“Record cold temperatures don’t mean the Earth isn’t warming”
On the news yesterday, I heard that somewhere in China had registered its coldest day since records began. Meanwhile in the USA, snowfalls in 2019 and 2020 have started earlier than they have for at least the last 40 years. This year Australia is also having its latest snowfall ever – at the start of the Australian summer. Meanwhile this year Delhi in India had its coldest November for 71 years.
Obviously this was not what the Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disaster, Extinction Rebellion idiots predicted. So they’re fighting back writing articles with ridiculous headlines like “Record cold temperatures don’t mean the Earth isn’t warming”.
But if the deluded, scientifically-challenged Warmies can get away with claiming that “Record cold temperatures don’t mean the Earth isn’t warming”, then that poses a possibly interesting question: every time the Warmies and their sycophants at the BBC and C4 News say some month or year is really really hot, why can’t I claim that “Record warm temperatures don’t mean the Earth isn’t cooling”?
What about it Warmies?
Gormless, gutless Guterres speaks
The useless United Nations has also been spurred into action. On Saturday 12 December 2020, just a few days ago, the (IMHO) pig-ignorant, self-serving, gutless, socialist, globalist waste of skin, UN boss Antonio Guterres, demanded that governments around the world should all declare a state of climate emergency until the world has reached net zero CO2 emissions:
I guess this is the same useless UN which warned us 31 years ago (in 1989) that – yup, you guessed it – the world was facing a global warming climate emergency/disaster:
Hot, cold, hot, cold, hot….
And while we’re on the subject of impending climate disaster, let us not forget that the very same research-grant-grabbing ‘experts’, who since 1989 have been fiddling their figures to lucratively warn us the Earth was warming catastrophically, were mostly the same experts who just 15 years earlier were confidently predicting a new disastrous Ice Age with crop failures and mass starvation:
I imagine the mainstream media rather hopes we’ve all forgotten their hyperventilating warnings about us all freezing to death. Here’s what the Guardian was once predicting::
And here’s the Washington Post:
Will we get fooled again?
Are we really going to let these unelected, power-hungry globalist scumbags peddle their fake climate emergency nonsense yet again as an excuse to impose ever more restrictions on our lives?
The answer to that question is unfortunately – YES!
That’s especially the case in the UK where Boris wants to grandstand at some wankers’ climate conference he’s chairing in 2021. And I suspect that our PM Bonking Boris knows that his little Boris won’t get access to Princess Nut Nut’s temple of love unless he grovellingly agrees with all the climate change or global warming or climate disaster or whatever it’s called this week rubbish that Princess Nut Nut, with her university degree in something like art history and theatre studies, as far as I understand reportedly believes.
Sky News Australia – don’t you love them?
So, where can we get just a little sanity? Certainly not from any of the UK or US mainstream media. So let’s have a quick look at Sky News Australia:
It’s the time of the year for giving. And one group of people who rather hope we’ll all give generously are Britain’s many charities. So, let’s have a quick look at what really goes on in Britain’s charity industry.
Over 200,000 charities raking in over £85bn!!!
The 185,000 charities registered in England and Wales pulled in £83,801,516,308 in the latest financial year. Then there are probably another 24,000 charities in Scotland raising about £850m and a few more in Northern Ireland, though the Northern Irish charity regulator apparently hasn’t quite got around to counting them yet, to be sure. All in all, there are probably well over 200,000 registered charities in the UK. So there is a registered charity for every 300 UK residents. And these 200,000+ charities are raking in comfortably over £85bn a year.
Moreover, this figure of 200,000+ charities doesn’t include about another 200,000 or so additional charities which don’t need to register with any of Britain’s three charity regulators as they’re either too small (e.g. a local scouts group or a charity taking in less than £5,000 a year) or exempted from registration.
But if you add up:
all the animals we want to save – elephants, rhinos, donkeys, cats, dogs, newts etc etc
all the diseases we want to cure – cancer, Alzheimers, malaria, MND etc etc
all the problems we want solve – poverty, homelessness, mental issues etc etc
There’s no way you will reach 200,000+ worthy causes. In fact, you’d probably struggle to think of more than 500 causes to donate money to. This suggests that there is massive duplication, triplication, quadruplication and worse with loads of charities all doing very similar things.
For example, the Charity Commission lists 620 cancer charities alone and more than 200 charities working with homeless people just in London. That means lots of lucrative jobs for charity industry insiders and an awful lot of the £85bn we donate going into the obviously worthy bank accounts of lucky charity industry insiders.
The ‘voluntary sector’???
