February 2018
« Jan    

Greater love for herself hath no woman than she would lay down her daughter for her own progressive liberal views

(weekend blog)

Here’s a jolly little story from Swedistan. I don’t think you’ll see this one reported on the BBC. And I can’t imagine Jon “Fuck the Tories” Snow, Kathy “hysterical lefty” Newman or Krishnan “I loathe Britain” Guru-Whatever from C4 News too enthusiastic about this sorry little tale

Sweden: Feminist Mother Refuses to Report Muslim Refugee After He sexually abused her 12-year-old daughter

A feminist mother in Sweden refused to report an Muslim refugee who was living in her house to authorities after he sexually abused her 12-year-old daughter.

The 45-year-old woman was working at a refugee center in Solvsborg when she began having a sexual relationship with the refugee, who claimed to be 18-years-old.

When the migrant became an official refugee, he had to leave the center and so the woman allowed him to move into her family home.

Within a short period of time, the migrant began sexually abusing the woman’s 12-year-old daughter, kissing and hugging her before one incident in September 2017 when the Afghan put his hands inside the girl’s underwear and groped her vagina.

After the daughter told her mother what had happened, the 45-year-old refused to report the incident to authorities or even to ask the Afghan to leave the home, prompting the daughter to tell her father who then contacted the police.

During the subsequent trial, the woman explained that she did not take action against the refugee because she was “afraid that [he] would be sent back to Afghanistan.”

“I thought so much about him so he could stay with me,” she added.

The mother also told the victim’s older sisters not to reveal what had happened. Facebook posts were later uncovered showing that even months after the sexual assault on her daughter, the mother described the Afghan as “wonderful” and was attempting to help him find a new home

She was also reportedly a vehement supporter of the #MeToo movement against the sexual assault of women, but not presumably if those women are sexually assaulted by migrants.

The Afghan received just 100 hours of community service for the assault and will not be deported.

Although the refugee claimed to be 18 at the time of assault, the problem of migrants lying about their age to avoid harsher prison sentences has become notorious.

An investigation by Sweden’s national forensic medicine agency found that three quarters of migrants claiming to be children were actually adults.

Are all Aussies waaaccciiiisssstttsss?

And here’s a little song that shows how progressive and liberal and whatever we are in Britain compared to the howible waaaaccccciiiisssstttt Australians

How Hillary Clinton’s secret plan to help Trump backfired. Ha-ha-ha-ha!

(Friday blog)

I came across this story and believe it may well be true. It mirrors what happened in Britain with Corbyn.

In the US, the Clinton campaign wanted to help Trump as they believed he would be easier for Clinton to beat than the more mainstream Republican candidates. Similarly the Tories were overjoyed when thousands of young people paid £3 to join Labour and vote for the supposedly unelectable Corbyn to become party leader. Some Tories even paid the £3 to join Labour to vote for Corbyn.

In both cases, the strategy to help their ‘easy to beat’ opponent backfired spectacularly. Ha-ha-ha-ha!

Clinton helps Trump?

What was not often acknowledged in Trump’s heated race against Democrat Hillary Clinton was how her campaign fueled his rise to power.

An email recently released by the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks shows how the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party bear direct responsibility for propelling Trump to the White House.

In its self-described “pied piper” strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new “mainstream of the Republican Party” in order to try to increase Clinton’s chances of winning.

The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates “as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.” Clinton’s camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be “elevated” to “leaders of the pack” and media outlets should be told to “take them seriously.”

The strategy backfired — royally.

On April 23, 2015, two weeks after Hillary Clinton officially declared her presidential campaign, her staff sent out a group message with information for a “strategy call.” The email included as an attachment a “memo for the DNC discussion.”

pied piper dnc email

The memo, which was addressed to the Democratic National Committee, outlined “the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field.”

The document stated, “Clearly most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing. This exercise is intended to put those ideas to paper.”

It continued, “Our hope is that the goal of a potential HRC campaign and the DNC would be one-in-the-same: to make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to a majority of the electorate.”

The memo articulated a three-point strategy. Point 1 called for forcing “all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election.”

At the time, there were more than a dozen Republican presidential candidates. The “variety of candidates is a positive here,” the Clinton campaign said.

“Many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right,” the memo noted.

“In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” the Clinton campaign wrote.

