Oxford Migration Observatory Observes That ...

The number of EU migrants who arrived in Britain under the Free Movement migration regime may have been undercounted by as much as 55 per cent.

Oxford University’s Migration Observatory has found that the number of European Union migrants applying for settlement in the United Kingdom after Brexit is far higher than the number of migrants which should have been present in the country, according to the official estimates given to the British people.

The Government had estimated that some 3.8 million European Union citizens would apply for the post-Brexit settlement scheme, but that number is likely far higher, according to the Migration Observatory report.

The report found that 155 per cent of the believed number of Bulgarians residing in the country have applied for the settlement scheme, 119 per cent of the number of Romanians, 115 per cent of the number of Italians, 111 per cent of the number of Spaniards, 107 per cent the number of Hungarians, and 103 per cent of the number of Slovakians. Breitbart.

Boris Is Back.

Real 'Hate Crimes' Not To Be Prosecuted, huh?

The Scottish government has published a bill that would decriminalise blasphemy, more than 175 years after the last case was prosecuted.

The devolved administration in Edinburgh said the continued criminalisation of blasphemy, which falls under hate crime laws, “no longer reflects the kind of society in which we live”.

Justice minister Humza Yousaf said the law would be modernised and also cover discrimination against age, disability, race, religion and sexual orientation.

“Stirring up of hatred can contribute to a social atmosphere in which discrimination is accepted as normal,” he said. Guardian.

Kim Jong-Un Is Apparently Dead: Hell Beckons Whether He Is Dead Now Or Hereafter.

Report below may only be rumour.

'Kim Jong-un dead' – multiple sources claim North Korean dictator died Saturday night.

KIM JONG-UN, North Korea's Supreme Leader is dead - according to multiple sources coming out of North Korea and the Far East, though due to the hyper-secretive nature of the pariah state the exact picture remains unclear tonight.

By REBECCA PERRING, Express.

Please pray for North Korea that decent leadership will now emerge, whatever the situation.

Birdies.

Satoshi Kanazawa

Why Modern Feminism Is Illogical, Unnecessary, and Evil.

Feminism is the radical notion that women are men.

Posted Aug 02, 2009

Although it is not Susan Pinker’s intention in writing it, reading her excellent book, The Sexual Paradox: Troubled Boys, Gifted Girls, and the Real Difference Between the Sexes cannot help but further reinforce my view that modern feminism in the 21st century is simultaneously illogical, unnecessary, and evil.

First, modern feminism is illogical because, as Pinker points out, it is based on the vanilla assumption that, but for lifelong gender socialization and pernicious patriarchy, men and women are on the whole identical. 

An insurmountable body of evidence by now conclusively demonstrates that the vanilla assumption is false; men and women are inherently, fundamentally, and irreconcilably different. Any political movement based on such a spectacularly incorrect assumption about human nature — that men and women are and should be identical — is doomed to failure.

Further, modern feminism is unnecessary, because its entire raison d’être is the unquestioned assumption that women are and have historically always been worse off than men. 

The fact that men and women are fundamentally different and want different things makes it difficult to compare their welfare directly, to assess which sex is better off.

For example, the fact that women make less money than men cannot by itself be evidence that women are worse off than men, any more than the fact that men own fewer pairs of shoes than women cannot be evidence that men are worse off than women. 

However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare — longevity and reproductive success — women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.

It is also not true that women are the “weaker sex.” Pinker documents the fact that boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically, than girls and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care. 

Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives. The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men’s average life expectancy is shorter than women’s. This, incidentally, is the reason why slightly more boys than girls are born — 105 boys to 100 girls — so that there will be roughly 100 boys to 100 girls when they reach puberty.

Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. 

Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception.  It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.

Finally, modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy. 

In a forthcoming article in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania show that American women over the last 35 years have steadily become less and less happy, as they have made more and more money relative to men. 

Women used to be a lot happier than men despite the fact that they made much less money than men. The sex gap in happiness (in women’s favor) has declined in the past 35 years as the sex gap in pay (in men’s favor) narrowed. Now women make as much as, sometimes even more than, men do. As a result, today women are just as unhappy, or even more unhappy than, men are. As I explain in a previous post, money does not make women happy.

The feminist insistence that women behave like men and make as much money as men do may not be the sole reason for women’s rising levels of dissatisfaction with life; a greater incidence of divorce and single motherhood may also contribute to it. At any event, the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny. Men’s happiness has not declined in the last 35 years, because there has not been masculinism; nobody has insisted on the radical notion that men are women, although, as Christina Hoff Sommers documents, this may be happening in our current war against boys.

We Do Well To Remember.

The China Problem.

With the UK and other Western nations turning to China for vaccines, masks, and ventilators, Mr Farage said last month that the coronavirus pandemic had exposed the developed world’s dependence on China in its supply chains.