Charities like to be thought of as working selflessly in the ‘voluntary sector’. And it’s true that there are probably over seven million good folk who do dedicate some of their time to charity work. But in just England and Wales, there are an astonishing 1,467,941 charity employees and probably another couple of hundred thousand more in Scotland and Northern Ireland making charity one of Britain’s largest industries. About an almost unbelievable one in every 20 working employees in the UK is employed by a charity.
Spawning like flies on a turd?
You might have thought that with more than 200,000 charities and more than 1,500,000 employees, Britain had pretty much every problem known to humans covered by at least one and more usually many charities. How wrong you would have been. Around 5,000 new charities are registered each year. That’s about 100 new charities every week – about 20 every working day.
Lucky charity industry insiders gobbling ever more of your money?
The main charity regulator for England and Wales until recently claimed that around £8 of every £10 donated gets used for ‘charitable activities’. But a study of leading cancer charities by Manchester Business School found that, in 1997, just 65% of money raised was spent on the cause, compared to 90% in 1992.
Across all charities, the average was 67% spent on charitable causes in 1997, compared to 80% five years earlier. I suspect that now at most probably only around 50% of the money we donate gets anywhere near to causes that we intended it to be used for.
In many of the charities I’ve looked at when writing my book THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL, less than half the money donated went anywhere near the good causes to which it was intended. In one memorable case, a charity’s three founders paid themselves over £270,000 in consultancy fees – about £90,000 each – while using just over £14,000 on the purpose for which their supposed ‘charity’ was supposedly funded. And that’s far from being an isolated example.
The more charities there are, the more of our money they seem to use to pay themselves. Moreover, the more they have to compete with each other for our money, the less of our donated money is actually used for genuine charitable purposes.
Ten out, one in?
Charity has become an out-of-control monster gobbling up every more of our money to feed itself and leaving ever less of our money to be used for genuine charitable purposes. Instead of busily registering ever more new charities at a rate of around 100 new charities every week, our hopelessly misnamed ‘charity regulators’ should institute a “10 out, 1 in” policy – allow one new charity to register for every ten charities that close down.
But that would never happen as it would mean fewer lucrative jobs for our ever more greedy, holier-than-thou, well-paid charity industry gravy-train-riders.
Some readers might remember a rather famous (infamous?) article on 20 March 2000 in the Independent in which a certain Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, predicted that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”
There are also some rather entertaining comments by readers.
In the same article, Dr Viner’s predictions were backed up by a few other supposed ‘experts’ including a certain David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in (appropriately named?) Berkshire who was quoted as saying: “ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold”.
Here’s a bit more from the 20 March 2000 Independent article:
Record skiing seasons?
At the time, many ‘experts’ were predicting the end of skiing in the Alps as winters became ever warmer due to supposed Global Warming. It does appear that there was some warming in the Alps in the 1990s, but since then, in fact since Dr David Viner’s great prediction of warming and no snow, temperatures in the Alps seem to have fallen significantly:
And there have been some record skiing seasons in the Alps – especially 2012/3 and 2018/9.
As for not knowing what snow is – here’s this week’s weather prediction from the Daily Express:
‘Temperatures across the UK are set to plummet below freezing with an increased threat of snow showers from this evening. According to BBC Weather, the UK will continue to be engulfed by “cold air from Greenland” before a new weather system closes in from the Atlantic later this week. BBC Weather’s monthly weather outlook said: “December has started cold and unsettled. Some of us have already seen the first snowfall of this winter, including lowland parts of eastern England.’
Here we go again?
You’d have thought that the ‘climate experts’ would have been more than slightly chastened by their predictions of no snow being shown to be total crap. But not them. They’re back again making the same ludicrous predictions they were making 20 years ago. Here’s an article from this week’s Guardian on 7 December 2020:
If you look at the text below the headline of the 20 March 2000 Independent article and the 7 December 2020 Guardian article you might see some similarities. Both claim that activities like snowball fights and sledging could soon become impossible due to a lack of snow. In fact, the test from the 20 March 2000 article and the 7 December 2020 article is almost identical.
But there is some good news. Whereas the Independent warned us in March 2000 that within a few years snowfalls would become a thing of the past, the latest prediction from the Guardian quoting Met Office ‘experts’ now gives us until the end of his century – another 80 years – before “snowfalls become a thing of the past”.
Perhaps in 80 years’ time the Guardian and the Independent will be confidently predicting that by the end of the next century “snowfalls will become a thing of the past”?
How can anyone take these self-serving idiots and liars seriously?
