Our great leader, David “Chicken” Cameron is desperately ducking and weaving to avoid a party leaders’ debate before the May General Election.
In 2010, Chicken Cameron was enthusiastic about the debates. After all, he had nothing to lose. Thirteen years of New Labour had given us the Iraq disaster, financial crisis, the charismatic liar Blair had been replaced by the dismal, sociopathic Brown and compared to the tired, haggard Brown, Cameron could appear fresh and attractive to voters.
But Chicken and his advisers made one fatal mistake in 2010 – they gave the ludicrous Clegg equal billing with Cameron and Brown. This made the sandal-wearing LibDems look like a serious political party. This mistake was further compounded when Clegg managed to turn the debates into a “I agree with Nick” competition.
The result – Cameron couldn’t win an election against Britain’s most unpopular PM and had to go into coalition with Clegg.
Cameron’s cowardice was further exposed when he chickened out of facing down schoolboy Clegg over the Boundary Commission’s recommendation to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 by equalising constituencies and thus removing an automatic 20-seat Labour advantage.
Now, as we approach the May 2015 General Election Chicken and his advisers realise that it would be fatal to give Farage the same prominence that Clegg got in 2010. For a start, it would legitimise UKIP in the same way as the 2010 debates legitimised the LibDems. And secondly, Farage would wipe the floor with Chicken Cameron:
So, what could Chicken and the Tories do to avoid this disaster? The answer – turn the debates from a serious discussion into a circus by including all kinds of lunatics and idiots from the Greens the SNP, some Welsh clots, some Northern Irish neanderthals etc. In this way, Chicken could try to belittle Farage and UKIP portraying them as just another pointless fringe party.
And it looks like Chicken and his boss, Australian attack dog Lynton Crosby, will get away with this cynical scheme.
So, as Chicken frantically squirms and wriggles to avoid a real leaders’ debate between Chicken, Miliband, Farage and Clegg, let us take a few moments to remind ourselves of how enthusiastic Chicken was about leaders’ debates in 2010 and how Chicken recently seems to have lost that enthusiasm:
1. “I absolutely believe in these debates and think they are great.” – David Cameron and Jeremy Thompson, Sky news, 14 April 2010
2. “I think it is great we are having these debates and I hope they go someway to restore some of the faith and some of the trust into our politics because we badly need that once again in this country.” – David Cameron, Leaders Debate, ITV, 15 April 2010
3. “Look, I’ve been calling for these debates for five years, I challenged Blair, I challenged Brown, I challenged when I was ahead in the polls, and when I was behind in the polls. I just think they are a good thing.” – David Cameron, Daily Telegraph, 17 April 2010
4. “I’ve always wanted these debates to happen. I mean they happen in every country. They even happen in Mongolia for heaven’s sake and it’s part of the modern age that we should be in.” – David Cameron, BBC3, 21 April 2010
5. “I think these debates are here to stay. They clearly engage people in politics which is what we need.” – David Cameron, News of the World, 2 May 2010
6. “If you want the TV debates to go ahead you have got to do it fairly between the main parties and look, having said I want them, having challenged people to have them and quite right, Sky saying let’s have them, it would have been feeble to find some excuse to back out so I thought we’ve got to stick at this, we’ve got to do it. It will be challenging, it was, but I think I came through them.” – David Cameron, Sky News, 3 May 2010
7. “You know we’ve been going on for years about let’s have these debates and I think it really vindicated having that. I think people will be asking themselves why on earth, what was all the fuss about? Why on earth didn’t we have these things before? We should have done and it’s great they’re underway now and I think we’ll have them in every election in the future and I think that’s a really good thing for our democracy.” – David Cameron, BBC Radio Manchester, 16 April 2014
8. “On TV debates, I’m in favour of them, I think they’re good and we should go on having them and I will certainly play my part in trying to make that happen.” – David Cameron, Coalition mid term review, 7th Jan 2012
9. “I think TV debates are good. I enjoyed them last time – particularly the last one.” – David Cameron, Press Association, 10th December 2012
10. (And finally – here’s a time when he criticised candidates for pulling out of the debates) – “Blair pulled out against, against Major and Major pulled out against Kinnock, Thatcher pulled out against Callaghan. I’ve just always believed that these need to happen. It’s good for democracy. It’s good to see.” – David Cameron and Allan Beswick, BBC Radio Manchester, 16 April 2014
I may or may not have recently been in an Asian country where the civilian government was toppled by a military coup about a year ago. Immediately following the coup, all the usual handwringers and politically correct condemned the military government and demanded a return to civilian rule. But are they right?
