As one half of Britain languishes in its inflated house price bubble, the other remains with negative equity a constant threat.
Recent figures suggest that 53% of houses in the UK are still worth less than in 2007.
So what about the proclaimed economic recovery, where is all the growth we're supposed to be celebrating, and where did all that free cash, otherwise known as quantitative easing, go to?
Well isn't that a silly question - only an imbecile, or a Tory beneficiary, would say such a stupid thing, for we all know who the real benefits scroungers are, in modern Britain.
Having brought our economy to the point of bankruptcy, our financial services elite continue to extort tribute from the population at large, with our tacit consent and seemingly unbounded approval.
The New Feudalism of this sorry century, which sees greed rewarded and honesty punished, is just one more factor in the shameful and lengthening list of causes for the imminent cataclysm.
Thursday, 28 April 2016
Sunday, 17 April 2016
UK: So what do muslims really think?
After the much anticipated, and confidently predicted backlash to Trevor Philips' TV documentary on the state of muslim integration into British society, it's been back to business as usual.
The die-hard liberals have screeched about his racist poll, while the more open-minded among them, although slowly waking to the awful truth, still seek rational and politically acceptable options for dealing with, or at least explaining, the dire situation in which we find ourselves.
Muslim lobby groups have wheeled out their islamophobic band wagon, if indeed it was ever put away. But this time they do have a point, because it is undeniable that there was much wrong with the ICM poll.
The ability of statistics to mislead is well known, though it's not the skewed results that I protest, but the notion that an entire section of humanity can be described by the answers of a small portion of their number, to an even smaller set of questions.
The truth is that many muslims do adjust and adapt to Western society, just as, even in islamic states, many do not adhere to islam's exhortations to murder Christians and Jews. For example, in the Middle East today, the overwhelming majority of soldiers fighting against IS are themselves Muslim. We can easily point to the disenfranchisement and exodus of Christianity in the region as a contributory factor, but the fact remains.
Clearly, the conclusion that most of British society, both muslim and non-muslim, had already made, needed some measure of 'scientific' legitimacy to be aired on mainstream TV, but just what another bunch of "Do you support the imposition of Sharia in the UK?" type of questions was supposed to show, is still a mystery.
Complicity with terrorist ideology is fairly consistent globally, even if some countries are more committed than others, there is a relatively large proportion of the world's population gravitating towards violence, and it is getting larger.
So, a questionnaire which simply acknowledges and localizes that reality, without also attempting to link these global attitudes with their global causes, might do more harm than good, in the way that a person hearing a warning alarm might be concerned that they are being burgled, only to be reassured by the observation "Don't worry, it's only the fire alarm" and then to settle back to whatever they had been previously doing.
We have become accustomed to the notion that recognizing the symptom was the first stage in finding a cure, but recent experiences are less comforting and we should be very wary of complacently expecting our increasingly incompetent governments to do what is right and proper and to protect us from even the most imminent danger.
However well-intentioned or intelligent we believe ourselves to be, we cannot hope to find the right answer if we do not first ask the correct question.
If Channel 4 and Mr. Philips decide to follow up on this latest exercise, perhaps they will embark on a more relevant examination and provide us with answers that most people do not already know.
Let us hope they'll call the next episode:-
The die-hard liberals have screeched about his racist poll, while the more open-minded among them, although slowly waking to the awful truth, still seek rational and politically acceptable options for dealing with, or at least explaining, the dire situation in which we find ourselves.
Muslim lobby groups have wheeled out their islamophobic band wagon, if indeed it was ever put away. But this time they do have a point, because it is undeniable that there was much wrong with the ICM poll.
The ability of statistics to mislead is well known, though it's not the skewed results that I protest, but the notion that an entire section of humanity can be described by the answers of a small portion of their number, to an even smaller set of questions.
The truth is that many muslims do adjust and adapt to Western society, just as, even in islamic states, many do not adhere to islam's exhortations to murder Christians and Jews. For example, in the Middle East today, the overwhelming majority of soldiers fighting against IS are themselves Muslim. We can easily point to the disenfranchisement and exodus of Christianity in the region as a contributory factor, but the fact remains.