Here he is – the laughing Chinaman. This is the man mostly responsible for covering up the Covid-19 plague and (deliberately?) allowing it to spread around the world while brutally controlling it in China:
And here he is with his obedient sidekick from the utterly corrupt, ludicrously misnamed World Health Organisation:
And here he is with the next US president:
So far this (IMHO) murdering, totalitarian scumbag is responsible for 67 million cases of the Wu-Flu of which more than 1.54 million have died. Not bad for a few months work. Though Xi’s hero, Mao Tse Tung, is believed to be responsible for the deaths of anywhere between 33 million and 60 million:
So, Xi has a long way to go before he reaches his hero’s much more impressive score.
Tip of the iceberg?
But it seems that the 1.54 million deaths may be just the tip of the iceberg. Before Xi’s Kung-Flu was unleashed on the world, the World Food Programme had forecast that around 80 million people would be at risk of starvation in 2021. Following the economic destruction caused by Xi’s disease and the lockdowns imposed by governments around the world, the World Food Programme has increased its forecast of people at risk of starvation from 80 million to 270 million. That’s another 190 million people whose lives will be devastated by China’s desperate efforts to cripple the West and become the world’s leading economic and military power.
Who is going to pay?
According to the World Food Programme, Xi’s disease has cost countries outside China $19 trillion. China’s economy has, of course, been booming as China supplies the world with (usually faulty?) PPE and (usually faulty?) Covid-19 testing kits.
So, who is going to pay for all this destruction? Who is going to supply the food for the starving 270 million? Who is going to provide all the foreign aid to help poorer countries recover? And who will pay for vaccines for the billions living in poorer countries?
Corrupt, disease-spreading China will, of course, offer a few countries loans at staggering rates of interest, after bribing corrupt local politicians, in return for giving Chinese companies controlled by the Chinese Communist Party control of strategic ports, airfields, agricultural land, water resources around the world:
And when the recipients of Chinese loans can’t repay their debts, the Chinese will take over whatever strategic assets they want. But China doesn’t do foreign aid. The Chinese aren’t stupid. When China lends out money, it expects its pound of flesh in return.
That just leaves us in the West
So prepare yourselves for a tsunami of virtue-signalling by our holier-than-thou elites demanding that it’s the West’s moral and humanitarian duty to:
increase foreign aid to help the starving millions
make it easier for supposed “refugees” (actually mostly parasitical, mostly uneducated, mostly unemployable, mostly criminal, mostly violent migrants) to emigrate to the West
grant citizenship to the tens of millions of illegal migrants already living in the West (who will then vote for globalist, lefty, rapemigrant-hugging political parties)
pay for vaccines for all those countries that can’t afford to buy them
Naturally, none of the elites in the West will ever suggest that, as it was the corrupt, lying, disease-spreading Chinese who gave us the Wu-Flu in the first place, it should be China that pays for all the damage and destruction the Chinese plague has caused and also it should be China that pays for the vaccines necessary to protect the poor from the Chinese Wu-Flu.
Anyone who watches TV will already have been bombarded by a torrent of ads from our supposed charities with their well-paid, well-pensioned bosses trying to guilt-conscious us into increasing our donations this year to help those affected by Xi’s Wu-Flu. But just wait till our politicians also jump on the virtue-signalling bandwagon and force us to shovel ever more billions into the pockets of Third-World kleptocrats supposedly to help the poor whose lives have been devastated by Xi Pingpong’s Chinese plague.
And for anyone who hasn’t seen it, here’s a jolly little Christmas video I made a few years ago about what really happens to our foreign aid:
In this blog I’m going to do something that might upset a few readers. I’m going to look at what the Salvation Army really does with the hundreds of millions of pounds of your money it gets every year:
The Salvation Army is probably one of Britain’s most trusted organisations. It’s a bit of a national icon like the Queen. It’s an organisation towards which most people feel admiration, affection and pride.
Inside the Salvation Army
In my blog and in my book THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL I have criticised many charities for being just huge, greedy, wasteful, self-serving, bureaucratic corporate organisations with too many employees, too many over-paid and over-pensioned bosses and too little money spent on real charitable activities. But I have always felt that the Salvation Army was in some way different and better than most other charities and therefore ‘off limits’ for any investigation or criticism. I had the impression that the Salvation Army was a bit old-fashioned but still a worthy cause mainly staffed by selfless volunteers doing valuable work to help the homeless and the needy.
At least, that was what I thought until yesterday. Yesterday I got the usual Salvation Army Christmas appeal letter and I’m sure you’ve all seen the TV ads with the Salvation Army helping homeless people:
Out of curiosity I Googled the Salvation Army to look at their annual reports. I didn’t like what I saw.
The Charity Commission, the body which is supposed to regulate the £77bn a year 168,000+ charities in England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own charity regulators and another 30,000 to 40,000 charities) used to claim that under their wonderfully effective management of charities around £8 of every £10 donated (80%) was spent on “charitable activities”.