Politically the country in question is divided between the rural poor and those who live in the main towns and cities. Whenever there’s an election, the side that loses immediately takes to the streets to protest and to try to bring down the elected government. Many of the supposed ‘protesters’ are actually paid a daily wage by multi-millionaire politicians and have no interest at all in politics. Moreover, as soon as each government gets into office, the main politicians start plundering as much money as they can and handing out overpriced contracts to their business cronies. Basically, the country was ungovernable.
Since the coup, there has been an extraordinary revival of economic activity. Many major rail, road and port projects that were part of supporting the ASEAN free trade area have been launched after years of being bogged down in corruption and bureaucracy. Irrigation schemes and other new initiatives aimed at helping poorer farmers have started. In fact, things are going so well that the currency has started to rise and may soon threaten the competitiveness of this country’s exports.
So, has the replacement of incompetent, greedy, corrupt, self-serving politicians by a military council harmed the country? Only in the eyes of the West’s politically correct.
But let’s take some more extreme examples. Iraq, Libya and Syria. Claiming that we were trying to bring democracy to these godforsaken, excrement-covered hell-holes, the West has deposed three fairly tough leaders who did manage to keep control. But did we get democracy? Um, not really. All we got was chaos and civil war and unending slaughter.
Then there’s Egypt. As part of the supposed ‘Arab Spring’ we actively helped topple the tough guy ruler, Hosni Mubarak. Then the politically correct cheered as an elected government took power. What the politically correct chattering classes didn’t realise was that in countries like Egypt with high levels of illiteracy and strong religious traditions, people vote for whoever their religious leaders tell them to vote for. And that was of course the M*sl*m Brotherhood. On being elected, the M*sl*m Brotherhood rewrote the constitution to keep power forever and declared an open season on slaughtering Egypt’s Coptic Christians – beheadings and burnings being the most popular methods. Thankfully, the M*sl*m Brotherhood was overthrown in a military coup about a year later and Egypt can start to rebuild its almost non-existent economy. Meanwhile, the politically correct here continue to denounce the new military leader as ‘undemocratic’ and our politicians refuse to help the new Egyptian government in its fight against *sl*mic extremism.
China is not democratic and when there were pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, all our rulers and ‘opinion formers’ criticised China. But the Chinese Communist Party has managed to take around 800 million people out of poverty in just 30 years. No democracy could ever have done that.
As an ultimate goal for countries, democracy may be a good principle to aim for. Who really knows? But to continually try to impose it without the slightest understanding of the history, culture, ethnic tensions and traditions of other countries has probably been one of the stupidest policies the politically correct in the West have ever dreamed up.
Yet, by our refusal to talk to regimes we consider ‘undemocratic’, we persist in this worst of errors and end up supporting our enemies – *sl*mic extremists – against people who should be our friends.
It seems the stupidity of politicians knows no limits.
Meanwhile in the democratic West we are drowning in debt. As the majority of the electorate (about 55%) get more in benefits and public services than they pay in taxes (‘there are more people in the wagon than pulling it’ as the Americans might say) governments can only get elected by promising to borrow and spend more. One day, as with Greece, the bills will have to be paid and that could be quite unpleasant.
A reader sent me a link to a shortish YouTube video (4 mins and 15 secs). Why this video is interesting is that provides a perfect example of how our rulers continually downplay the threat that modern-day *sl*m represents to all of us.
Obama, like most of our rulers, uses verbal tricks/lies to gloss over what *sl*mic attacks really mean and how dangerous the *sl*mic threat is to the West. Here are three wonderfully effective techniques/lies used by the Obummerman in the last few weeks:
Technique/Lie Number 1 – “Random attacks”
After the shooting in a Jewish Kosher food store in a Jewish area of Paris, Obama said the killer had “randomly shot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris”. The key word here is “randomly”. If the gunman had gone to the Eiffel Tower or Notre Dame or anywhere in the centre of Paris and started shooting, that would have been “randomly”. But a Jewish Kosher food store in a Jewish area of Paris, that’s not “random”, that’s targeted. That’s targeted against Jews. But Obama chooses to mislead Americans by using the word “randomly” because he doesn’t want to admit that *sl*mists are targeting Jews.
