth filling its pages with stories about Muslims lying about hate attacks…after all there are so many that the BBC’s website would be full to overflowing with them.

Toronto police say scissor attack on a girl’s hijab ‘did not happen’

Canadian police say an alleged scissor attack on an 11-year-old girl’s hijab never happened.

The girl made headlines last week after she said a man came up to her and tried to cut her hijab off.

Toronto police now say the incident, which they were treating as a hate crime, “did not happen”.

The investigation sparked a national outcry, including from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who expressed his concern on Twitter.

“After a detailed investigation, police have determined that the events described in the original news release did not happen,” the police said in a brief press release on Monday morning. “The investigation is concluded.”

The girl’s mother had emotionally said last week that:   ‘this was “just not Canada”.’

Turns out she was right.  But it is so so the BBC.

The BBC and its ilk created the Far Right…it is a monster of its own making that would have no traction and support if the dominant liberal Establishment were not intent on throwing open the borders regardless of what the majority of the population think.  Immigration and negative reactions to it are purely a white problem, only Whites are racist…everyone else loves migrants…no?

Ask black immigrants in South Africa what is going on there and if they fear for their lives…or just go to YouTube and check out the videos which reveal the truth the BBC isn’t keen on examining too closely…..mass immigration is a natural concern for many people, one based on real problems created by immigration….ignore the problems, suppress them and brush aside the concerns and you create a powder-keg….

John in Cheshire links to this in the comments:

Mexico Continues To Interfere With Immigration Enforcement Efforts

The Mexican government is showing no signs of stepping away from its aggressive diplomatic campaign to help its citizens living and working in the United States evade U.S. immigration law enforcement agents.

In Texas, the Mexican Consulate in El Paso announced this week that it would extend through March a program that pays for illegal aliens to obtain legal representation. According to the El Paso Times, more than $120,000 has been spent since it started earlier this year.

In Sacramento, Mexico spends $250,000 to defend illegal immigrants.

The consular actions are part of a campaign launched in March by the Mexican government to establish “advocacy” departments in each of 50 consulates across the country. The $50 million earmarked is on top of Mexico’s considerable budget for its network of consulates north of the border.

Any outrage from the BBC and Corbyn et al about ‘illegal Mexican settlers/occupiers’?  No?  Odd.  The BBC gets very upset about ‘illegal Israeli settlers’…indeed not bothering to ‘sack’ a regular commentator on the BBC who said Israeli settlers were all nazis and should be shot.  Caroline Thatcher on the other hand was dumped for saying someone looked like a golliwog.  Priorities…and Jews seem to come last.

Why are illegal Mexican settlers into the US not considered illegal occupiers by the BBC?  Why does the BBC prefer to call them ‘undocumented migrants’ rather than illegal settlers?  What is the difference between Jews and Mexicans in the BBC’s mind?  Are the Israelis not just undocumented migrants looking for a new home?

The use of the term ‘undocumented migrant’ is highly political and not neutral at all…so why does the BBC use it when ‘illegal migrant’ is the correct and official term?

Also why is the BBC unconcerned that a foreign government is encouraging the invasion of the US by its own citizens?  Russia may or may not have revealed Hillary Clinton’s compromising emails but the BBC is insisting that Russia is interfering in US democracy…not so bothered about an actual invasion of the US by millions of Mexicans and other South Americans.

The BBC’s own values and beliefs shaping its news so that some things are bad, some are good…but it is the BBC that decides what we must think about these issues not us.