January 2018
« Dec    

Here they are – the world’s 20 richest countries and 20 worst shit-holes

(Wednesday/Thursday blog)

Here’s a map of the world showing where the richest countries and the poorest shit-holes are:

Here’s a list of the world’s richest countries by $ GDP per Capita:

1  Qatar 127,660
2  Luxembourg 104,003
 Macau 90,151
3  Singapore 87,855
4  Brunei 76,884
5  Kuwait 71,887
6  Norway 69,249
7  Ireland 69,231
8  United Arab Emirates 67,871
9   Switzerland 59,561
10  San Marino 59,058
 Hong Kong 58,322
11  United States 57,436
12  Saudi Arabia 55,158
13  Netherlands 51,049
14  Bahrain 50,704
15  Sweden 49,836
16  Iceland 49,136
17  Australia 48,899
18  Germany 48,111
19  Taiwan 48,095
20  Austria 48,005

And here’s a list of the world’s 20 worst shit-holes by $ GDP per Capita

164  Rwanda 1,977
165  Solomon Islands 1,973
166  Zimbabwe 1,970
167  Ethiopia 1,946
168  Afghanistan 1,919
169  Kiribati 1,823
170  Haiti 1,784
171  Burkina Faso 1,782
172  Guinea-Bissau 1,730
173  Sierra Leone 1,672
174  Gambia, The 1,667
175  South Sudan 1,657
176  Togo 1,550
177  Comoros 1,529
178  Madagascar 1,505
179  Eritrea 1,410
180  Guinea 1,265
181  Mozambique 1,215
182  Malawi 1,134
183  Niger 1,107
184  Liberia 855
185  Burundi 814
186  Congo, Dem. Rep. 773
187  Central African Republic 652

If anyone can see any common difference between the richest and poorest countries and any link between almost all the 20 worst shit-holes (hint – skin colour and average IQ levels) then they are clearly a “waaacccciiiisssstttt”.

(I realise there are some Arab countries in the richest 20 – but these are usually countries where white Americans and Europeans have supplied the manpower and technology to extract the wealth while the locals just sat back and wasted it)

Germany – let’s all convert to Izlum

And here’s short video from a children’s programme on German public broadcasting that I hope will make you vomit in disgust. It seems the German progressive libbtards are preparing their children for their Izlumic future.

And no, it’s not a spoof or satire – it’s serious – remember, Germans don’t have a sense of humour:

Two more triumphs for Trump – and the liberal elites are incandescent

(Monday/Tuesday blog)

A shit-hole is a shit-hole

How wonderful it was watch to watch the screaming, apoplectic, froth-flecked outrage (or was it panic?) of the mainstream media and the ruling elites across the world when democratically-elected US President Trump dared (yet again) speak the truth that everyone keeps denying – most countries in Africa and the Middle East or run by Africans or Arabs are total shit-holes of stupidity, corruption, poverty, violence, backwardness and hopelessness.

But I suspect most ordinary people are overjoyed at Trump daring to tell the politically-incorrect truth.

And Trump dared ask the question that many ordinary people have been too terrified to ask for fear of being branded a “waaaccciiiisssstttt” – “why do we let these people come to our country when they seem to bring nothing but violence, backwardness, ignorance and hate?”

Moreover, let us not forget that, while everyone is accusing Trump of racism, the word “sandnigger” was included in an email sent by none other than Hilary Clinton when she was the democratic presidential candidate. But nobody in the mainstream media started calling her a racist.

Anyway people from shit-hole countries need not worry. They may not be welcome in Trump’s US, but in Europe we’ve opened the borders and invited millions of ‘shit-holers’ in:

And now our societies are struggling with rising crime, rising numbers of rapes, violent no-go areas and all the other consequences of our rulers’ policies of race replacement designed to destroy any sense of national identity and make it easier for the elites to create their United States of Europe.

Trump means action, not only words

But Trump isn’t just spouting empty rhetoric like our rulers. He’s also taking action to protect America from the shit-hole migrant invasion.

I’ve already written about how the percentage of Christians in refugees from the Middle East accepted into the USA has gone up from about 0.2% under Saint Obama to over 50% under Trump.

Moreover, apparently in August 2017 Trump started making changes to the US Green Card system to prioritise those with skills rather than those coming from the world’s worst hell-holes. Under Saint Obama, of the one million immigrants entering the USA each year, only one in every fifteen was allowed in because of their skills. The other fourteen out of fifteen got in mainly because they came from the world’s shit-holes. Trump is taking action to change that.

