Yearly Archives: 2015

If you want to control immigration and believe that mass immigration is going to be highly disruptive and de-stabilise countries then that’s because you are a little Hitler, a little bit Fascist, a little bit Nazi.  That’s the lesson we must learn today as the BBC lectures us on our failings as humane beings.

The BBC, already almost extremist in its proselytising for immigration, has, in desperation as the borders are being slammed shut, resorted to bottom-dredging and name-calling….Godwin’s Law has been unleashed.

Sarah Montague broke us in gently, (08:51) not letting on where she was really going with this, as she asked ‘Why did Hitler want to kill the Jews?’  She tells us that sure, he was mad and evil, but, she asks, was there something more to his ideology…something that can provide a lesson for us today?…still no clue as to the subject of those lessons from her though….but of course you really know where this is going.

Apparently Hitler referred to the Jews as a ‘pestilence’ who would cause a global ecological crisis….politically, scientifically and ethically the Jews were crushing the world…preventing prosperity, peace and security for the other races….not explained how the Jews managed this world domination.

Hitler’s fear was that ‘If the Jews had their way’ the Germans would suffer…starve to death.  He wanted not only physical, geographic room, to live but also to live in comfort…to preserve the kind of life style that they had.

Now we’re getting to it, the real reason the BBC are looking at this…the lessons from this are what we should be applying now…it was not that Germany became an overly powerful state that classified and eliminated people but it was that Germany eliminated other states which created anarchy and the room for chaos to ensue….and this is happening now with the movement of people into Europe due to the West’s destruction of Iraq…and of course you, with your complaints that the migrants will destroy your living standards are just a touch ‘Hitler’…aren’t you?  So selfish.  So Why would Hitler want to kill the immigrants?

Ironically, and it can’t be what the open borders, anti-nation state BBC wanted to hear, we were told that states have to be preserved, state structures and citizenship actually protect people, we should be trying to prop up state structures…but then we get to why the BBC, grinding its teeth no doubt, accepted that ‘necessary evil’ of the nation state in this crude bit of modern exploitation of the past to try and conveniently explain the future….what’s happening in the Middle East shows that we need state structures...the Iraq state was destroyed and this has contributed to the problem of mass migration apparently….not the Syrian state then?

And there you go, the BBC’s favourite hobby horse, the Iraq war is the cause of all the world’s ills and ‘we’ are the cause therefore of the migrant crisis and therefore morally responsible for the migrants…never mind that it has little to nothing to do with events in Syria which were the result of the Syrian people rising up against Assad and Assad releasing ISIL members from prison and allowing them to rebuild their forces.

So from this we can summarise that refusing to accept mass, uncontrolled immigration is like denying the Holocaust, in fact it is akin to actually implementing the Holocaust…..you are no better than a Nazi death camp guard…as Ken Livingstone might say.

Just another day on the BBC which, as Tony Parsons says, ‘is about as representative of the British people as the men’s toilets at the Guardian.’

If you believe the BBC all of Britain’s problems can be traced back to 1979 before which was the ‘Dark Ages’, dark in terms of political significance..nothing happened before 1979 apparently, and in 1997 British political and economic history once again stopped with nothing to report, only to restart in 2010 as Doomsday, and the Tories, approached….similarly the History of the Middle East only began in 2003 and there were never any Muslim extremists in the world before 7/7/2005.

(Was it just me or did the good historian, Timothy Snyder, seem to sort of agree with Hitler on the Jew’s attitude towards science and the alleged risks that posed to Germany…he says we have ignored the ecological aspects to Hitler’s ideology because we are in a time when we don’t want for food and so we can’t understand Hitler’s perspective, we don’t understand Hitler’s appeal…hmmm…he was justified then in some shape or form for his anti-Jewish stance?…..all in all a curious report from the BBC that demonises the Jews and gives more ammunition to the anti-Semites by raising these matters even though supposedly qualified by saying ‘this is what Hitler thought‘…wonder what any Jewish people who heard it thought?)

A little reminder to the BBC and we do like to bring a little joy to the world…

“I would like to pay tribute to the contribution you and your company make to the prosperity of Britain. During its one hundred and fifty year history, Lehman Brothers has always been an innovator, financing new ideas and inventions before many others even began to realise their potential. And it is part of the greatness not just of Lehman Brothers but of the City of London, that as the world economy has opened up, you have succeeded not by sheltering your share of a small protected national market but always by striving for a greater and greater share of the growing global market.”

 

Antonia Quirk in The New Statesman expresses doubts about Jeremy Vine’s qualities as a hard hitting investigator of news as he interviews, very nearly, Max Mosley…..