Technique/Lie Number 2 – “Don’t mention they’re Christians”
After the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians on a Libyan beach, the ObamaLiar issued a statement calling the mass beheading “the despicable and cowardly murder of 21 Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists”. Of course, there’s one important word missing – the 21 victims were not just “Egyptian citizens” they were also Christians. These 21 people were murdered mainly because they were Christians. But the Obummer doesn’t want to mention that as it might look like *sl*mists were also targeting Christians. Smart, huh?
Technique/Lie Number 3 – “All religions can be violent”
While trying to dance over the horror and violence of modern-day *sl*m, Obama has used the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades to suggest that all religions can be equally violent. But as far as I remember, the Inquisition and the Crusades happened quite a long time ago. In the West we’ve become a bit more civilised in the last few hundred years. The mass murder of Jews, Christians, Yazidis, gays and, in fact, anyone who isn’t a Sunni is happening today and will happen tomorrow and every day after that.
Here’s the YouTube video:
For anyone who hasn’t read it, can I suggest you read my post from 21st January 2015 – First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday about how M*sl*ms will kill all the Jews first and then kill all the Christianshttps://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/archives/11945
The Third World War has started. *sl*mists are intent on taking over the world and destroying Western civilisation using violence, mass immigration and the M*sl*m demographic timebomb (the belly is more powerful than the bullet). But our rulers, like the ObamaLiar, play with words (just like the mainstream media here continues to refer to the ‘British’ rapists as “Asians” rather than “M*sl*ms”) and omit important details to play down the dangers facing us for fear of people realising how bad the situation is.
After all, imagine the chaos and social breakdown if any of our leaders actually admitted that we’re seeing the beginnings of a massive clash between civilisation and *sl*m. People might take action to defend themselves and their countries and they might even refuse to vote for mealy-mouthed *sl*mophiliac appeasers, cowards and liars like Obama, Merkel, Hollande and *sl*mo-Dave Cameron and, in fact, almost every supposed ‘leader’ in the West.
So, next time one of our rulers speaks out to express their fake, manufactured ‘shock’ and ‘outrage’ and ‘horror’ over the latest M*sl*m atrocity, look carefully at the weasel-words they use as these will almost certainly be designed to mislead us and downplay the *sl*mic threat.
With each passing day, I become ever more convinced that there’s no place for people like me in today’s multi-cultural Britain.
The latest episode that has depressed me is the story of the three lunatic girls who have gone off to join ISIL as “Jihadi brides”. For days the mainstream media was bleating and moaning and handwringing over “the authorities” (police, schools, the airline, whoever) allowing these girls to go to Syria (or whatever violent, poverty-stricken, excrement-covered Middle East hellhole they’ve chosen).
I don’t get it. This has nothing to do with “the authorities”. The only people responsible are the parents and the girls themselves. But in today’s self-loathing, self-harming Britain, the automatic reaction is for us to allow “British” M*sl*ms to accept no responsibility at all for the actions of their repulsive children. Instead we let them blame us. No doubt these girls’ parents will soon be demanding compensation from British taxpayers for the loss of their supposedly wonderful, brilliant, straight-As student daughters.
As for the loonies who want to join ISIL, why are we stopping them? They hate us. They hate our country. They hate our freedoms. They hate our tolerance. Like their worthless, baby-producing, benefits-scrounging parents, they will never make any contribution to our country. We should be encouraging them to go. We should be laying on free buses to Gatwick for them so they can catch the flight to Istanbul. We should be cheering them as they leave. And we should then bomb them to the paradise they seem so keen to visit.