Watch a couple of minutes of this video and weep. Weep because America has a leader who, for all his many faults, is implementing measures to protect America and Americans.

But given that the British mainstream media only reports negative stories about Trump, most people in Britain probably have no idea about Trump’s immigration reforms.

Here’s Trump’s immigration reform statement – pity our rulers didn’t think about doing something similar:

Is a Spanish twat wrecking BA (British Airways)?

(weekend blog)

Manuel makes a mess of things

The story of how BA’s CEO and Chairman, Spaniard Alex ‘Manuel’ Cruz, is wrecking BA will probably be a case study for years to come in many business schools’ teaching of how to destroy a once great company.

BA used to be “the world’s favourite airline”. On the Skytrax 2017 passenger surveys, BA now comes in at number 40, below such flying jokes as Garuda (10), Turkish Airlines (12) and even the laughable Aeroflot (30). In 2016 BA was at 26 and in 2015 at 20. So the direction of travel for BA – ever downwards – is clear to everyone except apparently BA’s useless Spanish boss.

To wreck an airline’s reputation so badly in such a short time is truly some achievement. Surely only Spaniard Alex ‘Manuel from Fawlty Towers’ Cruz could have made such a mess of our no-longer favourite airline?

Brands matter

BA used to be one of the world’s top brands. Brands matter. Companies spend billions building up their brand image. The world’s top brands include Apple (1), Google (2), Microsoft (3), Facebook (4), Coca-Cola (5), Amazon (6), Disney (7), Toyota (8) and McDonalds (9). Having a strong brand brings customer loyalty, increased sales, the ability to charge more than competitors and higher profitability than competitors. To destroy a company’s brand is an act of self-harm few executives are incompetent enough to try.

BA used to be a top brand. It stood for a slightly old-fashioned service. The kind you might expect at a traditional British hotel or restaurant or hotel. Nothing flashy, nothing too brash, just good, old-fashioned, friendly reliability. That’s why so many people used to fly BA. Nowadays, with Alex Cruz in charge of BA, regular travellers talk of flying ABBA Airlines (Anyone But BA).

Manuel takes over

Alex ‘Manuel’ Cruz’s background is running low-cost airlines. In particular, he was involved in setting up and managing Spanish low-cost carrier Vueling:

Vueling was a Spanish version of Ryanair – with Ryanair’s prices, Ryanair’s level of service (f**king shut up, f**king sit down or just f**k off) and Spanish organisational skills. When you fly Vueling or Ryanair or EasyJet, you know what you’re getting – low fares, lots of hidden charges and ‘f**k off you’re you’re unhappy’ service. But that’s not why BA was once “the world’s favourite airline”.

Here are some of Manuel’s (sorry, I meant Alex’s) ways of ‘improving’ BA:

  • less room between seats and smaller seats to fit in more seats in spite of passengers getting taller and larger
  • removing toilets from tourist class to fit in more seats
  • removing all free food and drinks on flights of less than 4 hours
  • replacing free food with overpriced M&S sandwiches which inevitably run out after the first few rows have been served
  • removing all reclining seats on flights of less than 4 hours
  • cutting down on food and drinks on long-haul flights
  • removing toilets and catering facilities from Premium Economy class on long-haul flights to fit in more seats
  • reducing check-in staff to force customers to use self-service machines which often don’t work
  • cutting ‘customer service’ staff making it almost impossible for passengers with problems or who are stranded somewhere to get any help
  • keeping planes flying long after they should have been retired giving BA one of the oldest fleets of a major airline and resulting in more long delays and cancellations due to ‘technical problems’ than other large airlines
  • reducing cleaning on planes so some aircraft toilets now resemble those found in the poorer districts of Morocco or Mogadishu
  • restricting seats available for people who accumulate airmiles making the airmiles almost impossible to use
  • handing BA’s IT systems to the cheapest possible supplier resulting in regular breakdowns and days of chaos
  • fighting demoralised cabin crew to keep their wages and benefits down
  • there are probably many more brilliant ideas Manuel (sorry, I meant ‘Alex’) has implemented that I don’t know about

Meanwhile BA’s competitors keep buying new planes, improving their in-flight services and outcompeting Alex’s failing BA. I wonder where BA will be on Skytrax’s 2018 list? Down to number 45? Even down to number 50? Who knows? Some more cuts in service, another few strikes by pilots or cabin crew and another computer failure and it’s anybody’s guess how badly-rated BA will be this year.