Let’s look at the latest figures from the Salvation Army. In the latest full financial year, the Salvation Army raised £238m and spent £233m. Of the £233m spent, just £149m went on what the Salvation Army called “charitable activities”. So, just £6.40 of every £10 donated (64%) to the Salvation Army was spent on what the Salvation Army classed a “charitable activities”. If the Salvation Army had managed to reach £8 out of every £10 raised being spent on “charitable activities”, that would have released another £37m for “charitable activities” – £37m a year is quite a lot of money.
Are they really “charitable activities”?
At the risk of boring readers senseless, let’s take a couple of minutes to delve a bit deeper into what the Salvation Army did with the £149m spent on supposedly “charitable activities”.
Church and Evangelism Programmes – The Salvation Army spent over £49m on what they call “Church and Evangelism Programmes”. The Salvation Army report explains – This represents Christian worship and the teaching and promotion of the Christian message at our corps, regionally and nationally. Expenditure has increased primarily due to staff pension costs and planned maintenance costs on properties.
A cynic might question whether Christian worship and teaching the Christian message, increased staff pension costs and planned building maintenance really were “charitable activities” of the sort that donors expect their money to be used on or whether these were just running expenses that should never have been classed as “charitable activities” in the first place.
Training Programmes – £6.5m was spent on Salvation Army staff training. I quote the Salvation Army report – This represents the costs of William Booth College which trains people to become Salvation Army officers and runs education and learning programmes for employees and officers.
Of course, staff training is necessary. But is it really a “charitable activity”? Or is it just a normal running cost for any large organisation?
If we take a slightly harsher approach to the Salvation Army’s £149m spent on supposedly “charitable activities” and take out the £49m used for Church and Evangelism Programmes, staff pension costs and planned building maintenance and the £6.5m spent on staff training at the William Booth College from spending on “charitable activities” and include them under organisational running costs, then we end up with the Salvation Army spending £233m in the latest financial year of which only £93.5m – £4 of every £10 spent (just 40%) – used for what most people (and especially most donors?) would consider to be genuine “charitable activities”. And that isn’t a great use of our money!!!!
I have a feeling that the Salvation Army does what many charities do – put lipstick on a pig to make themselves look better by classifying loads of costs as “charitable activities” when these costs are actually just organisational running expenses which have nothing at all to do with what most of us would describe as “charitable activities”.
Volunteers? No pay, no way!
The other image I had of the Salvation Army was that it was mainly staffed by well-meaning, possibly rather middle-aged, middle-class volunteers. This may be true. I don’t know how many volunteers work with the Salvation Army each year. But I do know that there are a possibly surprisingly large number of quite reasonably paid employees.
In 2019, the Salvation Army employed 3,031 people. As some were part-time, this equated to 2,634 what are called “full-time equivalents”. These 2,634 full-time equivalents were paid £71.3m – that’s an average salary of £27,000. The 2,770 full-time equivalents employed in 2018 were paid salaries of £65.1m – an average salary of £23,500. I wonder why the average Salvation Army employee salary shot up by 15% from £23,500 to £27,000 between 2018 and 2019? And I wonder whether most people, who donate money to the Salvation Army, are aware that they are paying £73.1m a year for the not ungenerous salaries of 3,031 full-time and part-time employees?
Now let’s quickly look at the Salvation Army big bosses. The Charity Commission requires all charities to list the number of employees being paid £60,000 or more a year specifying how many employees there are in each £10,000 band above £60,000 a year. In 2018, the Salvation Army had 36 employees being paid above £60,000. In 2019 this rose by 22% to 44 employees being paid over £60,000 a year in 2019. In 2018, the Salvation Army didn’t have any employees being paid over £150,000 a year. In 2019 one lucky individual reached this exalted status.
Conclusion?
I’m sure the Salvation Army does lots of valuable work helping those in need. But I’m far from convinced that enough of its £233m a year spending goes to what most of us would consider as genuine “charitable activities”.
Moreover, I’m more than slightly perturbed by the number of paid employees in what I had imagined was mainly a voluntary organisation and how fast these employees’ salaries seem to have risen between 2018 and 2019.
Personally. I was disappointed by what I found. I had always thought of the Salvation Army being somehow less greedy, less bureaucratic and more altruistic than many other charities. But it seems I was wrong.
‘Tis the season for gimme gimme gimme charity TV commercials.
In one of my many idle moments I came across this blog I wrote in 2015 about the charity “Crisis UK” aka “Crisis at Christmas”.