Anyway girls. How’s it going? How was your wedding night? Great? Or a bit of a disappointment? If you felt the earth move, it might just have been some bombs being dropped nearby and not your bearded psycopath’s sexual prowess and amorous technique:
And after it’s all over and ISIL are finally routed and these girls’ husbands martyred, no doubt Britain’s 60+ Jihadi brides will come crawling back to Britain, waving their British passports, with their brood of mini-jihadis in tow and demand that they should be able to live off benefits for the rest of their pathetic, perverted lives. Plus they’ll want free housing, free schooling, free healthcare, free everything. After all, now they’re no longer virgins, no M*sl*m man would have them. And worst of all – we’ll let them and we’ll give them everything they want because “they’re British”. And then they’ll bring up their devil’s spawn to hate us and go on to murder us when they grow up.
When will we realise that *sl*m and Britain are incompatible and the sooner we show “British” M*sl*ms the door, the better for all of us?
Yet another report of hundreds of white girls being torture-raped and forced into prostitution has been published. This time it’s in Oxfordshire. This gives the editors of the *sl*mophiliac, Israel- and Jew-hating Guardian a small problem – how can they report the story without offending their beloved M*sl*m community and M*sl*m-loving lefties?
In the latest Guardian article, the newspaper lets us know that the gang-torture-rapes were perpetrated by “gangs of men”. Well, perhaps we could have guessed that? Later in the Guradian report, the newspaper writes “The case echoes the child exploitation scandals in Rotherham, Rochdale and Derby involving gangs of men of Asian background targeting white girls in care”:
But what does the Guardian (motto – Comment is free but facts are sacred) mean by “men of Asian background”? Could it be Burmese and Thai Buddhist gangs who are responsible for the torture-rapes? No, I don’t think so. Or Confucian Chinese? No, they’re probably too busy working to get involved in such stuff. Perhaps “Asian” means Japanese? Nah, doubtful. Or could it be Indian Hindus who are responsible? Maybe we’re getting closer? After all, gang rape followed by the murder of the victim is India’s favourite male participation sport, much more popular than cricket. No, again, like the Chinese, Britain’s Indian Hindus are far too busy getting a decent education and job to go in for gang-torture-rape.
I’m sure the Guardian would like to blame an international Zionist conspiracy for the gang-torture-rapes. But as Israel is not in Asia, even the truth-stretching Guradian knows it could never get away with suggesting that one.
Of course, we all know which group is responsible for these gang-torture-rapes – M*sl*m men from Pakistan ably assisted by a few M*sl*m men from hell-holes like Ethiopia and Somalia. But if you only read the Guardian for your news, you wouldn’t know this.
And why do these M*sl*m men do this? Firstly, because they treat women as almost as low as dogs, only on this earth to satisfy the sexual desires of men – many of whom are called “M*h*mmed. And why do M*sl*m men do this to white girls? Because they regard us infidels as filth. Our M*sl*ms love our benefits system. But they hate everything else about our society – freedom, equality, scientific progress, free speech, tolerance, happiness.
And how do these M*sl*m men get away with gang-torture-raping perhaps 10,000 white girls across Britain every single year? Because the M*sl*m community knows precisely what’s going on but considers protecting the reputation of their ludicrous death cult masquerading as a religion as much more important than protecting the lives of the gang-torture-rape victims and because political correctness and the adoration of multi-culturalism prevents anyone in authority from speaking out. Just as the Guardian censors all reports of the perpetrators being M*sl*ms, so the Guardian-reading BBC and authorities and social workers refuse to ever mention that all the perpetrators are workshy, benefits-scrounging, intolerant, violent, UK-hating M*sl*ms.
Although I’ve just read the reports of the latest child-torture-rapes in Rochdale and with that story even the Times and Telegraph are referring to the men involved as ‘Asian’ and not mentioning that what they all (except one) have in common is that they’re M*sl*ms. So, it’s actually not just the Gurdian playing the “don’t mention they’re M*sl*ms” fraud on us.
Did our parents and grandparents really fight in two World Wars to protect our freedoms and now our leaders are grovellingly handing over our country to the invading M*sl*m hordes? What a betrayal!
While Britain’s Hindus have made an enormous contribution to our country, it seems that all ‘British’ M*sl*ms can do is spread hatred, claim benefits and produce endless streams of babies, most of them called “M*h*mmed”.
However, now Britain’s M*sl*m community has produced a British, and maybe even a global, celeb – a real superstar. Yup, it’s our very own Jihadi John – real name M*h*mmed (of course, what else could it be?) Emwazi.