And when things go wrong – as they do when you cut costs to the bone – Manuel (sorry, I meant ‘Alex’) disappears for a few days and then finally reappears wearing a high-viz jacket:

as if he has been personally fixing computers or flying aircraft or sorting lost luggage or whatever when, in fact, he has been huddled with his eye-wateringly expensive PR advisers trying to find a new excuse to cover up his own incompetence.

But profits are up, up up!

In the short term, magnificent Manuel’s cost-cutting, low-cost-carrier approach will be hugely successful. Most people don’t fly very often and BA have a stranglehold on take-off and landing slots at most British airports. So by maintaining passenger numbers while slashing service levels and costs, magnificent Manuel and his flying machines will increase profits, drive up the share price and enable himself and his boss Willie Walsh to pocket massive bonuses in spite of trashing BA:

But eventually potential passengers will realise what a horror story BA has become and increasingly avoid BA and fly ABBA (Anyone But BA) Airlines. Then profits will collapse and Manuel’s cost-cutting, customer-hating strategy will be exposed as a disaster. No problem for Manuel. He’ll fly off into the sunset with a multi-million-pound payoff and someone else will be called in at great expense to sort out Manuel’s mess.

It’s all so predictable. It’s all so unnecessary.

Climate change – more of the usual bollox from the BBC?

(Thursday/Friday blog)

Recently the BBC got into trouble and was criticised by many including the ever popular, photogenic Professor Brian Cox for allowing Lord Lawson to question the new religion of Man-Made (Anthropogenic) Global Warming. Lord Lawson was called a “crank” and a “climate science denier” for daring the suggest that the whole cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming was rubbish.

I’m getting really fed up of progressive, lefty, holier-than-thou, virtue-signalling liberals and BBC journalists bleating on about people, especially Donald Trump or Lord Lawson, accusing them of being “climate deniers” or “climate change deniers” or “climate science deniers”.

Firstly, the phrase “climate deniers” is totally meaningless. How can you deny the climate? Secondly, the phrase “climate change deniers” is almost as meaningless as I don’t think there is anyone alive who has denied that the climate has always changed, is changing and will always change. Thirdly, I doubt there is anyone alive who would deny that there is such a thing as “climate science” and that science can help us understand the climate. Though there are those who would question the almost religious and intolerant fervour with which some supposed ‘scientists’ are pushing their interpretation of what’s happening with our climate claiming that “the science is settled” and that anyone who disagrees with them should be denied the opportunity to express an opinion and removed from their jobs.

The science was once settled that the Earth was flat and anyone denying that would be burned at the stake! Science is never clear and there is always the possibility of new evidence overturning accepted beliefs.

What I suppose these brainless or brainwashed Warmies are suggesting is that “climate deniers”, “climate change deniers” or “climate science deniers” are people who dare express any skepticism about whether human activity is responsible for changes in the climate. The problem is that by using these handy, but misleading and derogatory phrases, the Warmies deceptively denigrate as idiots and then lambast anyone who doesn’t bow down to their new false god.

In fact, anyone with any intelligence – and I know that excludes most Warmies – can split the Climate Change argument into several clear steps:

1. Is the climate changing? Yes the climate is changing, has always changed and will always change. Moreover, I don’t think there is anyone on this planet who has ever denied that the climate changes, is changing and will always change

2. Can science help us understand the climate? I don’t think there is anyone alive who would deny that scientific analysis, if done honestly, can help us understand what drives changing climate. Though there are many of us who question whether science has been hijacked by a group of vociferous, self-interested cultists who believe that they, and only they, know what is happening with our climate and that nobody but they should be allowed to express any opinions on the subject.