Five years have passed since I wrote the blog below. So, many things might have changed since then. Or maybe many things haven’t changed. I don’t know. But anyway, here’s what I wrote five years ago:
As Christmas (the season for giving) approaches, most of us are being bombarded by gimme gimme gimme letters from some of Britain’s over 200,000 charities. Among the pile coming through my door was one from “Crisis at Christmas”.
I have given to them in the past. But since I researched and wrote my book THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL, I’ve become a bit more careful about whom I give my very limited money to. So, before putting a modest cheque into the Crisis at Christmas envelope, I had a quick shifty through their financial accounts. And I really didn’t like what I saw.
The charity Crisis UK was founded in 1967 in response to the Ken Loach film Cathy Come Home shown the previous year, and a publicity campaign highlighting the plight of homeless people. Crisis launched their Crisis at Christmas campaign in 1972.
There were three things that worried me when I looked at how Crisis uses and (IMHO) abuses our money:
1. Too little used for ‘charitable activities’?
According to the Charity Commission on average our charities spend £8.50 of every £10 donated on supposed ‘charitable activities’. Of course, I know that’s complete bollox as many charities include things like consultancy fees paid to the founder, money hosed into charity bosses’ families’ bank accounts, administration costs and all kinds of political campaigning as ‘charitable activities’ when they clearly are not. But let’s put that aside for the moment and compare like with like – the financial report from Crisis with the financial reports from other charities.
Whereas the average charity reportedly spends £8.50 of every £10 donated on ‘charitable activities’, Crisis spends only £6.79. That’s a pretty big difference:
If Crisis could match other charities, that would leave an extra £4m a year less for management and bureaucracy and thus £4m a year more for ‘charitable activities‘
2. Highly-paid staff?
You might have thought a relatively small charity dealing with the homeless in the UK would pay its employees less than charities operating in some of the world’s most dangerous countries? Well, you would have been wrong. Whereas the average employee cost (salary, social security and pension) at charities like Oxfam, Red Cross and Save the Children are in the range of £20,000 to £26,000, the average employee cost at Crisis is a much more generous £37,183:
Ooopps!
3. Highly-paid boss?
Crisis won’t tell us how much their boss is paid. They just do the legal minimum of reporting that he or she or ze is in the salary band of £100,000 to £109,999 (so let’s assume they’re getting in the middle of that range – £105,000). Crisis has about 251 FTEs (full-time equivalent employees). Yet the Crisis boss is being paid at pretty much the same level as the boss of Oxfam (4,855 FTEs) andmore than the boss of CAFOD (444 FTEs):
So the Crisis boss is being paid a similar salary as bosses of charities with many more employees possibly operating in many more countries. Does that seem right to you?
Conclusion 1 – Does Crisis deserve our money?
I have phoned and emailed the media department at Crisis asking why so little money is used on ‘charitable activities’ and why Crisis employees seem to be so expensive. But sadly I have not yet had a reply.
However, from what I’ve seen, I’m not wasting any more of my money on Crisis at Christmas and its (IMHO) over-paid employees and boss.
Conclusion 2 – Why does Crisis even exist?
But hold on a minute. I’ve just seen a TV ad for Shelter. I wonder what the £60m-a-year Shelter does? Oh, Shelter seems to be doing pretty much the same thing as the £25m-a-year Crisis:
So, if we merged these two charities, we could probably save around £7m in administration, fundraising and management support costs. That’s £7m more that could be used for real ‘charitable purposes’. What about it Shelter and Crisis? Oh, you don’t want to merge as that would mean lots of highly-paid bosses and bureaucrats losing their jobs and bosses losing the chance of their seats in the Lords or OBEs or whatever gongs they’re after.
So, there’s another reason not to give a penny of your money to either Crisis or Shelter. They’ll just waste too much of it on themselves.
Incidentally, the average employee cost at Shelter is £34,992, well above the main international poverty charities like Oxfam (£22,327), but comfortably below the £37,183 of those lucky people at Crisis.
Homelessness in Britain is clearly very lucrative for Britain’s two best-known homelessness charities’ fortunate employees.
And don’t forget, among the UK’s 200,000 or so charities there are plenty more like Centrepoint and St Mungo’s and Homeless Link and Streetlink and Depaul UK also claiming to be working to solve homelessness.
I’d like to thank a reader for making me aware of the word “Kakistocracy”. A kakistocracy (/kækɪˈstɒkrəsi/, /kækɪsˈtɒkrəsi/) is a system of government that is run by the worst, least qualified, and/or most unscrupulous citizens.
The word was coined as early as the seventeenth century. It apparently comes from the Greek ‘kakistos’ which is the superlative of ‘kakos’ (bad).