How proud Mr and Mrs Emwazi must be. Their son is famous. He’s been on the TV and in newspapers all over the world. He’s very brave. He’s not afraid to behead innocent, helpless hostages. Here he is looking at a big knife probably wishing his penis was even half that size:
I’ve no doubt that when Mr and Mrs Emwazi walk through the streets of London (assuming Mrs Emwazi is even allowed out of her home by her husband. master and owner) they are greeted by cheering crowds of British M*sl*ms. After all, the latest polling shows that at least 27% (that’s 1,350,000) of British M*sl*ms support the murder of the French cartoonists. If 27% admit this, this probably means that at least half of Britain’s M*sl*ms actually believe the cartoonists should have been executed for poking fun at their medieval death cult masquerading as a religion.
I wonder if the imams in Jihadi John’s local mosque have a board up with all the latest press cuttings about their most famous and successful recruit. Perhaps they even award Jihadi John points? Say, one point for beheading a M*sl*m opposed to IS, five points for beheading a Middle-East Christian and ten points for beheading a Westerner?
Yup, there must be great rejoicing in London’s M*sl*m community as they read about the exploits of their favourite hero. And no doubt other young ‘British’ M*sl*ms are queuing up, eager to be as famous and as feared as our great Jihadi John – M*h*mmed Emwazi.
After all, there are already more than twice as many ‘British’ M*sl*ms fighting for the *sl*mic State than there are in the British armed forces:
I think that makes it fairly clear where the loyalties of ‘British’ M*sl*ms lie despite our useless, cowardly, lying leaders’ repeated claims that “M*sl*m values are British values”.
There are at least 54 M*sl*m countries in the world. It’s a pity our ‘British’ M*sl*ms don’t seem particularly keen to live in any of them. I wonder why? Can’t have anything to do with benefits, can it?
Meanwhile, we can expect much more of this…
and this:
from Britain’s ever so well-integrated M*sl*m community.
But as there have been some new developments, I’ll return to this scam:
1. Violence – Recently, a Swedish tourist was lying on the beach when he saw some other tourists being fleeced by the jet ski scammers. So, being even so helpful and (IMHO) extremely naive he went up to the tourists and told them not to pay, but instead to go to the police. Now, if you go on holiday to Naples, do you go into the local shops and advise the owners not to pay protection money to the local mafia? Nope. That’s not a good idea. Nor was this Swede’s intervention in the jet ski scam as the scammer gave him a good thrashing.
However, it seems this thrashing didn’t knock any sense into the Swede’s head as he then went to the police. Clearly the Swede didn’t understand the most basic legal principle of any Third World ‘justice’ system – with any incident involving a foreigner, the foreigner is always guilty and should be fleeced by the victims, supposed victims and the police. (Incidentally, there is only one highway code rule you need to know when driving in a Third World country. Yup, you guessed it – with any accident involving a foreigner, the foreigner is always guilty and should be fleeced by the victims, supposed victims and the police). That’s why you should always hire a driver rather than driving yourself.
Here’s a nice picture of the violent scammer, a rather bored policeman and the hapless Swede (turnip?) (click to see more clearly)
As you’ll see, the scammer doesn’t look particularly worried, given that most of the police (as I explained in my previous post) are in on the scam.
2. The ‘helpful’ Indian – with so many Indians and Arabs being caught by the jet ski scam, the scammers have a new trick. There’s an Indian guy who hangs around the beach area. Then each time the scammers are about to rip some tourists off, they give him a call. The scam starts and soon the scammers have started a violent argument with the tourists they are scamming about how much ‘damage’ has been caused to the jet skis and how much compensation the tourists should pay.
At that point, the Indian turns up pretending he’s just a passer-by and, as he speaks the local lingo, he calms things down and suggests that the scammers reduce the amount of money they are demanding. Then, relieved to have been rescued by this helpful Indian, the tourists usually pay the reduced amount. The Indian later gets his cut.
3. The goldmine – I hadn’t realised quite how lucrative the jet ski scam is. Apparently the standard demand the scammers make from each tourist who has supposedly ‘damaged’ a jet ski is about 4,000 baht (£800). When either a policeman or the ‘helpful’ Indian intervenes a compromise of around 3,000 baht (£600) is usually agreed.