Clearly, the conclusion that most of British society, both muslim and non-muslim, had already made, needed some measure of 'scientific' legitimacy to be aired on mainstream TV, but just what another bunch of "Do you support the imposition of Sharia in the UK?" type of questions was supposed to show, is still a mystery.
Complicity with terrorist ideology is fairly consistent globally, even if some countries are more committed than others, there is a relatively large proportion of the world's population gravitating towards violence, and it is getting larger.
So, a questionnaire which simply acknowledges and localizes that reality, without also attempting to link these global attitudes with their global causes, might do more harm than good, in the way that a person hearing a warning alarm might be concerned that they are being burgled, only to be reassured by the observation "Don't worry, it's only the fire alarm" and then to settle back to whatever they had been previously doing.
We have become accustomed to the notion that recognizing the symptom was the first stage in finding a cure, but recent experiences are less comforting and we should be very wary of complacently expecting our increasingly incompetent governments to do what is right and proper and to protect us from even the most imminent danger.
However well-intentioned or intelligent we believe ourselves to be, we cannot hope to find the right answer if we do not first ask the correct question.
If Channel 4 and Mr. Philips decide to follow up on this latest exercise, perhaps they will embark on a more relevant examination and provide us with answers that most people do not already know.
Let us hope they'll call the next episode:-
What does Islam really instruct?
Wednesday, 13 April 2016
EU: Dutch are not stupid.
When results were returned from the Ukraine Association referendum, our politicians saw it as part of a general dissatisfaction with the EU, so we can probably rule that out straight away, because they so consistently get everything else wrong, we must wonder why this should be any different.
It is true that many wanted to make this a referendum on the state of our European Union, but would so many have voted against on those grounds alone?
The connection between Mr Poroshenko's assault on East Ukraine, and the downing of MH17 with 193 Dutch fatalities may have been the unspoken, but not forgotten, factor in such a decisive no vote.
The biggest questions about 17th July 2014 are still unanswered.
Coming the day after two Ukrainian SU-25's were hit by rebels, with one destroyed and the other damaged, there is every likelihood that anti-Kyiv forces shot the airliner down, but there is still no reasonable explanation as to why Ukrainian flight control ordered MH17 to descend towards such a dangerous area, a manoeuvre which could easily be interpreted by those on the ground as indicating an imminent aerial assault.
To suggest that a few showers prompted the request is ludicrous enough, especially given that photographic evidence shows a fairly benign day, and in any case, is it not the pilot's responsibility to request changes due to weather?
Another reason proposed, was that air traffic was particularly heavy that day, but as several airlines had already stopped flying over the region, and there were only two other passenger planes in the vicinity, this seems equally unlikely.
Reports that Ukrainian military jets were also flying in the area should not be discounted, just because they may not have fired upon the airliner does not mean they played no part in it's ultimate demise, having probably primed the rebel defence forces to expect an attack.
So it's vital we know, why was MH17 diverted?
The possibility that a 'government' which had installed itself by force (during a coup which replaced an elected pro-Russian administration with an unelected pro-American one of equal or greater corruptive capacity) and then set about bombarding it's own population, displacing a million or more ethnic Russians in the other migration crisis [the one that we never hear about], could also be capable of manufacturing a situation in which a civilian airliner was shot down to discredit their opponents, is no more unreasonable than the alternative 'explanations' on offer.
Whether we find the truth or not, there is real doubt, and despite the willingness of our governments to ignore the possibilities, the Dutch people have shown that there is no place in Europe for the sort of leaders of whom such a question can legitimately be asked.
It is true that many wanted to make this a referendum on the state of our European Union, but would so many have voted against on those grounds alone?
The connection between Mr Poroshenko's assault on East Ukraine, and the downing of MH17 with 193 Dutch fatalities may have been the unspoken, but not forgotten, factor in such a decisive no vote.
The biggest questions about 17th July 2014 are still unanswered.
Coming the day after two Ukrainian SU-25's were hit by rebels, with one destroyed and the other damaged, there is every likelihood that anti-Kyiv forces shot the airliner down, but there is still no reasonable explanation as to why Ukrainian flight control ordered MH17 to descend towards such a dangerous area, a manoeuvre which could easily be interpreted by those on the ground as indicating an imminent aerial assault.
