Saturday, January 02, 2016
Daily Mirror Can't Even Attack Cameron Fairly.
David Cameron's New Year video message promises to tackle poverty -
despite 'shameful' track record of waging war on the poor.
There are just so
many places where Cameron is rightly vulnerable to the severest of criticism but
to accuse him of 'waging war on the poor' is just the purest of left-wing
malice: so typical of this objectionable rag.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/9-pieces-bad-news-tories-7031791 - Now this is far closer to being a legitimate
attack.
Betting Ads On Sky.
Labour Donor Supports Brexit.
John Mills: Top Labour donor is unveiled as leader of Vote Leave EU campaign.
ONE of Labour’s biggest donors has been named as the leader of a campaign to get Britain out of the EU, the Daily Express can reveal.
My Theory On The Origins Of Leftwing Thought Processes.
I have four possibilities in mind why people become leftwing:
1) As my friend suggests - and in all seriousness - (as reported
on this Blog) it is some kind of brain affliction. I had never considered this but have found the idea impossible to refute - especially as it occurs so often in people who seem, in all other respects, to be normal and even intelligent.
2) There is a clear link between atheism, liberal christianity and leftist ideas.
3) It is purely satanic - after all, we are at war with 'principalities and powers'.
4) And the suggestion which, of the four, is maybe the kindest - they have become susceptible to some form of subtle brainwashing. The clear evidence for this is the influence placed onto young people, particularly at university, via the media and through unworthy heroes. This influence is generally a part of their growing up process and becoming part of the mindless left is the result. It is a condition which has proven to be curable in many cases - all it takes is to confront the realities of life. Sadly, all too often, all too many who fall under the influence of trade unions or who work for government or council agencies prove to be beyond rescue.
Please understand that this is not yet the finished theory - but rather, a starting point - a working hypothesis, if you will.
1) As my friend suggests - and in all seriousness - (as reported
on this Blog) it is some kind of brain affliction. I had never considered this but have found the idea impossible to refute - especially as it occurs so often in people who seem, in all other respects, to be normal and even intelligent.
2) There is a clear link between atheism, liberal christianity and leftist ideas.
3) It is purely satanic - after all, we are at war with 'principalities and powers'.
Please understand that this is not yet the finished theory - but rather, a starting point - a working hypothesis, if you will.
Friday, January 01, 2016
Norway: HORROR Story For The New Year.
Norway Begins Adoption Process for 5 Children Seized From Christian Parents
Norwegian authorities have placed five Christian children in foster care to await a controversial adoption process after they were seized from their parents who taught them that God punishes sin. Christian News.
(I know who God is going to punish!)
Nigel: Fishing Farce One More Reason To Quit EU.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/630185/Farage-fury-EU-ban-anglers-keeping-fish-UKIP-European-Union
Why So Much Tory Bias Against Marriage?
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/630628/Tories-prejudiced-against-marriage-asks-Ross-Clark
Jonathan - Awesome Article In The Journal Advocating Free Speech.
The trend is to propose banning anything that we happen to dislike or
disapprove of. Don’t like Donald Trump? Good, neither do I! He’s a rich,
arrogant buffoon with zero understanding of politics running for President of America. His disgusting comments about women,
Ebola, and horrible bragging about his wealth put me off him long before he
mentioned U.S. immigration.
Want to ban him from coming to the UK? No; we should be better than that!
Trump wanted to ban Muslim immigration to the USA, so half a million (minus
those who manipulated it by multiple-signing) retaliate with a petition wanting
to ban Trump from Britain. What an irony: does anyone seriously think ‘let’s ban
someone to show how much we oppose banning people’?
Then there’s Tyson Fury. A heavyweight boxer, for pity’s sake. He’s said
some not-very-nice things. Boxing clubs are pretty down-to-earth places. Heaven
forbid, there may be swearing and macho comments. But they keep lots of young
people away from a life of crime.
All we had to do was not publicise Fury’s comments (partly an act we’ve
fallen for hook, line and sinker anyway).
We could recognise he’s pretty good at punching people, that he’s only
the third ever undisputed (lineal) heavyweight champion of the world hailing
from our shores.
Instead we had petitions to ban him from the Sports Personality of the
Year award. What a waste of energy; he didn’t win it anyway. Are the calls for a
ban racist; do we say they disrespect Fury’s gypsy heritage? (And before
anyone tries to ban me for using the word ‘gypsy’, it’s Fury’s word – he calls
himself the ‘gypsy King’)
We’ve seen Dr David Starkey, who years ago uttered mildly
unpleasant remarks about ‘black culture’, banned. The banning and gagging
brigade recently re-interpreted the comments as targeting all black people,
complained to Cambridge University - who took leave of their senses, forgot that
universities are about freedom of speech, and airbrushed
him.