Although £600 may not sound a lot, you have to remember that the cost of living, housing etc in the Land of Smells is less than a fifth of that in the UK. For example, a house costing £150,000+ in the UK would cost around £25,000. So ,with each scam, the scammers are getting the equivalent of around £3,000. If the scammers just do one scam a day (most will do more) for the main 5 months of the tourist season, then they’re pulling in the equivalent of £450,000 in just 5 months from the scam, in addition to the money taken for actually renting the jet skis.
Thus, the Swede was lucky to escape with just a mild beating. Other tourists caught by the scam have been threatened with knives and even stabbed. Any tourist who attempts to intervene against the scammers is interfering in a very lucrative ‘business’.
The Ministry of Defence recently hired a Director of Transformation on about £160,000 a year. But what exactly does a Director of Transformation do? Well here’s a brief description of the MoD’s “Transformation Vision”
“My vision for 2016 [is one] in which users will have information capabilities that are tailored to their mission, location and role, accessed at the right time, through a choice of devices over a cost-effective, modern and adaptable infrastructure”.
OK? Does everyone understand that?
And here’s the Director of Transformation’s plan for 2015 “MOD will refresh the digital roadmap that determines future digital activities.”
I have a confession to make. In the 1990s, I worked at the management consultancy Gemini Consulting which was part of the CapGemini group
At the time, Gemini Consulting was getting slaughtered in the marketplace by the big accountancies’ growing consultancy businesses. The problem was that the accountancies could deliver the trendy product of that time – BPR (Business Process Reengineering) – for often less than £5,000 per consultant per week. This was much cheaper than the £7,000 plus expenses per consultant per week that we at Gemini charged. The accountancies could undercut Gemini’s prices because they used armies of ‘billing fodder’ (cheap, inexperienced consultants) while Gemini tended to have more experienced and thus more highly-paid staff.
In order to fight back against the lower-priced competition, Gemini tried to find a smart new way of dressing up its services to make them look different and more valuable than those of our competitors. After a few real turkeys, they came up with the idea of ‘Business Transformation’. Gemini’s big chiefs even wrote a book calledTransforming the Organizationand, if I remember correctly, Gemini tried unsuccessfully to trade-mark the phrase ‘Business Transformation’ as a product only its consultants could deliver.
Reviewing the book at the time, the respected magazine The Economist wrote with great prescience that a true transformation ‘would employ an army of consultants for a century – and cause endless disruption’.
Most organisations can be improved, but very few need to be ‘transformed’. The great thing about ‘transformation’ was that it enabled us consultants to sell massive consulting contracts where we lucratively, and possibly sometimes unnecessarily, totally restructured our clients’ organisations and also put in huge new computer systems, again lucratively but perhaps unnecessarily.
Eventually, even governments caught the transformation bug. When he was PM, Tony Blair was forever using ‘transform’ and ‘transformation’. He promised us a‘transformation’ of the NHS, a ‘transformation’ of secondary education,‘transformations’ of all our public services and even had a meeting with top civil servants where he explained the ‘Seven Keys to Transformation’ which would lead to a ‘transformed civil service’.
Here are just a few typical public-sector job ads as the current government also seems to have caught the transformation bug (click to see more clearly)
In fact, on today’s Guardian website, there are no fewer than 126 jobs (mostly in the public sector) using the word “Transformation”.
Alistair Campbell said history would judge Blair as a ‘great transforming Prime Minister’. Blair’s government helpfully produced a chunky report called The Transformational Government Annual Report in which it detailed the many successes of its Transformational Government programme. The aim of theTransformational Government programme was: ‘Delivering better, more efficient services for everyone’. The programme seemed to be central to the government’s ambitions for improving public services as it explained in typical consultant gobbledegook: ‘Government is committed to a range of citizen-focused activities designed to optimise service design and delivery, and is proud that the United Kingdom is held up as providing some world-class examples of Transformational Government’.
The only thing that transformation has ever transformed are the ever healthier bank balances of the consultants who fool politicians, bureaucrats and business bosses into launching their massive, deluded transformation programmes.
