March 2017
« Feb    

Could you afford £60,000 a year for care?

Every year about 46,000 people have strokes in Britain. About 22% of these stroke victims will require 24-hour care for the rest of their lives. That’s 10,120 more people requiring 24-hour care every year.

If these 10,120 people with severe complications after their stroke have any assets – some savings, a home, a few shares or unit trusts – they will have to pay for their 24-hour care themselves until their assets fall below £23,250 (England and N. Ireland, £26,250 – Scotland, £23,750 – Wales).

For 24-hour care, a victim of a serious stroke will probably end up paying anywhere from £50,000 to £60,000 a year for care. So, if they have say £30,000 in savings and a house worth £200,000, after about three to four years (if they survive that long) they’re going to be virtually destitute and have to rely on their local council funding their care in the cheapest care home the council can find.

About 80% of stroke victims are aged over 75 and their children may even be close to pension age. So they probably don’t need the stroke victim’s money as an inheritance. But a serious stroke and the ensuing £50,000 to £60,000 a year care costs are perhaps more problematic if the stroke victim had been planning to help pay part of their grandchildren’s university fees or make a contribution to a deposit on the grandchildren’s first home.

It seems that having a serious stroke is possibly the fastest way to go from being financially comfortable to total impoverishment.

So, what’s the moral from today’s short blog?

Enjoy your money while you can!

You can’t enjoy it sitting drooling and incontinent in front of a TV after a serious stroke while making the owners of a care agency or care home multimillionaires.

The cowardly Dutch betray us all – yet again!

The results are in. The Netherlands have voted to reject Geert Wilders and to become a Third-World Islamic Republic ruled by Germany.

When push came to shove, the Dutch funked it.

But the Dutch have always been big-mouthed cowards. The Dutch remained neutral in WWI and quickly surrendered to the Germans after less than two days of pretend fighting (actually just running away and hiding) in WWII. Then the Dutch once again shat themselves and gave in without a fight in July 1995 when Bosnian Serbs decided to slaughter over 10,000 Bosnian men who were supposedly under Dutch UN soldiers’ protection.

As for our rulers, the Euro-elite, they’re all overjoyed and are crowing about how the Dutch “defeated right-wing extremism”.

Sorry, but the cowardly Dutch have never ‘defeated’ anyone or anything.

Given this, I thought it might be useful to jot down just a few thoughts about what repulsive, racist, narrow-minded right-wing extremists that the Dutch have supposedly ‘defeated’ believe.

A ‘right-wing’ extremist believes:

a) that Western countries have made a massive and valuable contribution to human civilisation in sciences, engineering and the arts

b) that each nation has traditions and culture which should remain undiluted

c) that for a nation to exist it must have clear borders and that these should be controlled firmly

d) that the only foreigners allowed to enter should be one spouse of a national, or his children, and such individuals as the state from time to time requires; that all tourists should have health insurance and return tickets

e) that their country’s government’s primary responsibility is the security and well-being of its own citizens

f) that criminal foreigners should be returned whence they came at the earliest opportunity, with no return allowed

g) that foreigners must abide by each country’s laws and customs and upon failing to do so must depart

h) that universities are places where ideas should be challenged and discussed rather than places where only progressive, libtard views are allowed

i) that Europe would be committing cultural and economic suicide by allowing an invasion of millions of low-IQ, inbred, intolerant, illiterate, unemployable, criminal male migrants of military age every year

No wonder the lilly-livered, Islamophiliac, Europhiliac Dutch rejected Geert Wilders’ supposed ‘right-wing extremism’. You probably wouldn’t find a real backbone in the whole country.

Dear cowardly Dutch, when your boring little, ever so liberal, ever so progressive country is over-run by Third-World garbage and the Netherlands turns into the next Sweden with no-go areas, constant violence and criminality, women afraid to go out on their own, your daughters being harassed and raped and your houses being ransacked by the Third-World invasion army remember this is what you voted for when you supposedly ‘defeated’ right-wing extremism.

Dear Dutch, enjoy your future. You deserve it!

Doomed! Doomed! Doomed! Actually this chart shows we really are doomed

It’s easy for journalists to write ‘we’re doomed’ bad news stories. Bad, alarmist news sells better than good news. In fact, there’s an old journalism adage “if it bleeds, it leads” – if a journalist can write a story with tons of victims, then they’re likely to have their story leading in whatever news programme or publication they work.