3. Is it getting warmer? In the 1970s, the scientific consensus was that we were headed for a new Mini-Ice Age and this was enthusiastically propagated by most of the media who are now hyperventilating about supposed Global Warming. That didn’t happen, of course. Since then there has been some warming although there was a period of about 11 years (I think) when there was no warming at all. Warming has begun again with 2015, 2016 and 2017 being some of the warmest recorded in recent times. But latest research suggests that changes in solar activity may well soon lead to a period of cooling

4. Is CO2 responsible for Global Warming? It’s true that CO2 levels have risen over the last 30 or so years from about 280 ppm (parts per million) to about 420 ppm. What’s not clear is whether the increasing CO2 is causing warming or whether it is the warming seas that are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere. Climate cooling tends to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, warming tends to increase it. The big question here is about cause and effect

5. Is human activity responsible for Global Warming? This seems unlikely. Human activity accounts for only around 4% of atmospheric CO2 – about 16 ppm (that’s only 16 parts per million). If humanity disappeared tomorrow, this would only reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by these 16 ppm per year. It’s more than unlikely that such a small contribution could really change the climate

6. Is the science settled? I think it would be more accurate to say that “the science is fixed” – fixed by faking data to give Hockey-Stick diagrams, fixed by Warmies fiddling their figures to prove their theories, fixed by grant-hungry ‘scientists’ ignoring real life in order to prove their computer models are accurate, fixed by anti-capitalist activists who have hijacked the Global Warming debate to silence anyone who dares question their new religion. You may remember botanist David Bellamy who was (as far as I understand) quickly dropped by the media for daring to question the cult of Man-Made Global Warming when he described it as “poppycock” in an article in 2004. Science is often “fixed” (by dishonest scientists and people with vested interests) but Science seldom “settled” for real scientists as new discoveries and ideas will constantly evolve our understanding, especially with such a complex mechanism as climate.

“But 97% of scientists agree…….”

And finally, let me bore on and deal with the “97% of scientists…” claim. This is a totally bogus figure and was arrived at by the following method:

1. A group of Warmies reviewed about 25,000 scientific articles dealing with the climate. They did not read a single article, they only reviewed the abstracts

2. Based on the abstracts, the Warmies split the articles into 3 main groups – those that claimed human activity was responsible for Climate Change, those that didn’t take a stand on the issue and those that said human activity had no influence on the climate

3. Now come the Warmies’ two big tricks. Around 90% of articles didn’t take a position on whether human activity was responsible for Climate Change, so the Warmies took these out completely from the supposed ‘study’. This left only articles that either blamed human activity or said human activity was not responsible. However, in the ones that blamed human activity, the reviewers included those that explicitly blamed human activity and those the Warmie reviewers interpreted as “implicitly” endorsing the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming

4. Not surprisingly as the reviewers were Warmies and as grants and promotion are linked to whether one accepts the new religion of Anthropogenic Climate Change, about 97% of the remaining articles were interpreted as saying human activity was responsible and about 3% said it wasn’t.

5. So, of all the articles reviewed, only around 9% in fact blamed human activity for Global Warming, 90% didn’t take a position and about 1% said there was no link between human activity and climate.

6. But it would sound a lot less impressive if the Warmies told the truth “9% of scientists agree that Global Warming is caused by human activity”

And anyone who believed the prediction that “our children won’t know what snow looks like anymore” should take a trip to the Alps this weekend – if they can get through all the snow, that is.

“Mental health problems” or just morons?

(Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday blog – I’ll start 2018 slowly to give readers time to drift back)

We all know that all races have exactly the same level of intelligence. To think otherwise would be a “thought crime” and to express such a thought would be a “hate crime”.

But almost every time there’s an Izlumic terror attack, which as we all know has nothing to do with Izlum, the usual excuse wheeled out is that the perpetrator had mental health problems and/or drug problems.

But I’d like to play a game in this blog. The game is called “Let’s Pretend to be Politically Incorrect”. In this game, we pretend to believe the extensive research proving there are differences in intelligence between different races. I know this idea is absurd, but please stay with me for the moment.

The normal IQ Bell Curve

Here is a normal distribution of IQ levels in a typical Western country:

The average is 100 and most people tend to be bunched near to the average.

When IQ tests were more widely used, the lower levels of IQ were classified as follows: Borderline Deficiency (IQ 70-80), Moron (IQ 50-69), Imbecile (IQ 20-49) and Idiot (below 20).

You’ll see that about 14% of Westerners fall into the Borderline Deficiency category and only 2.1% are classed as either Morons or Imbeciles.