As for the MoD’s great Transformation Programme led by its Director of Transformation with his Transformation Vision and Transformation Plan – do you think Putin will be worried? No. I thought not.
(Regarding the Comments function – I think it is mainly working, though I know some people have had problems. If the problems persist over the weekend, I’ll get my ISP to look at this on Monday)
I wanted to write about something else today. But as Dave tries to start a war with Russia while handing over our country to *sl*m, a reader sent me this comparison which I thought people might find interesting:
“With reference to your article today, viewing the Russian female figure skaters competing a few weeks ago – and then compare them with the burkha-clad, benefits-dependent baby-machines infesting our towns and cities, I know who I would want to go the war against.”
“But the point I want to make is when I see the comparisons published regarding the respective military strengths between Britain and Russia, one finds: tanks – Britain 407, Russia 15,000; fighter aircraft 89 to 769; artillery 138 to 4,600; submarines 10 to 63; corvettes 0 to 74; and so on.”
“The figures in some of the comparisons are marginally different, but all show an overwhelming difference between us. What baffles me is how on earth did the Russian pull that rabbit out of the hat?”
“Military spending was the last priority in a bankrupt Russia in 1991 with what wealth remained being stolen by the oligarchs. In the period 1990 to 1999, the total sum that Russia could spare for their defence commitments was only $89.8 billion, compared to the $367.8 billion spent by the UK. Incidentally, at that time also, the notion that the drunken, ragged, and demoralized army of Boris Yeltsin’s starving, depopulating Russia might still threaten Western Europe was plainly absurd – and so the military anti-Soviet NATO’s reason for existence should have melted away. But instead, as you point out, NATO set about enlarging itself, gobbling up the previous Warsaw Pact countries, and expanding aggressively right up to the borders of Russia.”
“Even then Russian defence spending in the years 2000 to 2010 was still only $312.5 billion, compared to the UK’s $513.8 billion. It was only after 2010 that Russia began to catch up with the UK in defence spending, the four following years, they spent $321.8 billion, compared to our $236.8 billion.”
“This year, the Russians are spending a reputed (changing to pounds) £54 billion on defence, compared to our £36.4 billion. So how on earth did they get so much military material for so comparatively few roubles? Or maybe, how come we get so little from our defence budget?”
“Considering have been successfully invaded every day for years by hundreds of thousands, millions of the world’s riff/raff, there seems little point in maintaining an army-navy-air force anyway. Come to think of it, the threat that we faced across the Channel in 1940, pales to the nightmare future that we now unavoidably face. This country will resemble Syria as it is right now in about 50 years time.”
There are various answers to this reader’s comments. In my book PLUNDERING THE PUBLIC SECTOR, I did a chapter on how the utterly incompetent MoD had wasted over £100m on management consultants to improve it’s buying opf military equipment and how the annual Public Accounts Committee review of MoD effectiveness showed the MoD’s performance was getting worse every year. In SQUANDERED I exposed massive waste and incompetence throughout our military with tens of billions flushed down the toilet by our military masters’ bungling.
I suspect that if one of Mr Putin’s top military commanders wasted say £10bn, he wouldn’t be allowed to retire with honours and a massive pension?
In an earlier blog, I wrote about the ludicrous number of senior military officers in our armed forces:
The Navy has 421 officers for less than 40 fighting ships and submarines. The RAF has 26 Air Vice Marshalls, 90 Air Commodores and 330 Group Captains for around 820 aircraft including just 89 fighters (most of the rest are small trainers and helicopters). As for the Army – there are so many officers and so few regiments, we would put the Italian army to shame. One could wonder what most of these officers do all day.
And I also highlighted the lives of luxury our military bosses lead at our expense – while ordinary troops risk their lives before coming home to collect their P45s and head off into a life of poverty, their officers are laughing all the way to the bank. The top 32 military bosses get over £156,000 a year each in taxfree housing allowances. A further 390 officers receive over £87,000 a year each.