Ivory-tower academics often have some odd views, and when Sir Tim
Hunt expressed unfortunate comments about women scientists the internet rightly
pilloried him. That wasn’t enough for the new thought police; a valuable Nobel
prize-winner had to be sacrificed on the political correctness
altar.
Have you ever seen the film A Beautiful Mind? Battling paranoid
schizophrenia, John Nash – arguably the greatest mathematician of our generation
- returned to academia and thrived. The real life account is even more moving
than the film, but I wonder: if the Nash of the 1950s and 1960s were here today,
would he be hounded out of academia, not given a chance to produce his
brilliant, Nobel prize-winning research?
A few days ago, Oriel College at Oxford bowed to pressure from a
student petition, announcing that it would ‘consult’ about removing a statue of
their benefactor Cecil Rhodes.
Yes, Rhodes indeed did some bad stuff – as many people of many
cultures did at that time. No one’s defending that. But history is about the
‘warts and all’, it’s understanding that the romantic notions we have about the
great Queen Elizabeth might not be quite as we understand
them.
It’s understanding that the road to the present is as red in
tooth and claw as nature itself, and recognising those visionaries like William
Wilberforce who effected change.
Where do requests for bans end? Do those who wish to ban Rhodes
for historic racism extend that same logic and want to ban Ghandi too (google
‘Ghandi kaffir remarks’ if you want to see what I mean)?
The Rhodes Trust does so much for Oxford; the Rhodes-Mandela
Foundation pays for students from poor black townships to attend university.
I’ve seen no spoilt rich white kids call for the banning of Mandela, or for
those black students to refuse their grants. Yet.
Ban unpalatable history and what remains is meaningless, sterile,
homogeneous revisionism. How illiberal, how authoritarian, have those
(generally) left-wingers become in their quest to airbrush history and curb
dissent? They’ve even attacked Iranian feminist Maryam Namazie. Her ‘crime’?
Opposing extremist interpretations of Islam which would execute
homosexuals.
In their topsy-turvy world, violent extremism’s okay; supporting
killing people for being gay’s okay, but Tyson Fury possibly disliking them
isn’t. Labour’s Shadow Chancellor pulling out a mass-murderer’s Little Red Book
in the Commons is amazing, but mild prejudice is disgusting. Confused
yet?
When Oxford and Cambridge are at the forefront of caving in to
political correctness and pressure, there is something wrong. Our academic
institutions have for centuries been the bastions of freedom of
speech.
I grew up proud to live in a nation of freedom of speech,
choosing to challenge unpalatable and extreme views publicly rather than
repression. Voltaire’s ‘I despise what you say but would defend to the death
your right to say it’ is a personal maxim.
Myleene Klass famously summed up Ed Miliband at the General
Election, saying “You can’t just point at things and tax
them”.
My message to the Left-authoritarian types who are so vocal
online: You can’t just point at people and ban them. Let’s make 2016 the year of
freedom of speech.
Jonathan Arnott is Ukip MEP for the North
East.
Half A Trillion £s Paid To EU Since 1973.
Any money we got back came with EU 'strings' attached! And the amount paid in is on the INCREASE!
Gandhi The Racist - Is He To Be Judged Retrospectively?
Gandhi was passionately prejudiced towards black Africans, as clearly
displayed by his own writings over his 21-year stint in Gandhi’s writings during
his 20 years in South Africa. He promoted racial hatred, in theory, and
campaigned for racial segregation, in practice. In his newspaper, The
Indian Opinion, he frequently wrote diatribes against the black community.
Of particular concern to him was any contact between Indians and Africans. The
following series of quotes, which is but a small selection of his extensive
writings on the topic, documents Gandhi’s intense hatred for equal treatment of
blacks and Indians, whether in culture or under the law. Indeed, his efforts to
improve the status of the Indian community in South Africa were primarily
focused on ensuring Africans were treated worse than Indians. His goal, thus was
greater social inequality rather than universal equality.
All quotes taken from Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi
(CWMG).
Sept. 26, 1896: “Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation
sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the
level of the raw Kaffir* whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is
to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his
life in indolence and nakedness.” — Vol. 1, p. 410
Sept. 24, 1903: “We believe as much in the purity of race as we think
they do… We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the
predominating race.” — Vol. 3, p. 256
Feb. 15, 1904: “Under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the
Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I
must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian
population.” — Vol. 3, p. 429
Sept. 5, 1905: “The decision to open the school for all Coloured children
is unjust to the Indian community, and is a departure from the assurance given…
that the school will be reserved for Indian children only.” — Vol. 4, p. 402
OFMI.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