But here is a chart which actually does show that we are doomed. It’s a chart that you’re unlikely see in the mainstream media as to show it would be “waaaccciiissssttttt”. This simple chart shows the projected population growth in Africa compared to Europe’s population decline:

Pretty impressive, huh?

The population of Africa increases by over 60 million every year. Taking the average current life expectancy of an African at around 65, this means that around 18 million Africans die each year while another 78 million are born each year. That’s 213,698 per day: 8,904 per hour:148 per minute. And over 90% of all these additions to Africa’s population will be born into abject, inescapable grinding poverty.

Today there are over 1.2 billion Africans. Within most of our lifetimes in 20 years there will be over 2.4 billion Africans. By the end of this century there will be 3.57 billion Africans.

Where are the extra 600 million Africans being added to Africa’s population every 10 years going to get food and shelter? In Africa? Not a chance. Stupidity, backwardness, ignorance, religion and violence prevent most African countries from developing the resources needed to support their rapidly growing populations. In fact, many African countries – Rhodesia, South Africa, Nigeria etc – are actually going backwards. They’re being destroyed, rather than being developed, by their utterly corrupt, incompetent, useless, multi-billionaire rulers.

So they’re producing less food and less wealth while their populations are rapidly increasing.

That is not a recipe for success.

Each year millions, in fact tens of millions, of Africans will have to move to survive. And where will they move to? Yup, you guessed it, you’re all more intelligent than our ruling elites. Millions, or even tens of millions, of Africans will swarm to Europe.

The one to two million migrants a year we’re seeing at the moment is just the start of the ‘great migration’. Soon it will be three or five or even ten million a year heading for the good life in Europe.

I don’t blame them. You or I would do the same.

Then, of course, you have to add in millions more migrants fleeing their wrecked countries in the Middle East. I could include a chart of population growth in the Arab Middle East countries. But I think we all know what this would show.

But how can our society, economies, culture and social systems absorb this invasion of African and Middle-East migrants most of whom will be illiterate, inbred, religiously backward, full of a sense of grievance towards the wealthy West, unemployable and violent?

It really is difficult to see a future for Europe unless we close the borders.

But our rulers would never do that because of the howling fury of the progressive, holier-than-thou, brain-dead libtards who control all the mainstream media and attention-seeking, virtue-signalling, look-at-me, multi-millionaire celebs.

Interesting times ahead!

There’s no famine in Africa – just overpopulation, corruption, backwardness and violence

Here we go again. Yawn! Yet another supposed famine in Africa. And the useless, corrupt, Islamophiliac UN is claiming that the world is possibly facing “the greatest humanitarian disaster in 60 years”.

So, prepare yourself for endless BBC and Channel 4 reports showing starving children and endless charity TV ads featuring multimillionaire, tax-avoiding, virtue-signalling celebs telling you to give your money to greedy, self-serving, corrupt, wasteful charities.

The UN has identified four countries which are supposedly at risk from serious famine – Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria.

So, let’s have a look at these four countries and try to  guess why their people don’t have enough to eat:


Here’s Yemen’s population growth:

In 1960 there were about 5 million Yemenis. Now there are over 25 million.

Yet Yemeni agriculture (like agriculture in so many Mooserlum countries) probably hasn’t evolved for the last thousand years. So, of course there isn’t enough food to sustain this irresponsible population growth.

Oh, and in addition to population growth that is totally out of control, the Yemenis (like so many good Mooserlum countries) have decided to have a civil war.

Moreover, Yemen is number 170 out of 176 on Transparency International’s list of the world’s most corrupt countries. Most of the little money the country does receive gets looted by the ruling elites and put into offshore bank accounts rather than being invested in things like food production, healthcare, education, roads etc.

So, what’s the reason for Yemen’s famine? Lack of food? Or overpopulation, corruption, backwardness and civil war?

South Sudan

As South Sudan is a fairly new country, here’s the population growth rate for Sudan:

In 1960 there were less than 12 million Sudanese. Now there are over 50 million.