Does kakistocracy remind you of anyone?
As Gerry Rafferty might have sung “clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle without a clue. Yes, I’m stuck in the middle without a clue”.
Can our politically-correct police get any worse?
And while we’re on the subject of kakistocracy – a system of government that is run by the worst, least qualified, and/or most unscrupulous citizens – any Sunday Times readers will know that the once reliable once newspaper (which has banned me from writing comments) has been doing a big splash this weekend on the uber-politically-correct boss of the Met police – Cressida Dick.
Cressida ticks loads of diversity boxes. She is, as far as I understand, both female and a lesbian:
Unfortunately she’s not BAME nor from our favourite religion. But then Cressida’s assistant commissioner Anil Kanti “Neil” Basu does at least tick the BAME box:
So, even more diversity. And as you all know, diversity is good for you.
Sadly Anil Basu isn’t from our favouritest religion. Though he has reportedly gone on record as saying that there’s absolutely no need for people from our most admired religion to integrate or assimilate into British society:
And, if I remember correctly, Anil Basu has also claimed that the fastest growing terror threat in the UK was from right-wing groups and absolutely not from crazy Izlumists:
I believe you, Anil Basu. But there might be some cynics who think you’re talking a load of politically-correct, Izlumophiliac nonsense. Still, if you keep on spouting politically-correct, Izlumophiliac crap, maybe you’ll soon get promoted and get a few gongs just like your boss Cressida?
Here’s how Cressida’s and Anil’s police deal with an illegal Black Lives Matter protest during the Chinese plague lockdown:
Here’s how Cressida’s and Anil’s police deal with an Extinction Rebellion protest:
And here’s how they deal with an anti-lockdown protest:
Maybe it’s time to sack the (IMHO) utterly useless, politically-biased, UK-hating, progressive, globalist-pawns Cressida Dick and Anil Basu and get some real coppers running our police?
Made in China
And here to cheer us all up are two Chinese men taking a solidly-built, high-quality Made in China elevator:
The lying, corrupt, disease-spreading Chinese will apparently be building our next generation of nuclear reactors. No doubt these Made in China nuclear reactors will be just as solidly-built and high quality as the lift doors in the above video.
As I’m sure you know, studies of the demographic profile of victims of Xi’s Wuhan lab-released Chinese plague have shown that people from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities are more likely to have serious health complications and are more likely to die from the Wu-Flu than white ethnic Brits.
Cue – much howling and moaning from the politically-correct, West-hating, progressive, BLM, virtue-signalling libtards especially at the useless, biased mainstream media like the BBC and worthless C4 News.
Result – the Government was forced to do a study to find out why our wonderful, multi-culturally-enriching BAME communities suffered disproportionately from the Chinese plague.
Why Whites are always to blame?
Simplifying greatly, we can say that there are three main possible reasons why our BAME communities have been worse affected by Xi Pingpong’s biological weapon:
genetic differences
cultural and behavioural differences
institutional racism by us awful white Brits
Before we go on to the findings of the Government’s report into why the BAME communities were hit worse by Xi’s plague, let’s quickly look at the possible implications of the three above reasons:
Genetic differences – had the Government’s report found that the BAME community’s higher rates of serious complications and deaths were due to genetic differences between BAME people and Whites, that would have opened a truly Brobdingnagian can of worms. After all, once you suggest that there are genetic differences between coloured people and Whites, then you risk nasty racists wondering whether these genetic differences could also include things like intelligence levels and physical strength. So, there was no way that the Government report would dare suggest that genetic differences could possibly be responsible for the BAME community being more affected by Xi’s Chinese plague than Whites
Cultural and behavioural differences – another frighteningly sensitive can of worms. Were the Government report to suggest that some of our BAME friends ignored advice about social distancing because they believed that all Whitey’s laws should be ignored because their religion put their laws above those of the country in which they lived and even that some BAME were so dumb that they believed their god and prophet would protect them from the new plague – well that wouldn’t be too good for inter-community relations. So, there was no way that the Government report would dare suggest that cultural and behavioural differences could possibly be responsible for the BAME community being more affected by Xi’s Wuhan Chinese plague than white Brits
Institutional racism by us awful white Brits – the Government report could have found that the real reason BAME communities were worse affected by the Chinese Communist Party’s biological weapon was that all white people in Britain were institutionally racist. This supposed ‘institutional racism’ resulted in BAME people working disproportionately in lower-paid jobs where they were more likely to come into contact with people with Covid-19 whereas us repulsive racist Whites were more likely to have higher paid jobs which allowed us to work from home and thus reduce our exposure to Xi’s virus
So, what do you think the Government report concluded? Yup, it concluded that the reason BAME communities were worse affected by Xi’s virus had absolutely nothing to do do with genetic differences between different races, absolutely nothing to do with cultural and behavioural differences and was absolutely one hundred million percent due to institutional racism by us awful white Brits which led to BAME people being in lower-paid jobs, being more exposed to potential Covid-19 spreaders and living in poorer multi-generational households.