IQ levels are probably the result of two things – heredity (the IQ inherited from your parents) and environment (the complexity of the environment in which you grow up and live) – the more complex the environment, the more your IQ is likely to develop. For example, it’s possible that the complexity of the Chinese and Japanese languages helps their children develop higher IQs and there’s evidence that children who study music also develop higher IQs

Differences between different races

Now, as part of our game, here are the results of IQ studies for the main regions of the world along with the regions’ GDP per head of population:

We could also look at this in terms of Bell Curves:

(Asian in the above Bell Curve drawing of course means Japanese, Chinese and Koreans etc not the ‘Asians’ our press refer to when trying to obscure the religion of our many rape gangs)

As you’ll see, the average IQ of Hispanics and North African Arabs is just 85 (in our game, not in real life, of course) meaning that about 40% of them would be classed as mentally deficient in Europe. And then when you look at Sub-Saharan Africa, the average IQ is just above 70 meaning that probably 80% of them would be classed (in our game) as mentally retarded.

Our rulers’ race replacement policies

When Chinese or Hindus or Jews or Sikhs move into a country or an area, you don’t hear all the progressive lefties and virtue-signallers screaming about how we need to do more to integrate the new arrivals. Why not? Because they come from races with high IQs (in our game, of course) and so get jobs or set up businesses and make sure their children get education to become the doctors, teachers, scientists and professionals of the future.

But our rulers have decided to open Europe’s borders to millions of multi-cultural enrichers who come from races with much lower average IQs than Western Europeans (in our game, of course, not in politically-correct reality). Using the figures on average IQs in our game we can see that over half the newcomers are likely to have an IQ that Europeans would consider makes them mentally retarded. This means they can’t learn any useful skills to get jobs and have nothing to contribute to our society. In Sweden just 3% of ‘New Swedes’ have taken advantage of generous government support to get an education – an amazing 97% can’t be bothered to get any education and/or don’t have sufficient IQ to benefit from any education. Moreover, latest research suggests that the median IQ of the Swedish population has fallen by a point every four years since 1995.

This inability of the millions of Merkel’s, Macron’s and May’s multi-cultural enrichers to function in an advanced Western society has at least two destructive consequences:

1. Criminality

Due to their low IQs, many of the new wave of multi-cultural enrichers are likely to drift into drug use and criminality. After all, if they can’t get the things we can have through working and earning, they’ll take them anyway through burglaries, robberies and rapes.

2. Hate and Violence

The other typical reaction of someone who is unable to function in an advanced Western society because of their low IQ is a need to find someone else to blame for their problems. After all, they cannot accept that they are the agents of their own misfortune because most of them are not intelligent enough to function in Western society. So they will tend to be easily seduced by any cult or belief system that tells them they are really superior to us Westerners and that they should take over and destroy our societies to impose their own vision of society – violence, barbarism, rape, murder, tribalism and constant conflict – on us.


Of course, all the above is just a game – “Let’s Pretend to be Politically Incorrect”. Clearly we all know that all races have exactly the same IQ levels and therefore everything I’ve written above must be total rubbish.

I really am a complete idiot to have written such tripe!

By the way, given that all races are exactly equal in every way in a world of perfect political correctness, I wonder why so many men of colour have won gold medals in the 100 metres Olympics sprint and so few Chinese have? Odd, don’t you think?

(click on title if you wish to leave a relevant comment)

This Christmas let’s remember Christians?

Normally at this wonderful time of the year, we at snouts-in-the-trough like to wish our readers a multi-cultural  ‘Winterval Holiday’ and a diversity-rich 2018. In the interests of not offending anyone who is not a Christian we, like many schools, businesses and other institutions in the West, have tended to drop the word ‘Christmas’.

But this year we’ll break with tradition and use the politically-incorrect word ‘Christmas’. Because this year we’d like to remember all the Christians across the world being persecuted and beaten and killed by you know who purely for being Christians.

While our cowardly rulers try to look the other way as they grovel to an ever more aggressive Religion of You Know What takeover of the once civilised West, Donald Trump and Viktor Orban seem to be the only leaders who have dared take steps to protect our Judeo-Christian heritage. As we’ve shown previously, under Hussein al-Obama, over 90% of ‘refugees’ accepted into the USA were from al-Obama’s favourite religion. But under Trump around half of refugees accepted are now Christians and that percentage is still rising.

Here’s our very own Theresa May looking thoroughly sick as a Christian charity Open Doors UK, along with an Iraqi pastor and Conservative MP Dame Caroline Spelman presented a burnt Bible to Mrs May on Wednesday in Parliament:

Their goal was to highlight the plight of Christians and minorities in the Middle East and ask for help in securing a better future for them. Father Daniel from Erbil in Iraq gave Mrs May the Arabic Bible, which was found at St Mary’s shrine in Karamles, Iraq, after been burnt by IS.

