Sunday, November 17, 2013
David Blunket's Enoch stance hypocrisy
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Standard BBC disinformation re migration today: re the UCL report on migrants and tax paid / benefits claimed
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
'E-borders' is, as yet, a near complete failure: new damning report on UK immigration
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
Ed Hates Britain? Well, Mr Millipede hates the mass of ordinary people
As I've regularly outlined, PC is rooted in and developed as the crudest blame-shifting exercise to cover for the failure of Marxism in practice. Instead of blaming the non- – actually anti- – scientific theory and the gullibility of those with a political-Left mindset in swallowing it, it is no surprise (given it's a standard piece of human psychology) that left to carry the can were and are those who were supposed to benefit but chose to look the gift-horse in the mouth: the mass of ordinary people. 'The workers'. Stereotypically these are men … 'white' men … heterosexual 'white' men. Hence the silly pseudo-'disadvantaged' PC-identified manufactured supposed 'groups' of women, ethnic-minorities and gays/lesbians – and, still more laughably, trans-sexuals; and yet more laughably still, the obese (hence 'fat studies' to join 'queer studies', 'women's studies', etc).
It really is that crude. Indeed, the politics is so utterly stupid that only the deeply crass has a chance of being at the bottom of explaining it. It's the old one about lying. If you're going to lie, then you'd be best making it really big. Successful lies are so big that people can hardly believe the audacity of perpetrating them.
Of course, this is insight-non-grata in most of the media, and the Boob especially. So after decades of endless bogus accusation by the political-Left of hatred towards PC-identified 'minorities', yesterday there was a vicious backlash against the fingering of Ed Millipede's elitist-separatist contempt for the public. It was quite hilarious seeing, on the Boob's Newsnight, attack-dog Alistair Campbell reverting to his ministry-of-rebuttal days, and adopting the tried-and-tested tactic of refusing to let anyone get a word in edgeways (as I had used against the appalling Fiona McTaggert on the same programme strand). Of all people, Alistair Campbell is in no position to give anyone lectures about misrepresentation and bullying to the point of spreading poison.
Friday, September 20, 2013
UKIP needs to face down PC 'triangulation', not give in to it
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Rape show trials: DPP Keir Starmer should resign for the malicious prosecution of Michael Le Vell
There was absolutely zero evidence of any kind against La Vell; not even a smidgen of circumstantial evidence. There was, therefore, no basis whatsoever of a trial. He was, simply, male. That was his crime.
What we have here is the assumption that any putative victim – any accuser – must at all times and in all circumstances be believed, with the accused assumed to be guilty.
The CPS' behaviour is made still worse, and particularly so, when you consider that the accuser had attended an event which was all too obviously likely to provoke a 'false memory' of child sexual abuse, and this was evident immediately upon her return home from the event. It is beyond belief that the CPS ignored this and nevertheless went ahead.
We are still in the bizarre hysterical world of the entirely bogus 'satanic ritual sex abuse' cases of two decades ago, that the media and the judiciary and social work profession were all fully taken in by, but which turned out to be 100% nonsense. Now, however, there is no need for the stark anti-male prejudice to be dressed up in some way. Any male is fair game.
The proportion of rape allegations to police that are false is conservatively 35% – see previous posts re this – but likely to be far higher. On this basis there should be the very opposite concern by the CPS: to ensure that trials go forward only when there is very clear evidence to justify it. There must be a large number of men wrongly convicted by juries who accept circumstantial instead of actual evidence; such is the hysteria over rape and sexual abuse.
Celebrity combined with police/media trawling is very well known to be the toxic mix that leads to multiple complainants coming forward who on no basis are simply assumed to cross-corroborate each other. Shit multiplied by x amount of similar shit = shit. It does not = evidence. This is why we have the current nonsense of the Rolf Harris case and those of several other celebrities, and what happened in Portugal simultaneously to that nation's principal TV anchor and leader of the main centre-left political party. Both were convicted and served four years in jail before it was realised there was no evidence at all against them, and their convictions were quashed.
The obscenity of automatic assumption of male guilt will appear to our descendants as an absolutely astonishing travesty for what is supposed to be a civilised society. The Salem witch trials revisited.
Wednesday, August 07, 2013
It's anything but "inappropriate" to point out a girl's sexual experience and predatory nature
Of course this thirteen-year-old girl looked older than her age: thirteen-year-old girls are three years post-puberty. They are young women, not children. Age thirteen used to be the age-of-consent in the UK until one of the periodic bouts of hysteria about sex took hold. This was the bogus 'white slave trade' notion in the late nineteenth century. Recently (two decades back) we've had the 100% bogus 'satanic ritual abuse' craziness, and we're now going through the just as empty Savile witch-hunt (see my previous posts). When the age-of-consent was thirteen, the average age of female puberty was seventeen. Seventeen. If we were to revert to the status quo ante, then the age-of-consent would be about six.
The attitudes currently prevailing are a serious blot on our scientifically, historically and culturally illiterate culture, that is going to look medieval in years to come when PC-fascist ideology has imploded under the weight of its own fraudulent internal inconsistency and oppressiveness.