I ain’t no doctor, but….
I ain’t no doctor, but let’s just test whether part of the reason BAME communities were worse hit by the Chinese disease could actually be due to genetic differences. We’ll look at two possible genetic differences
vitamin D absorption
prevalence of diabetes
For reasons that should be obvious, just like the Government’s report, I won’t venture anywhere near possible cultural and behavioural differences between the BAME community and white Brits.
Vitamin D absorption
We now know that people with vitamin D deficiency are much more likely to catch Covid-19 and much more likely to experience serious illness from Covid-19. There are articles in The Lancet, The British Medical Journal and other once reputable publications confirming this. One article even noted that “More than 80% of hospital patients with Covid-19 lack vitamin D, which is among vitamins linked to fewer respiratory complaints, studies have found.”
The reason people with darker skins living in a European or North American country are more likely to suffer from vitamin D deficiency is obvious – skin colour has developed as an evolutionary change to adapt humans to countries where there are lower levels of sunlight (which supplies most of our vitamin D). Hence, Northern Europeans have much lighter skins than Southern Europeans who have lighter skins than Indians/Pakistanis who mostly have much lighter skins than Black Africans.
Yet, astonishingly the Government report appears to have ruled out the genetic differences in skin colour (and thus levels of vitamin D absorption and deficiency) as a possible contributory factor in the BAME community being worse affected by the Wu-Flu.
Prevalence of diabetes
We know that comorbidities like diabetes are likely to result in people having a worse outcome from a Covid-19 infection. And we know that diabetes is more prevalent in non-White communities:
Part of this prevalence is due to lifestyle and part due to genetic differences.
Yet, astonishingly the Government report appears to have ruled out the genetic differences in diabetes levels as a possible contributory factor in the BAME community being worse affected by the Wu-Flu.
The politicisation of science?
What the above suggests is that what we used to think of as ‘science’ – establishing and understanding natural laws through objective experimentation and analysis – is no longer ‘science’. It is a political act designed to promote a particular political or social agenda.
We’ve seen how supposed ‘science’ has been manipulated in order to promote the crazed Man-Made Global Warming or Climate Emergency or Climate Disaster or Extinction (or whatever it’s called this week) cult.
And now we see the same manipulation of what used to be medical science in order to promote the BLM, all-Whites-are-racists fraud.
Can we believe anything supposed ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ claim nowadays? No!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Donald Trump officially got around 73,675,000 votes.
I write “around” as the final tallies haven’t come in yet. But we can still use the numbers we have.
Using these numbers, it would appear that the Democrats got around 5,983,000 more votes than the Republicans.
This means the Democrats got about 52% of the votes cast for either of the two main parties and the Republicans got 48%.
Importing democrat voters?
This is a pretty close result and no guarantee of a Democrat victory in 2024, especially if the Republicans put up a strong candidate like Nikki Haley – former governor of South Carolina and 29th US ambassador to the United Nations – or even Donald Trump.
No problem. The Democrats have a plan. Within the first few days of Biden getting into the White House (if he remembers where it is) he plans to launch legislation to give US citizenship to 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants. And who do you think those illegal immigrants will vote for in 2024? The Republicans who blocked their citizenship? Or the Democrats who gave them an amnesty and full citizenship?
Another 10 to 12 million Democrat voters by 2024 should pretty much ensure Democrats will never lose another election ever again.
Don’t believe me? Think I’m a crazed conspiracy theorist?
Well, just watch the first half minute of this interview with Sleepy, Creepy Joe Biden.
Doing a Blair?
Looks like the Democrats are going to “do a Blair” – scatter citizenships like confetti over hordes of Third-World garbage to increase the number of Democrat voters.
Here’s a chart from my book SQUANDERED. Blair claimed his government was successfully reducing the number of asylum applications (the dotted line on the chart). What he was really doing was throwing citizenships at potential asylum seekers (the unbroken line on the chart below) before they even had time to ask for asylum thus hugely increasing the number of Labour voters.
Just watch the first 35 seconds of the video below and you’ll see Biden’s plans to “do a Blair” by creating another 10 to 12 million Democrat voters:
In 2015, prior to becoming our great leader, our (IMHO) pathetic, sex-obsessed excuse for a Prime Minister published a book about Winston Churchill – THE CHURCHILL FACTOR How one man made history.