Pain is so close to pleasure: Max Mosley on BBC Radio 2

Mosley was coming over as the most clubbable man in the universe. Not a peep from Jeremy Vine.

Apparently Jeremy wasn’t too keen on getting to the truth about Mosley and his S&M proclivites….but then why invite him on?..surely nothing else about Mosley is of greater interest…his black-shirted father aside.

Oh hang on, there’s his musical tastes which have broadened the apparently innocent and insular Jeremy Vine’s world view…

Mosley, on the other hand, was coming over as the most clubbable man in the universe, even playing Janis Joplin singing “Mercedes Benz” and affectionately declaring it “so funny in so many ways” – after which Jeremy admitted, “I’ve not heard that before, ever, [not] once in my life.” Never much of a freewheeler, Jeremy.

Can a man who works for Radio 2 and plays a great deal of music on his show really not have heard one of the most famous songs in the world?  Talk about a BBC ‘bubble’!  (4 mins 30 secs in interview)

He has though heard of Yusuf Islam’s music and loves it, as do many at the BBC…perhaps more out of solidarity than actual appreciation of his music.

CommunistView ‏@CommunistView 5 hrs5 hours ago

@theJeremyVine Why should JC want to be interviewed by R4, since you are propagandists for the right-wing neoliberal agenda.

We were constantly being told by Labour MPs that Jeremy Corbyn was a lovely person in person, affable, kind and with a sense of humour.  Maybe he is but he certainly doesn’t come across that way…his acceptance speech left me entirely cold and thinking he was an extremely sour, thin-skinned sort who puts ideology before all else regardless of pain and suffering it causes…but that’s Communism for you.

A report in the Telegraph doesn’t dispel that thought…

Labour leader refuses to sing national anthem or button collar at St Paul’s memorial service

Newly-elected Jeremy Corbyn failed to sing the national anthem at the Battle of Britain memorial service at St Paul’s Cathedral today.

Barlicker in the comments has spotted this by Tony Parsons which recognises that chippy, bitter attitude of the Left…

I first realised that I was Tory scum on the weekend after the general election. The losing side was throwing a terrible tantrum. “F*** TORY SCUM”, they sprayed on a Whitehall memorial dedicated to the women who fought in the Second World War.

And who says of the BBC that…

The BBC today is about as representative of the British people as the men’s toilets at the Guardian. Fifteen million people voted for the Tories or Ukip – but how many of them work in Broadcasting House? My guess would be: none. But none of it mattered.

He notes how the Left claims the moral high ground and relish calling the Tories the ‘nasty party’ and yet it is more often than not the Left which indulges itself in orgies of extreme hate and bile….

Get beyond the watering holes of the metropolitan elite and the heartland’s deeply held values – my family, my work, my country – are the new mainstream.

The loud left are as pertinent to modern Britain as blacksmiths. No wonder their protests are increasingly ugly. They react with furious disbelief at the result of a democratic election. They rave about balancing the nation’s books as if it was like drowning kittens in a sack. They scream in our faces about their own compassion while bandying around epithets like “scum” and “filth” with the vicious abandon of Nazis talking about Jews.

So how are the Tories morally inferior to this shower?

And of course, unnoticed by the BBC, it is the UAF, ironically teamed up with Muslim radicals, that is the instigator of violence when the likes of the EDL march and not the EDL….and yet the EDL are the violent ‘scumbags’.

Canon CHRIS CHIVERS ‘I’d previously worked in South Africa, in Cape Town, which is of course emerging from an apartheid history which was deeply divided and deeply divisive, and I think I can honestly say that I’ve never worked in such a segregated community, or lived in one as this’…..in Blackburn, UK.

 

When Paul Sabapathy, CBE, Her Majesty’s lord lieutenant of the West Midlands, said that British Pakistanis must be taught “basic common courtesy and civility” and subsequently resigned because of those comments the BBC reported his comments but always made sure you knew he was Indian and not Pakistani because of course he is ‘Asian’ and the BBC seemed desperate to quickly undermine his comments because they relate to Muslims of Pakistani descent….the ‘untouchables’ in the BBC’s eyes.

Here is the BBC reporting his resignation…

The Queen’s representative for the West Midlands has resigned after an email written by him making derogatory comments about Pakistanis was leaked.

The email, written after an appearance at the Pakistan consulate in Birmingham on 14 August, was leaked to The Guardian newspaper.

Indian-born Paul Sabapathy CBE said Pakistanis needed to be taught “basic common courtesy and civility”.

He has apologised “unreservedly and wholeheartedly” for the comments.

The Guardian reported Mr Sabapathy’s email said: “Pakistanis are lovely people individually but there is a lot of work to do to teach them basic common courtesy and civility.