To suggest that a few showers prompted the request is ludicrous enough, especially given that photographic evidence shows a fairly benign day, and in any case, is it not the pilot's responsibility to request changes due to weather?
Another reason proposed, was that air traffic was particularly heavy that day, but as several airlines had already stopped flying over the region, and there were only two other passenger planes in the vicinity, this seems equally unlikely.
Reports that Ukrainian military jets were also flying in the area should not be discounted, just because they may not have fired upon the airliner does not mean they played no part in it's ultimate demise, having probably primed the rebel defence forces to expect an attack.
So it's vital we know, why was MH17 diverted?
The possibility that a 'government' which had installed itself by force (during a coup which replaced an elected pro-Russian administration with an unelected pro-American one of equal or greater corruptive capacity) and then set about bombarding it's own population, displacing a million or more ethnic Russians in the other migration crisis [the one that we never hear about], could also be capable of manufacturing a situation in which a civilian airliner was shot down to discredit their opponents, is no more unreasonable than the alternative 'explanations' on offer.
Whether we find the truth or not, there is real doubt, and despite the willingness of our governments to ignore the possibilities, the Dutch people have shown that there is no place in Europe for the sort of leaders of whom such a question can legitimately be asked.
Wednesday, 23 March 2016
EU: Merkel's madness
So the deal is (almost) done.
Our leaders continue to placate the islamic state of Turkey with promises, deals and more money, but this is not enough; it seems, now we have joined them in their preparations for ethnically cleansing Kurdistan of it's Kurdish population.
In coordination with their allies in the other islamic state of daesh (or whatever this week's name is for the Religion of War) the Turks are making ready to move into the Eastern provinces under their control, utilising the distraction of this year's 'Summer Terrorist Offensive', currently intended to be Euro 2016 in France, but no doubt, if our security forces can keep a lid on that event, the islamic murderers will find another.
So what's the big deal?
Visa free access to the EU, that's the big deal.
There are over 14 million Kurds under Turkish control, or should that be occupation? And while the world may not permit another genocide on the scale of that committed on Armenian Christians, Visa free travel will allow thousands or even millions of displaced Kurds to escape (or be driven) into Europe, but will they ever want or be allowed, to return?
Thus it continues, Turkey murders with impunity, and the German chancellor descends further into insanity, dragging the rest of Europe down via the fevered dementia of the latest Reich's leader.
Which century are we living in?
Our leaders continue to placate the islamic state of Turkey with promises, deals and more money, but this is not enough; it seems, now we have joined them in their preparations for ethnically cleansing Kurdistan of it's Kurdish population.
In coordination with their allies in the other islamic state of daesh (or whatever this week's name is for the Religion of War) the Turks are making ready to move into the Eastern provinces under their control, utilising the distraction of this year's 'Summer Terrorist Offensive', currently intended to be Euro 2016 in France, but no doubt, if our security forces can keep a lid on that event, the islamic murderers will find another.
So what's the big deal?
Visa free access to the EU, that's the big deal.
There are over 14 million Kurds under Turkish control, or should that be occupation? And while the world may not permit another genocide on the scale of that committed on Armenian Christians, Visa free travel will allow thousands or even millions of displaced Kurds to escape (or be driven) into Europe, but will they ever want or be allowed, to return?
Thus it continues, Turkey murders with impunity, and the German chancellor descends further into insanity, dragging the rest of Europe down via the fevered dementia of the latest Reich's leader.
Which century are we living in?
Tuesday, 8 March 2016
EU: Talking to Turkey
For those who do not know the language of Islam and the last Caliphate, the result of negotiating with this Turkish, or any other islamic state, will be frustrating and largely unproductive.
To sit down, with a modern Western mentality, and expect to attain some honest meeting of minds is both futile and dangerous.
Turkey's Erdogan has a simple aim, to beat the house of Saud to become the next Caliph, and thereby govern and expand Sunni Islam to eventually conquer and rule the entire non-Muslim world.