Theresa May doesn’t look too thrilled at this reminder of which religion is actually the most persecuted in the world and that her very own bestest friends for life are the persecutors.

Anyway, as we break for the Christian festival of Christmas, we hope that we all avoid the fate that our treacherous ruling elites are preparing for us in the next few years.

We’ll be back on Monday 8 January 2018 with lots of new stories including our ever popular review of the best rapes of 2017 committed by May’s and Merkel’s multi-cultural enrichers.

Merry Christmas! And a violence-free New Year!

(As usual, we ask readers NOT to watch the video below. It is NOT funny! It should be banned! Everything that makes fun of or criticises our ruling elites’ plans for us should be banned! And, under Director of Public Prosecutions boss Alison Saunders’s ever-widening definition of a ‘hate crime’, everything our rulers disapprove of soon will be banned)

Don’t watch this appalling video! Do NOT watch it!!!!

(Monday/Tuesday blog)

I’m not going to watch this video. Though I have no doubt that it is appalling and I advise you not to watch it either.

After all, you might agree with what is being said and that would be ‘hate thought’ which is a ‘hate crime’.

Although, maybe it doesn’t matter. If you’re a white indigenous Brit who believes that your country somehow belongs to people like yourself, rather than to often violent, often misogynist, often barely-literate, often unemployable invading Third-World hordes, then maybe you’re already guilty of ‘hate thought’ and ‘hate speech’?  And both of these are ‘hate crimes’ in the eyes of our Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, who defined ‘hate crimes’ as any statement written or spoken or otherwise expressed or any action “which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice”.

According to this definition, if I believe that you have expressed an opinion that is motivated by hostility or prejudice against anyone, than you are automatically guilty of a ‘hate crime’ just because I perceive your supposed ‘hostility’. It is totally irrelevant in today’s Britain that you may not have been hostile at all. What is important is that someone else perceived your ‘hostility’. Forget the old-fashioned “innocent until proved guilty”.

However, there are exceptions to the use of ‘hate crimes’. If you are a multi-cultural enricher, however much foam-flecked bile you spew out against Christians and Jews and apostates and atheists, however many white girls you gang-rape and gang-sodomise, however many people you  stab or deliberately run over with a car or truck and however many people (even if they are children) you blow up at concerts or other public events, then you are never guilty of ‘hate crime’. No, you have merely misunderstood the teachings of the world’s most peaceful religion. So you cannot have committed a ‘hate crime’.

And here’s the video I have not watched and you should not watch either:

Demographics – turning opportunity into catastrophe?

(Friday/Saturday/Sunday blog)

You’ll all know that most advanced Western countries (including Japan) are facing what alarmists like to call a ‘demographic time bomb’. Actually, all that is happening is that the indigenous populations are not reproducing at replacement rate.

This has two main consequences:

  • A shrinking economy as older people tend to spend less

  • The number of working age people to every pensioner, or the “old age support ratio”, is forecast to fall to 2.9 by 2050, from 3.3 in the mid-1970s to 2006. And the ‘experts’ give us warnings such as “Tax revenue from those in work may fail to keep up with demand for social security and healthcare from an increasingly large proportion of people aged over 65 and out of work and who have poor health”.

A once in a lifetime opportunity?

But is this situation actually the disaster our rulers and the ‘experts’ and journalists in search of an attention-grabbing story predict? After all, is Britain a better place with an ever-growing GDP as the population rises to 70 million people then 80 million then 90 million? What if our rulers were to realise that the quality of life in Britain would actually improve if we could slowly manage the population down towards 55 million or 50 million or even fewer people? There would be less overcrowding, less congestion, less pressure on public services, less pollution. Yes, in terms of GDP the economy would shrink, but perhaps this would give a better life for everyone?

As for the fact that there would be fewer people of working age supporting the retired – well firstly, with the pension age rising and in order to maintain a healthy life, many people are choosing to work well past 65. And secondly, with robotics and automation, there are ever fewer people working in industry and agriculture producing ever more. So ratios of working people to the retired that applied in the past are no longer meaningful or relevant.

Of course, this summary is necessarily over-simplified. But hopefully it shows that with a little imagination, the supposed ‘demographic time bomb’ is nothing of the sort. In fact, it’s a wonderful opportunity to substantially improve the quality of life of British people – precisely the people whose interests our rulers are supposed to work for.

Turning opportunity into catastrophe?