“They talk to themselves and do not engage with the wider community. They are living in the UK not Pakistan.

“Whilst being rightly proud of their Pakistani culture and heritage they need to explain better and engage more with their non-Pakistani brothers and sisters if they want their children to succeed as British Pakistani citizens.”

The trouble is of course that what he says is true, not only that but the BBC has itself reported the phenomenon of Pakistani Muslims living entirely separate lives [As usual by Panorama and not the wider BBC which refuses to touch this subject generally] and today we hear that Sabapathy is supported by Labour MP Khalid Mahmood…

Khalid Mahmood, the Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, said he would be writing to Buckingham Palace to ask the Queen to refuse Sabapathy’s resignation.

“I will be making representations to the palace to urge them to reinstate him,” said Mahmood, who was born in Azad Kashmir in Pakistan and became England’s first Muslim Asian MP in 2001.

Mahmood said Indian-born Sabapathy – the first non-white lord-lieutenant – was an “honourable man with noble intentions” who had been made a scapegoat simply for telling the truth about the Pakistani community in Britain.

He suggested that the underachievement of Pakistani children in British schools was down to “isolationalism” in the Pakistani community, which was getting worse, not better, down the generations.

The BBC’s Panorama has twice [at least] looked at the subject of the failure to integrate though in the first film, whilst they acknowledge there is a problem with Muslims failing to integrate, they blame the whites for moving out whenever Muslims move into any location in large numbers….hence the chosen film title ‘White Flight’.  That title doesn’t really reflect the real problem which is those large numbers of extremely different Muslims who move into an area and change it beyond recognition….the film should really have been called ‘Asian Invasion’ [or ‘Muslim’ but I couldn’t think of a nice catchy rhyme for ‘Muslim’ as the BBC opted for with ‘White Flight’] to reflect the real problem but of course that would never get approval.

Here’s the first Panorama in 2007:

Panorama visits Blackburn in Lancashire to investigate how increased separation and segregation between Muslim Asians and whites is dividing communities.

A transcript here.

Canon CHRIS CHIVERS I’d previously worked in South Africa, in Cape Town, which is of course emerging from an apartheid history which was deeply divided and deeply divisive, and I think I can honestly say that I’ve never worked in such a segregated community, or lived in one as this.

Here’s John Ware’s Panorama report from 2010….He’s found a rhyme...’British Schools, Islamic Rules’

Integration

The Muslim population of Britain has been rising rapidly and research by the economics department at Bristol University shows that Muslim children are the most segregated in Britain.

Faith schools are growing in popularity. Which way will Muslims be pulled – towards or away from the mainstream?

[Many] Muslim schools we encountered seemed in varying degrees to want to stay separate, leading separate lives in separate enclaves. 

It is curious that the BBC in reporting Paul Sabapathy’s resignation doesn’t try to explore the issues he raises and instead seems to want to class his comments as an Indian being racist about his Pakistani neighbours.  All the more curious when the BBC itself has reported exactly the phenomenon that Sabapathy talks of…the high degree of separation and the refusal to integrate.   The main factor driving that failure is of course Islam which may explain the BBC’s current approach, John Ware aside, who goes against the BBC’s usual policy of either ignoring or downplaying any problem issues that arise due to Islam being practised in the UK.

Maybe others are beginning to see the light as borders go back up in Europe.   Funny how this is suddenly possible when it seemed so impossible for the UK to prevent mass immigration to it’s shores and the EU, and the BBC, laughed in contempt.  Odd how the BBC doesn’t try to class the German’s as thuggish racists when they close the borders but did label the Hungarians and the Czechs as such when they attempted to stem the flow.

So, we have a Labour Leader who won’t condemn the IRA and a Labour Shadow Chancellor who has fantasised about assassinating Margaret Thatcher. What a crew. Anyway, time to start the week with a new Open Thread. The floor is yours, comrades.

If you believed the BBC you’d think the UK was the cause of most of the world’s problems, Yemen a case in point…however the truth might in fact be a lot different than the impression given by the BBC…from 2014 but it seems all too relevant today:

From the Economist…

A new index ranks national decency

It ranks countries based on how much they do for others globally. Ireland and Finland come on top; Libya is rock bottom. The measure is based on 35 datasets broken down into seven areas, such as technology, health and culture. The idea is clever but the execution is tricky. The index often scales countries on a GDP basis to give poor countries a chance against rich ones. That’s nice, but is Cyprus really a tech leader or Malta a cultural paragon?

And the “peace and security” area is flawed: it penalises countries involved in armed conflicts abroad or that sell arms. Couldn’t one argue that this fosters a stable world? Still, the index is a worthwhile pursuit by imagining how countries might compete when they aim to serve others. 