For our ignorant negotiators, this may sound like the insane megalomaniac ambitions of a fictional James Bond villain, but that is exactly who they are attempting to reason with and as long as they don't get it, their efforts are futile and threaten the very existence of Western society and culture.
Erdogan is a nasty, deceitful piece of work, only marginally less repugnant than his smirking, sniggering little side-kick of a prime minister, and although we need not like those whom we do business with, we do need to at least respect them as leaders that can be trusted and willing members of the human race, but these desert fantasists live in a world of religious expansionism and hatred, and can neither be trusted nor respected.
Like any extortionist, they take what they can, and then come back for more at the first opportunity, but in this case it is far worse than simply paying a ransom to state sponsored hostage takers. By paying Jizya of 3 billion euro, we are only confirming their own madness and emboldening them to commit more crimes.
So perverse has our relationship with these barbarians become, that we are paying them, not to release their migrant hostages, but to keep them where they are.
To sit down, with a modern Western mentality, and expect to attain some honest meeting of minds is both futile and dangerous.
Turkey's Erdogan has a simple aim, to beat the house of Saud to become the next Caliph, and thereby govern and expand Sunni Islam to eventually conquer and rule the entire non-Muslim world.
For our ignorant negotiators, this may sound like the insane megalomaniac ambitions of a fictional James Bond villain, but that is exactly who they are attempting to reason with and as long as they don't get it, their efforts are futile and threaten the very existence of Western society and culture.
Erdogan is a nasty, deceitful piece of work, only marginally less repugnant than his smirking, sniggering little side-kick of a prime minister, and although we need not like those whom we do business with, we do need to at least respect them as leaders that can be trusted and willing members of the human race, but these desert fantasists live in a world of religious expansionism and hatred, and can neither be trusted nor respected.
Like any extortionist, they take what they can, and then come back for more at the first opportunity, but in this case it is far worse than simply paying a ransom to state sponsored hostage takers. By paying Jizya of 3 billion euro, we are only confirming their own madness and emboldening them to commit more crimes.
So perverse has our relationship with these barbarians become, that we are paying them, not to release their migrant hostages, but to keep them where they are.
Saturday, 13 February 2016
EU: Don't get fooled again!
Watching George Galloway and Nigel Farage talking European Referendum on RT's Sputnik this morning, brought together the two British politicians with whom I have the most, and least, in common, to discuss the one subject that I am definitely least certain about.
RT have yet to upload the broadcast, so perhaps you can enjoy this instead while reading on.
They also have the rare distinction of being two of Britain's most eloquent and honest politicians, so it should be no surprise, that I was persuaded by their arguments to leave the EU on many points, and can unreservedly say that there is a convincing case to be made for British exit.
But, and please excuse the illusion, but this really is a huge but; there is more to staying or leaving Europe at this time, than at any other, in over 300 years.
We are no longer talking about political niceties or our perceived loss of sovereignty to the EU Commission, what we are (or should) be talking about today, is the very end of Western Europe as we know it.
That may sound extreme, but it is becoming ever more imminent the less it is talked about, and more likely to happen for exactly the same reason.
So, if George and Nigel were recommending a strategic withdrawal, in the manner of Dunkirk, so that we might recoup and gather our forces, and remain an island fortress; that we were leaving, in order to preserve and defend Western Democracy and Freedom, then I would be even more persuaded to join the impending Brexit.
But these two politicians are the exception, not the rule, and I can only see us left defenceless to the cries of 'We're on our own now, and must make allegiances with our 'other' closest allies'.
Does anyone really doubt that would mean TTIP on steroids, and Saudi petrodollars deciding every single issue in Britain tomorrow, rather than just the half they influence today?
Given the choice, and it may actually come to this, I would choose to fight and die as a European, rather than face a slow, dishonourable death by creeping sharia.
Unlike the Battle for Vienna, we now have the enemy in our midst, thanks in no small part to Frau Merkel, but also our own profligate and corrupt elites.
And that is no exaggeration.