One reader reviewing the book on Amazon gave Boris’s book the lowest possible rating and wrote: “THE CHURCHILL FACTOR is an autobiography of Boris Johnson by Boris Johnson for the promotion of Boris Johnson”
There was a rather wonderful film in 2017 called “DARKEST HOUR” in which Gary Oldman played Winston Churchill. The whole film was based on Churchill’s battle in 1939 to persuade his government and Parliament to fight on against our murder-loving German friends when most ministers and MPs favoured negotiating a peace settlement with Angela Merkel’s hero – Adolf Hitler.
Churchill was great because he stood up for what was best for Britain and put his country before his personal comfort.
Boris, you ain’t no Churchill!
Now let’s look at Boris Johnson in comparison to Churchill.
If our bell-end-fixated joke of a prime minister wasn’t such a sex-obsessed buffoon he could have have been a Churchillian leader who would:
be doing his very best to make sure people – especially young children – weren’t being terrified into believing life’s simply not worth living because eventually they’re going to die in some ghastly global warming induced fireball, inferno or flood.
be pointing out that despite wildly-exaggerated computer modelling over more than three decades and a relentless stream of media hype and lies, the Earth has warmed 1 degree over the past 120 years (much less than the difference between the upstairs and downstairs of your house) and that there has been no overall global acceleration in sea level rise or increase in extreme weather events.
then he’d hold a short refresher course on atmospheric gases reminding everyone that CO2 is 0.04% of our atmosphere, the anthropogenic part of that is around 4%, the UK produces 1% of that, meaning it would be utterly pointless implementing Ed Miliband’s ludicrous Climate Change Act which would result in spending about £3 trillion on attempting to ‘de-carbonise’ 0.00001% of the Earth’s atmosphere (if I got my decimal places right).
then he would make it clear that CO2 levels in the past were 12-15 times higher than they are today and this did not lead to a mass extinction, runaway global warming, a climate emergency or a climate ‘tipping point’. If it did, we wouldn’t be here and neither would Extinction Rebellion nor Saint Greta the Gormless nor even the BBC nor C4 News.
he would then remind everyone that around 1,000 years ago temperatures were warmer than they are today at a time when there was no industrialisation.
he could also mention that we are currently in an interglacial period of 10-12 thousand years and that the Earth has been alternating with glaciations and warmer periods for the last 2.5 million years. At the point where we go back to a glacial period, nobody will want ‘global warming’ to stop, indeed, quite the opposite.
by this point the Green Blob and the BBC and C4 News and Sky News would be gnashing their teeth and wailing like a soiled baby, who has just been force-fed a Chicken Vindaloo, and claiming that this warmth was localised. Boris could then show that this is palpable nonsense and the Medieval Warm Period, amongst other historical periods of warmth, was in fact a global phenomenon and a hugely prosperous time for the Earth and people thrived.
he could provide plenty of evidence for this including recently uncovered ancient agricultural tools frozen beneath the glaciers of Norway and simple clues like Vine Street in London – named after an 18th century pub which is thought to be named after a vineyard that grew there in Roman times.
He could then remind us that we are currently in the worst national debt in 300 years thanks to him. But if people really feel the Government still has a spare £3 trillion of our money, he just wanted to check with the people he supposedly serves what they wanted him to do with it. Did they want him to:
A. Spend it on ‘fighting’ 0.00001% of a trace gas that keeps everything on this planet alive?
B. Spend it on 6,000 brand new hospitals with free parking? 750 million ICU ventilators? 42.6 million trained nurses? 230 million trained police officers? 12 million ambulances? 24.8 million affordable homes? Free university education for 60 million students? A £3 trillion donation to cancer research, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, Altzheimers, AIDS, malaria or any other potentially devastating disease they could think of? Or some combination of the preceding possibilities?
C: Give everyone in the country £50,000 cash this Christmas in a ‘Bonkers Boris tax-back giveaway!!!!’.
If the answer came back B or C, he would then tell the Green Blob to go and stick itself somewhere where the sun doesn’t shine just as Churchill saw off those who wanted to appease Hitler. But knowing Boris Johnson’s stupidity and grovelling obedience to (IMHO) ecoloon Princess Nut Nut and her Green Blob chums, Johnson will probably choose A.
Sky News Australia – please come and save us
Here’s a brief video from the wonderful Sky News Australia once again debunking all the Greeny eco-crap. Sadly there isn’t any mainstream media outlet in the increasingly politically-correct, libtard, eco-fascist UK that would dare say what Sky News Australia is prepared to say:
David Craig, on December 14th, 2020