But what have our rulers done? They’ve taken the opposite path and decided that we must keep increasing the population to maintain supposed ‘economic growth’. But it’s not totally obvious that many of the people they are bringing into Europe and thus Britain are really going to make a substantial contribution to our economy.

Are we getting this?

or are we getting this?

Not all the members of the migrant invasion army are highly-educated doctors, architects and engineers. In fact, well over 95% of all the migrants to Austria, Germany and Sweden over the last 2 to 3 years are unemployed and most have absolutely no intention of ever getting a job. Why not? Our rulers have the wonderful idea that we need more people of working age to support the increasing elderly population. But these ‘people of working age’ have to want to work. Unfortunately for our floundering rulers, many of the new arrivals have their own retirement plans – father as many children as possible with several wives and they could easily be getting €100,000 or £100,000 a year in benefits. If you can do this, why would you bother working?

So there is a more than insubstantial conflict between the ‘contributions’ our rulers hope the ‘New Europeans’ will make and the plans the ‘New Europeans’ have for their own lifelong comfort at our expense.

Running harder for ever less reward?

In Britain, there are more people in work than ever before. Moreover, more older people are working than ever before. The Government should be raking in tax revenues. But it isn’t. Every year the Government borrows increasing our national debt and the interest we’ll all have to pay. Why? Because the Government’s open-doors immigration policies mean we are importing ever more people who have no intention of ever contributing anything to our country and are only here for what they can leech from us.

I humbly propose that our useless rulers have managed to turn a huge opportunity into a catastrophe which we’ll all be paying for in an ever-declining quality of life – increased over-crowding, inter-communal violence, collapsing public services, terrorist attacks, pollution and social breakdown.

Another blunder by Trump? Ooops, he got it right again! And Again!

(Wednesday/Thursday blog)

When Trump recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel last week, the “experts” and the Trump-hating libtards and the lefty buffoons at the BBC and Channel 4 News all claimed that Trump had made a massive blunder and they predicted Armageddon with vast, violent protests and a wave of terror across the world.

Rather than waves of protest, the waiting world got tepid statements of disapproval from otherwise-occupied Arab governments, demonstrations in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that, combined, barely put a thousand activists in the streets and yes, four deaths: two demonstrators and two Hamas terrorists hit by an Israeli airstrike. Also two synagogues were fire-bombed in Swedistan. And some idiot blew himself up in New York.

All in all, not much sign of the lefties’ eagerly-predicted Armaggeddon

A generation ago, a US president’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would, indeed, have led to mass demonstrations and widespread violence. But now? While the endlessly recycled experts snoozed, the Middle East changed profoundly.

Once the Palestinians were world-class experts at the propaganda game and a marvelous tool for Arab leaders to divert attention from their own greed, incompetence, failing economies and totalitarian cruelty. But the Arabs’ previously successful ‘victim status’ halo has been profoundly trashed – by themselves. We had al Qaeda, the so-called “Arab Spring” which turned into a winter of slaughter and bloodshed and ISIS which took cruelty and murder to new depths. And now we have increasing conflict between decaying Sunni (Saudi Arabia) power and rising Shia (Iranian) power.

But by far the most significant factor is that Israel has become an indispensable, if quiet, ally of Sunni states against Iran. Although well-armed, Saudi Arabia remains inept on the battlefield, bogged down in Yemen and terrified of Iranian gains in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Israel doesn’t need Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia definitely needs Israel.

Perhaps it’s finally time to blame the Palestinians, not Israel, for their lack of statehood. Since the failed 1948 Arab assault on newly reborn Israel, the Palestinians have had literally dozens of opportunities for an advantageous peace. Yet even Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton — no friends of Israel — ended up frustrated as Palestinian leaders, on the brink of peace time and again decided that three-quarters of the pie was insufficient. They wanted the whole of Israel and all Israelis put to death. As for Arab-loving Obama – he also apparently found it beyond his power to help the ‘peace-loving’ Palestinians either.

Yet again Trump has dared to defy the ‘experts’ and lefty libtards in the mainstream media. And yet again Trump has been right and proved the habitual, ‘we-know-best’ doomsayers wrong.

Apparently there’s an Asian proverb “The dog may bark, but the caravan moves on”. The Palestinians are still barking (and barking mad?) but the world has moved on. Meanwhile, all but the dimmest lefty libtard idiots are beginning to realise that Israel is the only admirable and livable state in the Middle East – a haven of civilisation, economic progress, scientific achievement and humanity surrounded by huge deserts of primitive, bloodthirsty barbarism. That’s why the lefties are always screaming for a boycott of Israeli products – they want to destroy a country that doesn’t fit into their pitifully inaccurate world view – “all Arabs good, all Israelis murderers”.