On the basis of that last comment, that engaging in ‘ethical’ armed conflict and selling arms fosters a stable world, the UK must in fact be ranked much higher than 7th…surely!  The BBC of course thinks the opposite and believes all war, and the associated arms sales, must be de facto bad regardless of the necessity, intent or outcome.

Something a bit more light-hearted…A Channel 7 newsreader with an unfortunate look-a-like:

And I’m sure this was useful to know on 9/11:

Liked this [via Bishop Hill]….the Media Bubble popped:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3&v=Oxxx03_JHlM

Haven’t had time to watch this video with the same fellow, Hans Rosling, starring, but it looks interesting:

Just seen the first bit…lol…if you rely on the news to inform you will actually become more ignorant than chimps who get the right answer more often by ‘guessing’!

Paul Mason or chimp?  Paul Mason or chimp?  Who’d you believe?

Labour Party member David Goodhart has taken a look at the impact and meaning underlying Corbyn’s leadership win. Just the other day I heard a Labour MP state that Corbyn won because he essentially had the backing of London intellectuals and Goodhart seems to take a similar perspective and that Corbyn’s win does not reflect a leftward trend in the country…a trend that the BBC keeps insisting is happening for some reason despite the Tory majority!?

When reading Goodhart’s analysis you can’t help thinking he could also be talking about the BBC which is similarly detached from the majority of the population and run by a left-wing intellectual ‘elite’ [so called] or if you prefer ‘semi-alien lefty liberals’.  Reading the article and you have to note that the BBC is by default in his firing-line and that many of the narratives that they promote are just wrong….such as the population is moving to the left intellectually or that politics is in a crisis.

Here’s a taste of what he says:

There is no evidence that his election represents any significant shift in political opinion—a British version of Syriza in Greece or Podemos in Spain is not emerging.

His worldview is a rare mix of economic statism and radical egalitarianism and a rather extreme version of the metropolitan liberalism that is generally hostile to tradition and suspicious of national borders. These views are shared by a tiny proportion of the voting public. (My own former accountant Richard Murphy is one of them: the tax/economics adviser to Corbyn is a middle class radical in a conservative profession who liked to represent artists and writers.)

And the young people who are flocking to the Corbyn banner seem to be mainly middle class, university educated idealists. They are not representative of British young people in general who are increasingly liberal on race, gender and sexuality but, if anything, shifting to the right on welfare issues and economics.

In any case, Corbyn leads the Labour Party not as a result of any leftward shift in public opinion but because of a quirk of internal Labour politics at the end of the Blair/Brown era and the utterly uninspiring alternatives.

Normal service will presumably be restored at some point though given the magnitude of his victory it is hard to see when. A semi-alien group of leftists now sit astride the party and will be able to direct its day-to-day positions in parliament and in responding to events but they will have to live with much of the policy inheritance from more centrist times.

[Corbyn’s] election is a symptom of the withering of mainstream social democracy experienced across all rich countries.

This decline has been well documented and has essentially three causes. First—and most visible—the changing class and industrial structure has largely eliminated the old industrial working class. Second, as touched on earlier, centre left parties have become increasingly divided between low income voters who often have quite traditional views on cultural matters and the increasingly dominant liberal middle class (public sector professionals and Guardian readers in the newspaper shorthand) who occupy the other end of the values spectrum on many of the biggest issues of the day such as immigration, welfare, Europe, family. This divided base is one of the reasons why so few Labour politicians have been able to speak with any conviction in recent years. Corbyn has not resolved the conflict he simply ignores it.

Third, and least discussed, is the notion that social democracy has been a victim of its own success. Social democratic ideas have become completely mainstream and, indeed, many have been adopted by the Conservative party.

Ideas associated with the centre left will remain an important current in British public life even without Labour to implement them—consider the recent Conservative plans for a living wage and an apprenticeship levy on big companies. Centre left ideas are also institutionally entrenched in British society in much of the public sector, in the education system, in parts of the media[No kidding].

The idea that without Labour as a contender for office to defend social democracy the malevolent Tories will grind the faces of the poor is just the sort of blinkered, tribal, self-regarding assumption that lost Labour the last general election and elected Jeremy Corbyn.

One of the cliches of British political life in recent years is that it is in crisis due to low levels of participation.

It is true political parties have far fewer members and election turnout has been falling, though there seems to be a turnout floor of around 65 per cent. But British political culture is in rude health: consider the rise in recent years of the SNP and Ukip, the evolution of the Tory Party, the rise of mayors, a noisy and opinionated media.