“The West’s supply chains have become too dependent on China,” the Brexit Party leader said, adding: “To see China now exploiting a crisis that they have caused to spread their influence further and deeper into Europe should send a chill down our spines.” Breitbart.

Blogger: I have been making this very point for at least five years!

Quite!

Somebody Has Come Out of The Covid Crisis REALLY Badly!

Journalists - especially those on The Daily Briefing From Downing Street - have been shameful.

They listen to the experts and then ask questions of the minister which have already been covered in the same briefing. It happens almost every day.

They also specialise in asking questions which have been previously covered on multiple occasions.

Questions utterly devoid of a single whit of common sense are de rigueur.

So many just use it to take a wholly unnecessary pop at the government - and with malice aforethought.

Galloway On Brexit.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1273741/EU-Brexit-talks-George-Galloway-Brussels-financial-bailout-Barnier-Boris-Johnson

The Misuse of the Word ‘Progressive’

By

 Jake Schreiner

 -

September 21, 2017.

Modern progressives define themselves as people that are forward thinkers; in part in matters concerning politics. One study on what it means to be progress is called “Progressive Thinking: A Synthesis of Progressive Values, Beliefs, and Positions.” The study concludes that the approach of progressives is summarized by the idea that everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does his or her fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. These are very noble ideas that most all non-sociopathic people want for society.

Progressive ideas are new ideas, innovative ideas and original ideas. For example, the nuclear power industry is an overregulated industry attempting to compete with oversubsidized industries, like Big Oil. Molten salt reactors are essentially meltdown-proof, and can burn spent nuclear fuel. Yes, that is correct: The world has enough nuclear waste to power itself for decades. Fear-mongering by liberals and conservatives have snuffed out this possibility since the beginning of nuclear power. If nuclear power was afforded an even playing field against Big Oil, there would be enormous free market incentives to get these new generation reactors built. Therefore, this enormous and stable clean source of energy would get built without any cost to the taxpayer. The result would be cleaner energy, less waste and a safer production of energy compared to oil and coal. This would be a truly progressive move for society. Instead, modern ‘progressives’ want to bounce around old tired ideas under the guise of being a progressive idea, and this is clearly a serious problem for society that snuffs out actual progressive ideas.

Liberals use the word ‘progressive’ as a distraction, because clearly liberal progressive politics is not progressive in 2017. Even though their goals are centered on progress, their ideas are not progressive. An example of an old idea is that in 1950, it was thought that burning trash would be an excellent source of energy. Since then, it has been realized that burning trash is a terrible idea; prior to that realization trash burning was a truly progressive idea with the progressive goal of conserving energy. A lot of ideas were progressive; capitalism at various stages was a very progressive idea. The Founding Fathers had extremely progressive ideas; as did Karl Marx and so many others. The ideas of those people have since been tested, and are no longer progressive ideas.

All of the ideas that modern progressive Americans have are old ideas that a country has tried previously. Let’s think about this from an engineering perspective: If an American engineer wants to try to build something China has tested and built but failed, the American engineer is not progressive. Among other things, he’s stealing intellectual property and foolish. Yet, the state of our current politics is that if a person wants to implement a failed political idea that was previously tested in a different country, that person is hailed a progressive. This is nonsensical. The scientific community believes ‘one test is worth a thousand expert opinions.’ There is no idea that American progressives have that has not already been tested. Germany, the Nordic countries, and East European countries all have some adaption of the current liberal ideas. Obviously the USSR, Nazi Germany and North Korea are more extreme tests.

There are clearly no new ideas being bounced around by ‘progressives.’ In today’s time, we are fortunate enough to not have to gamble with what type of policy works. Like the Founding Fathers or Karl Marx had to. All the socialist policies currently being discussed by liberals have been tested and failed in another country; to try to use a failed idea is just absent-minded thinking and is the very opposite of progressive thinking. We need to regain focus in America and not squander the knowledge gained from other countries failed policies. With all due respect, please, call a spade a spade and stop calling old failed ideas, ‘progressive ideas.’

* Jake Schreiner is a family man, motorcycle enthusiast and U.S. military veteran. He believes a free market is critical for America’s future, and is firmly against unjustified U.S. military interventions.

Birdie.

Oh, Dear. Trouble In Labour's Paradise?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1271498/labour-party-news-legal-action-anti-semitism-report-keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn

Keynes Was Wrong.

One of the many attractions of Keynes is that, like a good magician, he makes you think twice about what you think you see and know. And the General Theory is full of great tricks. Most people vaguely familiar with Keynes' economics associate his counter-laissez-faire views with the observation that nominal wages are "sticky" downward (that is, workers resist wage cuts), and that, in consequence, the free play of the price mechanism fails to steer the economy toward full employment.