If only 1% of the current undocumented and unknown migrant influx, are committed jihadis (and even the most conservative estimates are much higher); and if only 10% of them are jihadi sympathisers (and again, estimates put the numbers as much, much higher), then, do we, or do we not, have a problem of potentially massive proportions?
So my only question for Nigel and George, is this: Were you really talking about a brave and noble exit from the ravages of European bureaucracy, or were you simply suggesting we join the rats as they depart the sinking ship that we once called Civilization?
RT have yet to upload the broadcast, so perhaps you can enjoy this instead while reading on.
They also have the rare distinction of being two of Britain's most eloquent and honest politicians, so it should be no surprise, that I was persuaded by their arguments to leave the EU on many points, and can unreservedly say that there is a convincing case to be made for British exit.
But, and please excuse the illusion, but this really is a huge but; there is more to staying or leaving Europe at this time, than at any other, in over 300 years.
We are no longer talking about political niceties or our perceived loss of sovereignty to the EU Commission, what we are (or should) be talking about today, is the very end of Western Europe as we know it.
That may sound extreme, but it is becoming ever more imminent the less it is talked about, and more likely to happen for exactly the same reason.
So, if George and Nigel were recommending a strategic withdrawal, in the manner of Dunkirk, so that we might recoup and gather our forces, and remain an island fortress; that we were leaving, in order to preserve and defend Western Democracy and Freedom, then I would be even more persuaded to join the impending Brexit.
But these two politicians are the exception, not the rule, and I can only see us left defenceless to the cries of 'We're on our own now, and must make allegiances with our 'other' closest allies'.
Does anyone really doubt that would mean TTIP on steroids, and Saudi petrodollars deciding every single issue in Britain tomorrow, rather than just the half they influence today?
Given the choice, and it may actually come to this, I would choose to fight and die as a European, rather than face a slow, dishonourable death by creeping sharia.
Unlike the Battle for Vienna, we now have the enemy in our midst, thanks in no small part to Frau Merkel, but also our own profligate and corrupt elites.
And that is no exaggeration.
If only 1% of the current undocumented and unknown migrant influx, are committed jihadis (and even the most conservative estimates are much higher); and if only 10% of them are jihadi sympathisers (and again, estimates put the numbers as much, much higher), then, do we, or do we not, have a problem of potentially massive proportions?
So my only question for Nigel and George, is this: Were you really talking about a brave and noble exit from the ravages of European bureaucracy, or were you simply suggesting we join the rats as they depart the sinking ship that we once called Civilization?
Friday, 12 February 2016
My God
With all the fuss surrounding our discovery of the gravitational waves that Einstein predicted almost exactly 100 years ago, a little celebratory rhyming seems in order.
First published during a lively debate on the strangest notion, that, despite the koran's continual railing against Christianity in general, and Christians in particular, there might still be substance to islam's claim to somehow share the same God.
Anyway, this was my contribution, and, while not without merit, it was rushed to meet the deadline and I remained unhappy with an adjacent rhyme in the last two stanzas, so that's fixed, and here it is again.
First published during a lively debate on the strangest notion, that, despite the koran's continual railing against Christianity in general, and Christians in particular, there might still be substance to islam's claim to somehow share the same God.
Anyway, this was my contribution, and, while not without merit, it was rushed to meet the deadline and I remained unhappy with an adjacent rhyme in the last two stanzas, so that's fixed, and here it is again.
My God stood there before me,
And proud, He called my name.
Then showed how I might find Him,
In a single drop of rain.
He helped me when I faltered,
Knocked me down when I excelled,
But stood by my bad decisions
And praised when I did well.
Indeed, my God was crucified,
But life is no more tragic,
For He also walked in Buddha's shoes
And was baptized by St. Patrick.
So when you meet your Maker,
As meet Him we all must,
Prepare to meet a loving God,
Both tolerant and just.
Fear not that He'll chastise you,
Or ask 'How did you come?'
For His welcome is as great,
As from the Father, or the Son.
My God is Revelation,
The whole that we can know,
And Time & Space no more, than just
His footprints in the snow.
So, with a Universe of questions
You'll ask, but only one,
On bended knee, you'll simply say
'My God, what have I done?'
Courtesy www.JihadWatch.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)