As examples of these “pied piper” candidates, the memo named Donald Trump — as well as Sen. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson).

“We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously,” the Clinton campaign concluded.

This document was part of the tens of thousands of emails to and from John Podesta, the chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, which were released by WikiLeaks.

Other messages published by the whistleblowing organization show how, while the Clinton camp was facilitating the rise of Trump, it was systematically undermining the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s left-wing opponent.

Leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee show that the organization, which is supposed to be bound to impartiality, sabotaged Sanders’ insurgent presidential campaign, which had mobilized millions of people and inspired a massive grassroots movement.

Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, repeatedly warned in the primary that he would have a greater chance of defeating Trump. Poll after poll showed that he would have beaten Trump in the general election by wide margins. Instead, his candidacy was repressed — and then the ghastly Clinton lost to Trump.

Hoisted by one’s own petard, Hillary?

Here’s Pat Condell explaining why writing a blog is becoming almost impossible

(Wednesday/Thursday blog)

No evidence now required for you to be guilty of a ‘hate crime’

I have written before about how under the politically-correct Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, our laws have been perverted to prevent freedom of speech to anyone who dares criticise our rulers’ plans to turn Britain into a Third-World shit-hole.

There’s a photo circulating on the Internet. It appears to show a police officer giving a speech about hate crimes, or “hostility” as he terms it:

Police Hate Crime Hostility

This is really important. It shows how we have drifted from having one of the world’s most admired (and copied) criminal justice systems to one that George Orwell warned about in “1984”.

Inventing the idea of a ‘hate crime’

The original definition of a hate crime in the UK is (I believe) from the Public Order Act 1986

“A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) they intend thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”

Why we needed the concept of a ‘hate crime’ is unclear as there were already plenty of other real criminal offences that could be used against someone spewing insults and threats.

Guilty because someone says so

Then somehow the definition of a ‘hate crime’ expanded:

‘The Association of Chief Police Officers and the CPS have agreed a common definition of hate crime: “Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”

The key idea here is that this new definition means the police don’t need to “prove hatred”. It’s enough that any person claims they perceive hatred for you to be automatically guilty.

After nearly a millennia of proof being required and anyone being innocent until found guilty, the British Police have decided they no longer need proof to accuse someone of being a criminal.

Tested in court?

I’m not sure whether this concept of a person being guilty just because someone else perceives hostility has been tested in court. What normally seems to happen is that anyone suspected of ‘hostility’ get a visit from two plods. The plods warn the person that they are guilty of a ‘hate crime’ and that going to court could ruin their lives. This is usually sufficient to dissuade the person from ever writing anything controversial again. Thus the police can impose Alison’s Saunders’ thought control without actually having their abuse of the law challenged.

I know this as this is what happened to me

But here’s Pat Condell explaining better than I ever could how our laws have been hijacked by our treacherous, self-serving, politically-correct rulers and their sycophantically subservient police to censor free speech and protect those who hate us and want to harm us:

Goodbye Italy!

(Monday/Tuesday blog)

I wanted to call today’s blog “arriverderci Italia“. But “arriverderci” is a bit like the French “au revoir” – meaning we’ll see you again. If our rulers’ plans for Italy succeed, we won’t see Italy again.

What’s the problem?

The population of Italy is just over 60 million. Eurostat – the EU’s official statistics organisation – has predicted that Italy’s population will rise slightly and then stabilise and remain around the 61 to 62 million level for the rest of this century.

‘So, what’s the problem?’ you might ask

The Italian fertility rate (of indigenous and naturalized female citizens), i.e. the number of children per woman, is 1.34, which is far below the replacement level of 2.1. This is hardly surprising as youth unemployment in the Club Med countries is between 30% (Italy) and 50% (Greece). So young people have more on their minds at the moment than buying a home, settling down and producing large, happy families.

Much the same is true of the whole European continent – even in those countries with growing economies, fertility rates of the indigenous population are declining below the replacement level. In this respect Europe resembles Japan. The difference is that while the Japanese authorities expect the country’s population to decline by a stunning 60% by the end of this century, the European governments predict population growth. Why is that so? The answer is simple. The European leaders have opted for replenishing their nations with migrants whereas their Japanese counterparts have not.

The Tokyo authorities refuse to replace their people with migrants from other cultures, knowing full well that in the long run such a step would mean that Japan will continue to exist in name only.