As for pensions, most squaddies will get a pittance, particularly if military chiefs manage to give enough of them their P45s just before they accrue sufficient years service for a full pension. But their bosses can look forward to living the rest of their days as multimillionaires. Most top military will retire with pension pots in the £2m to £3m range, giving pensions of £70,000 to £100,000 a year. In addition, they get a taxfree lump sum of 3 years’ pension – so, well over £200,000 cash in hand. Plus they can make hundreds of thousands of pounds a year more by whoring themselves out to arms suppliers.
We used to have ‘lions led by donkeys’. Now we have ‘lions led by extremely greedy donkeys’ all seemingly more concerned with their knighthoods, peerages and lucrative jobs with defence companies than they are for the welfare and equipment of their troops.
The EU’s attempted land-grab in the Ukraine isn’t going too well. First Putin annexed the Crimea and now the glorious Ukrainian army is retreating in disarray from the Russian-speaking Donetsk region. But as our great ruler, *sl*mo-Dave Cameron sends British troops to the Ukraine in the hope of starting a pre-election war with Russia, we should perhaps step back for a moment and ask why we are getting involved in this mess:
1. Collapse of the Soviet Union – the Soviet Union was dissolved in December 1991 and Boris Yeltsin became the first president of the Russian Federation. Then followed years of economic chaos as Yeltsin’s cronies – the oligarchs – stole virtually everything they could lay their hands on. For most ordinary Russians there was just misery, poverty and social disintegration
2. Putin takes over – following the unexpected resignation of the increasingly drunk and clown-like Yeltsin in 1999, Vladimir Putin became acting and then elected president. Putin immediately began restoring order, chasing out some of the most brazen kleptocrats and started probably the most extraordinary period of growth and prosperity any country has ever seen. Twenty five years ago, Russians would have been imprisoned or even shot for trying to leave the country. Now visit any popular tourist destination around the world and it’s teeming with newly affluent Russian middle-class families
3. Misunderstanding Putin – because our leaders are shallow, self-serving and only in it for themselves, they completely failed to understand Putin’s mentality. He is a real, old-fashioned leader and a patriot and he acts in the interests of his country. Yes, Putin probably isn’t quite as ‘democratic’ as we would like. But then very few real leaders are and Russia is an enormous, almost ungovernable country
4. The demonisation of Putin – then the West made a fatal error. Instead of understanding the incredible renaissance happening under Putin’s rule and inviting Russia to join NATO, Western leaders kept trying to demonise Putin falsely portraying him as a bullying, criminal dictator and as our enemy. Meanwhile, as the EU expanded eastwards, NATO missiles and tanks moved ever closer to Russia’s borders
5. Ukraine – the last straw – Agreed that Ukraine’s former president, the Russian-backed Victor Yanukovich was nasty, corrupt and an all-round sh*t. But there are plenty of those in the world. Just look at Africa – every country ruled by brutal, incompetent kleptocrats. Yet we give them over £12bn a year in foreign aid for them to steal. Anyway, under the pretence of ‘spreading democracy’ the EU made a land-grab for the Ukraine by giving the country an ultimatum – either it could have a trade agreement with the EU or Russia, but not both. As pro-EU protests flared up in the Ukraine our great Baroness Ashton almost single-handedly brought down the elected Yanukovich’s corrupt regime:
Now NATO tanks could move onto Putin’s front lawn. That was the straw which broke the camel’s back
6. Russia fights back – if you look at the situation from Russia’s point of view, it sees itself being encircled by an enemy – EU/NATO – which keeps promising not to move military equipment close to Russia’s borders and then repeatedly breaks those promises. So, Putin decided to make a stand. He grabbed the Crimea and now controls a swathe of Ukrainian territory
7. Dave makes yet another historic blunder – and now our idiotic PM has decided to exacerbate the situation by sending British troops right to Russia’s borders. Does blithering idiot Cameron not expect Putin to react? Or perhaps *sl*mo-Dave hopes that by appearing to ‘get tough’ with the supposedly ‘evil Putin’, he’ll get a few more votes in May’s general election? Hopefully Dave will get a bloody nose
8. We’ve chosen the wrong enemy – as I’ve written before, Russians are like us and like us:
Russians should be our allies in the coming global war between civilisation and *sl*m. Yet our stupid leaders keep ramping up the conflict with Russia while denying who our real enemy is with such lying bilge as “*sl*m’s values are Britain’s values”:
David Craig, on March 7th, 2015