But he goes well beyond this in the General Theory, arguing, contrary to classical economics, that even without assuming any fixing of prices there can be a stable, persistent equilibrium with chronic, large-scale unemployment.

How is this possible? Keynes said that the answer lies in the community's propensity to under-consume: "The psychology of the community is such that when aggregate real income is increased, aggregate consumption is increased, but not by so much as income. Hence employers would make a loss if the whole of increased employment were to be devoted to satisfying the increased demand for immediate consumption."

That is, employers will only hire if the increased demand (which would be brought about by the hiring) would be directed at either consumption or investment. What economists before Keynes had missed, explains Krugman, is the significance of the fact that "individuals have the option of accumulating money rather than purchasing real goods and services." Or, as Keynes biographer Robert Skidelsky observes, "Money is the root of all evil." This, he writes, is "almost a sub-text of the General Theory."

A demand for money, in Keynes' thinking, is the equivalent of a demand for nothingness--in the sense that, when people want to hold money, the extra production arising from hiring a new worker would fail to find any market. Keynesians call it "ineffective demand."

So unless the government steps in to stimulate investment spending equivalent to the income aspiring workers would hoard, their aspirations would go unfulfilled and they would remain unemployed. Keynes' theory is therefore preternaturally consistent with good, humanist sentiments, as it implies that labor is manifestly not a commodity: Lowering its price will not increase demand.

But is this true? Does holding money really mean that part of the income required for the absorption of the production associated with it is permanently lost, which is what is required to create a permanent state of under-employment?

No. This is most easily seen using the model of a commodity money system, such as one based on gold. When people demand more money, rather than consumer or investment goods, it increases the demand for labor to mine, move and monetize gold. Unemployment rises, of course, when demand shifts from any product to another, as it takes time for labor to shift from one sector to another. But the demand for money is not "ineffective demand": It is no different from the demand for anything else.

The argument for the case of money that isn't convertible into gold, such as our own, is analogous. The public sells securities, instead of gold, to the central bank in order to increase their cash holdings. Securities are the counterpart to valuable goods stored or sold on credit.

Again, there is no "ineffective demand": To demand money is to demand real wealth capable of being monetized within the framework of the existing monetary system. So just as increased demand for gold does not itself diminish the purchasing power of the market, an increased demand for money does not itself do so.

The skeptical reader will rightly conclude that the Keynesians must have a riposte to this argument. Indeed, they have many. But all of them are founded on ad hoc "sticky wages" type assumptions. Nobel economist James Tobin, for example, in a spirited 1948 defense of the General Theory, offered observations such as "the supply of money is assumed constant." Explain that to Ben Bernanke.

What does all this matter? That is, what should we do or not do today to get ourselves onto a sustainable path out of recession?

Well, there are two brands of remedy. The first are government measures intended to eliminate obstacles to the adaptation of supply to changing demand. This is the now much-maligned classical brand of remedy. The second are fiscal and other government measures designed to force demand to adapt to supply. This is the Keynesian brand of remedy, now beloved in Washington, based on the belief that under-employment is a congenital defect of the economic system.

Each huge dose of this second remedy serves to further obliterate the functioning of the price mechanism, thus necessitating another huge dose. In the long run, this almost certainly means crippling debt, inflation or both. But Keynes, of course, advised against thinking too much about the long run.

Benn Steil is director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, author of Lessons of the Financial Crisis (CFR) and co-author of Money, Markets, and Sovereignty (Yale University Press, 2009).

Faith Required.

Methinks The Lady Doth Protest Too Much.

Meghan Markle brands her father a liar and DENIES knowing that her closest friends would give interviews criticizing Thomas Markle and revealing her intimate letter in run-up to Royal wedding.

Hebrews 1.

3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

God the Father and The Son Are ONE. God the Father, The Holy Spirit and The Son Are ONE. 

We have a triune God.

A Worthy Site From A Gentleman of My Acquaintance.

https://www.amen.org.uk/

Covid: Melanie's Awesome Logic Prevails.

https://www.melaniephillips.com/ghastly-mirror-image-lethal-group-think/

I Am Astonished That ....

... when I ring friends, so very many are telling me that they are not walking during the Covid-19 crisis.
Almost all of these do walk regularly but have now suspended the exercise which is the simplest and best for people of our age.
They have missed a super April - clearly the best of my lifetime; I am guessing that most have no exercise plan; many live near countryside; nobody seems to live on routes with throngs of people. If you are careful, chances of picking up the virus are effectively zero.
Why sit at home and put weight on?

I am Fascinated By Jan Van Eyck.

https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/art-design/2017/10/through-looking-glass-what-pre-raphaelites-took-van-eyck