While Eurostat expects the Italian population to stabilise, the actual number of indigenous Italians is declining – by over 100,000 a year. So, where are all the extra Italians going to come from?

Until Merkel’s open invitation to every inhabitant of the world’s shit-hole countries to come to Europe, most migrants in Italy were from Romania. But that number is declining rapidly. There will be less and less migration from other European countries because all European nations are in a dramatic demographic decline and because, due to the prolonged Italian economic crisis, the country is not a prime destination for people from other European states (unlike our very own Benefits Britain!)

Bring in the ‘New Italians’

This means that the projected demographic growth can only be achieved by mass migration from corrupt, poverty-stricken shit-hole countries in Africa and from the violent, cesspit, murderous, backward Middle East. If the official Eurostat forecast is correct, then within 60 years or, taking into consideration the current pace of migration even sooner, 50% of Italy’s inhabitants will be of African or Arab descent.

I wonder what the Italian for ‘diversity’ is? Maybe ‘diversita’? Or maybe ‘inferno‘?

Predictions of the make-up of the ‘Italian’ population suggest that indigenous Italians will be a minority in their own country by 2080:

Not only are the Italian and European authorities fully aware of this, but they seem to be executing a re-population program on such a monumental scale that will dwarf the Swedish mass migration experiment.

Demographers know precisely the future of the western native populations, and yet there is little or no academic debate about their looming extinction.

Blind to reality?

There is a large group of social scientists who cling to the belief that migrants from Morocco, Congo or Zimbabwe will absorb the Italian culture and blend into the Italian nation. The common reply to critics of immigration policies is that ”problems will disappear after the second generation” or that ”it will be like the US” where there are Italian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, African-Americans and so on. In other words, within one or two generations the new black Italians will behave as Italians, and no difference will be noticeable apart from their dark skin colour.

Any different opinion, based on tangible evidence like rising crime, riots and violence in Sweden, Germany and several other countries, is deemed “racist” and likely to result in the person expressing concerns about immigration being prosecuted for supposed ‘hate crimes’. The discussion in “polite society” is focused on the size and speed of migration and the integration of the arrivals. And yet, when integration doesn’t work, our rulers blame us indigenous Europeans and never the invading armies of often low-IQ, often violent, often illiterate, often benefits-scrounging, often parasitical human garbage our rulers are importing in such large numbers.

Moreover, problems do not ”disappear after two generations”. France, which now has the third generation of third-world immigrants, faced ethnic riots over a decade ago, with the then President Sarkozy labelling the North African rioters ”scum” and anyone visiting Malmo in Sweden had better have good travel insurance.

Mark Faber, a Swiss investor, was removed from many public functions for his remark that if Africans had founded America, the USA would look like Africa. While this seems a truism for ordinary people, the investor was forced to apologise by the politically correct community, high minded academics and journalists. Any person who believes mass migration from Africa and the Middle East will change the face and soul of a nation is labelled “a racist”.

Goodbye Italy (Italia), hello Shitaly (Shitalia)

With zero immigration and the current birth rate by 2080 the indigenous Italian population will be reduced to about 27 million people and in 2100 it will be further reduced to 20 million, which is the same result as the Japanese statisticians predict for Japan.

Despite these data, the Italian government and Eurostat expect that by 2080 there will be 53 to 60 million inhabitants in Italy. This can only be true if the indigenous population is replenished with 25 to 30 million first-generation migrants and their offspring from Africa or the Middle East. Even if migration does not accelerate, the Italians will be a minority by 2080. If we consider the migration rate of the last five years, this can happen even sooner.

While the general public is unaware of its fate, top policy-makers know the numbers. German, Spanish, Norwegian, Irish and Dutch NGOs as well as the European Navy have ferried a shocking 600,000 non-Western migrants from Libya to Italy since 2014. This has been done with the full complicity of the current Italian authorities. The grand replacement is no accident nor is it intended to be stopped. It is a well designed, devious program without the European natives having a say.

Fortunately, Italy has elections in March and it looks like anti-EU, anti-immigration parties might form the next government and then this demographic catastrophe might be avoided. It all depends on whether the democratically-elected new Italian Government will dare to stand up to Merkel and her Brussels-based bullies.

Trump vs the mainstream media – could Trump be winning?