(Incidentally, looking at the chart above, we can expect to soon be told there’s also famine in Ethiopia)

Yet Sudanese agriculture (like agriculture in so many Mooserlum countries) probably hasn’t evolved for the last thousand years. So, of course there isn’t enough food to sustain this irresponsible population growth. And when there are too few resources and too many people, civil war inevitably breaks out. And South Sudan has been engaged in civil war almost from the moment the country was founded in 2011.

Moreover, South Sudan is number 175 out of 176 on Transparency International’s list of the world’s most corrupt countries. Yup, it’s the world’s second most corrupt country. Congratulations to South Sudan’s rulers. That’s quite an achievement. This means that most of the little money the country does receive gets looted by the ruling elites rather than being invested in things like food production, healthcare, education etc.

So, what’s the reason for South Sudan’s famine? Lack of food? Or overpopulation, corruption, backwardness and civil war?


Here’s the population growth for Somalia:

In 1960, the population of Somalia was less than 3 million. Now it’s probably over 10 million.

Ooohh, surely even a progressive, holier-than-thou, West-loathing, mentally-retarded Guardian reader could start to see some similarities between these countries supposedly facing ‘famine’.

Yet Somali agriculture (like agriculture in so many Mooserlum countries) probably hasn’t evolved for the last thousand years. So, of course there isn’t enough food to sustain this irresponsible population growth. And when there are too few resources and too many people, civil war inevitably breaks out. I’m not sure whether these is full-on civil war in Somalia at the moment (there usually is) or just local tribal and religious conflicts and quite honestly, I don’t really care. But I suspect there is widespread violence preventing any form of economic development.

Somalia, at number 176, is the world’s most corrupt country on Transparency International’s list of the world’s most corrupt countries. So, more congratulations are due. That’s quite incredible managing to be the world’s most corrupt country. After all, there’s a fair bit of stiff competition. Most of the little money the country does receive gets looted by the ruling elites rather than being invested in things like food production, healthcare, education etc.

So, what’s the reason for Somalia’s famine? Lack of food? Or overpopulation, corruption, backwardness and civil war?


This is the real ‘big beast’. Nigeria’s population was ‘only’ about 50 million in 1960. Now it’s about 170 million and by 2050 is set to hit 300 million.

Where is Nigeria going to find enough food to feed these hundreds of millions? Especially as Nigeria is descending into civil war between the Christians and the adherents of the Religion of Peace.

As for corruption, Nigeria is famous for making every one of its rulers and their thousands of cronies and hangers-on billionaires from stealing the country’s oil revenues. Though Nigeria is only at number 136 on Transparency International’s list of the world’s most corrupt countries. So the utterly venal, kleptocratic Nigerians are angels compared to the execrable Somalis, Yemenis and South Sudanese.

So, what’s the reason for Nigeria’s famine? Lack of food? Or overpopulation, corruption, backwardness and civil war?


For fifty years, the West has sent more money each year to Africa than Europe received each year for just five years under the Marshall Plan after WWII. Europe managed to rebuild itself in just a few years. After over fifty years of an avalanche of money every year, Africa now has more people in extreme poverty than it had in 1960.

So, where have our billions in aid gone? Where are all the roads and clean water plants, where are the booming farms? Where are the hospitals and universities? Why is the whole continent just a stinking, impoverished, disease-ridden, starving, worthless cesspit?

If you want to give money to charity, sponsor a guide dog in Britain. That will do a lot more good than wasting your money on Africa.

For those who haven’t seen it, here’s a short (3 minutes) video I made showing the utter futility of sending any money to any African country:


I agree with Erdogan

I wanted to write about the supposed famine in several African countries today and explain why we shouldn’t be conned into giving any money however many multimillionaire, tax-avoiding celebs appear on charity TV ads to order us to hand over our cash. But there’s another story which deserves to be mentioned. It’s not very exciting or sexy. But it is still important in a way as it shows yet again how the globalist, West-hating elites and the mainstream media continually lie to us in order to fool us into supporting them and the status quo rather than voting for patriotic parties who want to protect European civilisation from the Third-World invasion .

You probably know that first Germany and then the Netherlands have banned political rallies in Germany and the Netherlands planned by Turkey’s President Erdogan to gain support from expat Turks for his proposed changes to the Turkish constitution to give himself more power to turn Turkey into an oppressive, one-party Islamic State.