The Trump our media refuses to admit

Everything you’ll ever see or read about Trump in our mainstream media is mockingly critical of the US President for his supposed ignorance and blunders. And we’re repeatedly told he is the most unpopular president ever.

But here’s a video which tells a different story. This shows Trump actually leaving the comfort of the White House to address a rally of thousands of adoring supporters. I only watched the first few minutes, but I rather doubt any of our leaders – the three Ms (Merkel, Macron, May) – could achieve the same enthusiastic support if they even dared to leave their carefully protected cocoons:

The great “97% of scientists agree……” Global Warming lie

Today I wanted to write about how Britain is being threatened by an Irish pederast (I hope that is a politically-correct term). But as some cretinous reader commented on yesterday’s blog about Global Warming bollox asking how it was that I thought I knew more about climate change than the oft-quoted “97% of scientists agree….”, I thought I’d explain, yet again, how the totally fraudulent “97% of scientists agree…” figure was conjured up.

Ever since their infamous “Hockey Stick” graph was shown to be based on fraudulent data, the Himalayan glaciers didn’t melt as predicted and there was a pause in warming, the Warmists have been desperately looking for a new weapon with which to attack anyone who didn’t subscribe to their Man-Made Global Warming cult.

The Warmists thought they had found their latest weapon of mass deception when some guy called Cook (or should that be “Crook”?) published a study claiming that about “97% of scientists agreed that Global Warming was caused by human activity” (Anthropogenic Global Warming – AGW). There’s only one problem – Mr Cook was either a liar or a buffoon.

Mr Cook’s group looked through the abstracts of 25 years of articles about supposed Global Warming – they didn’t read the actual articles! Based on just a few lines of each abstract (not the full article), they classed each article into one of 7 categories ranging from articles that appeared to endorse the AGW theory to those that rejected it (click on the image below to see the 7 categories more clearly):

The results were as follows:

1. Endorsed AGW with quantification – 65

2. Endorsed with no quantification – 934

3. “Implicit” endorsement – 2,934

4. Uncertain – 8,269

5. “Implicit” rejection – 53

6. Reject without quantification – 15

7. Reject with quantification – 10.

Total papers included – 12,280.

Then Mr Cook’s group did something very clever/dishonest (delete as appropriate). They took out the 8,269 papers which didn’t take a position. That left 3,933 papers which possibly endorsed the AGW theory and just 78 which rejected it. So suddenly you have just 4,011 papers which expressed an opinion and of these 3,933 (97%) could be interpreted as endorsing the AGW theory. This is madness. This is an absurd abuse of all mathematical and scientific processes. And remember, Cook’s group didn’t read the actual scientific papers – they just looked at the abstracts!

But here is the worst part of this (IMHO) fraud. There were a large bunch – 2,934 scientific papers (75% of those papers Cook’s group deemed to have taken a position on AGW) – which didn’t explicitly endorse AGW but which Mr Cook’s group (perhaps creatively?) interpreted as “implicitly” supporting the AGW theory.

Let’s look at the figures another way. There were 12,280 papers discussing supposed Global Warming. Of these, a minuscule 65 (0.5%) endorsed the AGW theory and were confident enough to quantify by how much the earth would warm. Then there were just 934 (7.6%) which endorsed the AGW theory, but were not confident enough to make any numerical predictions about the expected warming. So, we actually have a pathetic 8.1% that explicitly backed up the theory of AGW. This is laughable! And it’s rather far away from the claimed 97%! You can only get to the 97% by including the 2,934 papers which Cook’s group helpfully interpreted as “implicitly” supporting the AGW theory.

So, to claim that 97% of scientists agreed that humans are responsible for supposed Global Warming is utterly ludicrous. As usual with figures used by the Warmists, there seems to have been blatant manipulation of the data to prove a point that the data didn’t actually support.

Sorry there are so many numbers in today’s blog. But hopefully this analysis of the figures totally debunks once and for all the fanciful and misleading claim that the vast majority of scientists agree that supposed Global Warming is due to human activity.

It’s a pity that none of the politicians and journalists and Warmies who have parroted the “97% claim” bothered to look at how the original figures were manufactured as I have done.