(Friday/weekend blog)

The mainstream media’s war against Trump

Virtually all news coverage of democratically-elected US president Donald Trump by the progressive, liberal, elitist mainstream media is negative. Either journalists dig up stories ridiculing Trump or else they decide to not report when he has successes. Probably no other US president has had to put up with the seemingly never-ending deluge of scorn, derision and insults that Trump has. It’s almost a wonder he can bothered to get out of bed in the morning and doesn’t just walk away from the presidency.

So, here’s a story the BBC and other Trump-hating media may have ‘forgotten’ to report

Trump’s tax reform is already seeing benefits

When Trump succeeded in passing his US tax reform, most of the mainstream media, especially in Britain, dismissed it as giving money to the rich and being aimed at increasing Trump’s personal wealth.

Tax reform used to be an impossibility in the US. Every politician aimed to reform the tax code. And then failed because the task was so herculean. Trump got it done. Even his enemy CNN reported that 90% of workers are likely to see more money hit their bank account as a result of the reforms.

But the biggest change is on the corporate income tax rate. Trump lowered it from one of the highest rates in the world to the average level of European rates. And the first results are already happening.

Apple is planning to pay $38 billion in tax this year as part of a Trump repatriation deal. That’s more than the bottom 50% of American taxpayers paid in 2014.

But Trump’s victory on this goes deeper. Democrats are worried the drop in corporate tax rates will add an average of $140 billion a year to the deficit over ten years. His plan to change the tax system was ridiculed because companies would not bring their cash back into the country, thereby avoiding taxes. Which means Apple alone, with its $38bn, has dented Democrats’ claims by about a quarter financially by proving them wrong. When other companies follow, the democrats and mainstream media will look really stupid and will launch many more personal attacks on Trump.

Not only that, but Bloomberg is reporting the iPhone maker will give employees a $2,500 bonus thanks to the changes in tax law. And it’ll spend $30 billion on a technical support campus and data centres, creating 20,000 new jobs in the US with the repatriated cash from the Trump deal. Ooops, did the BBC ‘forget’ to mention that? What a surprise!

It’s early days, but the tax deal appears to be working extraordinarily well. So well that other countries including Britain and Australia are considering lowering their corporate tax rates too.

Trump’s favourite indicator of his success is the stockmarket. You’ve heard about stocks surging. But did you know forecasted earnings per share are too? They’re up 3% since Trump’s tax reform passed.

Source: Zerohedge

If company earnings are expected to surge, then a surging stock-market logically follows.

Trump fights back against ‘fake news’

But Trump is not running scared of all the negative press. He’s doing the opposite – he is attacking the media head on. That’s something no other democratically-elected politician would ever dare to do. By exposing ‘fake news’ stories, Trump has already had several reporters suspended and fired, including three resignations from CNN over a single story! Assuming the president is behind his tweets, this is an extraordinary achievement. Most heads of state need to use the law to crack down on the media. Trump just fires off a few tweets.

And now Trump has issued a list of some of the most misleading anti-Trump news stories of 2017.

It’s wonderful to see someone who is not afraid of facing down the biased, progressive, liberal, elitist media:

1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claiming on the day of Trump’s victory that the economy would never recover.

2.  ABC reporter Brian Ross reporting that Trump directed former national Security Adviser Michael Flynn to make contact with Russia during the election.

3. CNN reporting that Trump and his son Donald J Trump Jr had access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks.

4. TIME reporting that President Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr from the Oval Office.

5. Washington Post reporting that the President’s sold-out rally in Pensacola, Florida was empty.

6. CNN editing a video to make it appear Trump overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime minister.

7. CNN reporting about Anthony Scaramucci’s meeting with a Russian, but retracted it due to a “significant breakdown in process.”

8. Newsweek reporting that Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda did not shake President Trump’s hand.

9. CNN reporting that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute Trump’s claim that he was told he is not under investigation.

10. The New York Times claiming that the Trump administration had hidden a climate report.

11. Media reporting that Trump colluded with Russia during the Presidential election.

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 any reader 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, average IQ levels and religion) then they are clearly a “waaacccciiiisssstttt”  and an “Izlumophobe”.

(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. Meanwhile, over 90% of Arabs live in violent, poverty-stricken, backward, cess-pit shit-holes of their own making)

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)