The German and Dutch governments claim they’ve banned the rallies because of fear of public disorder. Erdogan however has blasted the German and Dutch governments calling the ban undemocratic and accusing the Germans of being Nazis and the Dutch of being fascists.

There are two possible reasons why the Turkish rallies were banned:

Security: You could believe the mainstream media reports that the German and Dutch governments acted in the best interests of their citizens in banning the rallies to maintain public order

Censorship: Or, if you were cynical, you might think that with elections coming up in both Germany and the Netherlands and with anti-immigration parties (AfD in Germany and Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party in the Netherlands) gaining ever more support, the last thing the establishment wanted their citizens to see would be hundreds of thousands of German and Dutch Turks all gathered together in one place. Such gatherings would bring home to the Germans and Dutch just how many foreigners were living in their countries and probably increase support for the anti-immigration parties. So the German and Dutch governments hit upon the feeble excuse of public order to have these rallies banned.

There are an estimated 4 million Turks in Germany. One in every 20 Germans is Turkish. In the much smaller Netherlands there are ‘only’ around 500,000 Turks – ‘only’ one in every 30 Dutch is Turkish.

In this little spat between Erdogan on one side and Merkel and Rutte on the other, I’m inclined to agree with Erdogan. I believe the rallies were banned because the treacherous, lying, West-hating scum Merkel and Rutte were terrified that the rallies would increase support for the patriotic, anti-immigration parties in the coming German and Dutch elections.

It’s surely odd that none of the mainstream media seem to have considered this possibility!

Aaahhhhhh, true love – it’s such a beautiful sight!

(weekend blog)

It’s spring (well almost). And love is in the air.

This is especially true in Germany. Until Merkel set up a ferry service to bring a couple of million Africans to Europe, lonely, old, ugly, embittered German women (like Merkel) had to travel to African countries like the Gambia for romance and what the porn industry refers to as ‘bbc’.

But now that Africa has come to Germany, German women can get ‘love’ and ‘bbc’ in their own home towns. They just need to hang out near their local migrant centre.

Below is a very short video of a lovely, loving couple. They are very much in love even though the young man seems unable to speak a word of German and the old woman doesn’t seem to speak a word of English. But clearly the language barrier hasn’t stood in the way of their blossoming love. True love will always find a way.

Aaaahhh, how touching. Aaahhh how charming love is.

Though for some reason, which I am unable to understand, the person posting the video has titled it “The easy way to a German passport“.

Some people are so cynical.

BBC bias is sometimes quite subtle

We all  know that the progressive, lefty, libtard BBC is constantly in breach of its charter by being ludicrously biased.

The BBC is embarrassingly biased in its support for EU membership, for Germans to run Britain, for uncontrolled immigration, for Muslim invasion and takeover and against Britain’s independence, against British values and against any form of patriotism and national pride.

Usually the BBC’s bias obvious. But sometimes it can be quite subtle.

This story was spotted by someone much more intelligent than myself. It concerns an Indian Muslim athlete from Indian Kashmir who traveled to America to compete in some competition.

When the athlete initially applied for a visa there was some problem with his papers and he was at first denied a visa. His agent claimed that the visa had been denied due to President Trump’s supposed travel ban on Muslims. The BBC was quick to pick up the story with the headline Kashmir Muslim athlete denied US visa due to ‘current policy’. This stressed the fact that the athlete was a Muslim.

In fact, the reason the athlete was at first denied a visa had nothing to do with Trump’s ‘current policy’ as India wasn’t one of the 7 countries covered by the temporary travel restrictions. But, of course, the BBC never lets the truth get in the way of a good pro-Muslim, anti-Trump story.

Anyway, following the intervention of some idiotic, US-hating Democrat politicians, the man finally got his visa. While the gentleman was in America, there was an unfortunate ‘misunderstanding’ between the athlete and a 12-year-old American girl. Surprisingly, the BBC also reported the story. However, there was a small difference in the BBC’s description of the man. The headline read Indian athlete in sex abuse in US.

For the BBC, the athlete was no longer a ‘Muslim’. Now he was an ‘Indian’ and no mention was made of his religion. Why not? Because for the biased BBC, Muslims are always victims. When something unpleasant happens to (or more usually is falsely claimed to happen to) a Muslim, the BBC is quick to stress the religion of the victim. But when a Muslim is a perpetrator, the BBC carefully avoids mentioning the person’s religion. Then the person is an Indian or an Asian or even a British man. But for the BBC, he is never a Muslim.

It’s time to scrap the TV licence and make the BBC a subscription-only service. Then it would be interesting to see how many viewers actually want to pay for a constant barrage of Britain-loathing, German-loving, Islamophiliac, lefty, progressive, libtard propaganda.

Meanwhile, it seems to have been a lively few hours in Europe with an axe-wielding man attacking travellers in Düsseldorf station and two men shooting a few people in a cafe in Switzerland. The BBC is already telling us that the axeman was from the former Yugoslavia (that means he was most probably a Muslim though, as explained above, when a criminal is a Muslim, the BBC only mentions their country of origin not their religion) and that he was “known to have psychological problems”. Surprise, surprise. It’s amazing how quickly after each Religion of Peace attack the BBC discovers that the attacker had ‘psychological problems’.  No doubt the two Swiss gunmen will also be found to have ‘psychological problems’ and the two attacks will HNTDWI.

“Seventeen years old?” Pull the other one!!!

Here’s a picture of an article from a German newspaper. According to the caption, it features a supposedly “17-year-old” Afghan child refugee called Ahmad Shah Hussein phoning his mum back in Afghanistan. How touching. See, these child refugees really need our help.

Hold on a minute! How stupid do the journalists and politicians think we are?

He’s 17 years old? He’s a child refugee?

Come on, give us a break! Are we really meant to believe this grown man is a 17-year-old child refugee?

Please think of this picture next time you hear a progressive, brain-dead, holier-than-thou, virtue-signalling libtard or vacuous celeb demanding we take in more “child refugees”:



This one is for the feminazis

Hello feminazis.

I’d like to wish you all a very merry International Women’s Day.

How are you today? Still furious that Crooked Hilary Clinton lost? Still trying to overturn the vote of the American people?

Do you think you might  have a moment free from your pathetic protests against the elected US President Donald Trump?

If so, why not watch this short video of one of your beloved imams explaining how women must allow themselves to be subjugated by men?

How about protesting outside his mosque in Montreal, Canada?

After all, on this International Women’s Day I’m sure you all want to stand up for your sisters around the world.

Oh, of course, I forgot about your ridiculous double standards. You couldn’t give a toss about 600 million women being brutally oppressed and mistreated in Religion of Peace countries. But you rant and scream and froth at the mouth against the supposed ‘Great Misogynist’, Donald Trump.

Dear brain-dead, libtard, self-righteous, virtue-signalling, self-obsessed feminazis, your double standards are truly morally repulsive:

Let them die with dignity

Someone I know is a tough gentleman. He spent 17 years in the French army as a paratrooper serving in some quite unpleasant places dealing with some extremely unpleasant people. He now works for the police in a Third-World country where the ‘bad guys’ really are pretty bad and will do anything to avoid going to prison as the prisons not like the luxury hotel-like prisons we have in Britain.

His mother got dementia in her late sixties. She is now in a private care home, is doubly incontinent, cannot walk or talk, cannot feed herself and cannot recognise either her husband or her son. When she is awake, she just sits in a chair staring blankly at the wall. However, as she is now only 75, her body could go on like this for many more years. This situation is devastating her family emotionally, psychologically and financially. And what’s the point? What’s the point of her carrying on living? But as euthanasia is illegal in France the family can do nothing.

Until last weekend, I’ve never really bothered thinking too much about life and death and all that serious kind of stuff. But as doctors cure ever more physical diseases while making little progress on deterioration of the brain, we need to start questioning at what point life should be allowed to end.

As far as I can see, we should start considering permitting euthanasia in certain situations.

For example, we could have some kind of “Quality of Life” assessment. So, if someone cannot feed themselves, cannot talk, cannot walk, cannot recognise their own family and is doubly incontinent, then they would get a pretty low “Quality of Life” score. Then when anyone scores below a certain level, the family should be allowed to let them ‘do a Dignitas’.

Of course, there need to be safeguards to prevent the “Quality of Life” assessment system being abused.

But our current practice of preserving life at all costs is clearly unsuited to today’s situation where many thousands of people exist as helpless, hopeless vegetables without the slightest chance of any improvement in their condition.

Our laws are now lagging far behind medical progress and need to be changed.