The Daily Stirrer is constantly looking at the news and trying to dig out the stiory behind the story. With latest news that does not make mainstream media and controversial reporting and opinion, we are loking forward to bringing you inside information on the disintegration of the European Union, the replacement of the Petrodollar as global reserve currency, the continuing decay of the USA (unless Trump can neutralise the authoritarian warmongers of the deep state, and we don't think he can) and the ongoing problems caused by the flood of illegal immigrants from the third world to Europe and North America. We certainly do live in Interesting Times.
Daily Stirrer, November 2018
27 November, 2018
'Brits aren’t STUPID!' Brexiteer brilliantly DISMANTLES no-deal Brexit scare storiesBrexit supporting businessman Richard Tice has fired back at no deal Brexit scaremongering and said British people “are not stupid” and Remainers should “get real”. Mr Tice, the founder of Brexit campaign group Leave Means Leave, insisted the “British bulldog spirit will rise up” in the event of a no deal Brexit. Mr Tice told reporters: “Isn’t it dreadful? We are not going to be able to watch Netflix. We are going to run out of cheese for our sandwiches. I mean, come on. Get real. The British people are not that stupid. They rejected Project Fear round one in 2016. And everything I hear from people is they completely reject it now. "They know that it is just nonsense. "They also know that, actually, the British bulldog spirit will rise up.” Mr Tice has said a no deal Brexit is “no problem” for Britain but could be a “massive problem” for the European Union. He said: “We have got a very simple message – no deal, no problem, no money. No deal is no problem.” The entrepreneur issued a warning to the EU and said: “We will sort it out. Smart businesspeople will find ways to jump over hurdles and get around barriers that silly politicians try to put in our place. “Guess what we might do? We might buy more Jeeps from America and less Mercedes from Germany. We might buy more New World wine from around the world and less French wine. “And because we are a very powerful base of consumers are purchasers of EU products, actually, with a bit of changing our consumer power that would make a huge difference.” Whitehall’s Operation Yellowhammer has claimed that leaving the EU without a deal could spark a national crisis, as crucial chemicals use to purify water are imported from mainland Europe. Ignore such claims, they are just wank.
26 November, 2018
UK Parliament Seizes Internal Facebook Documents
Zuckerberg - his prison mug shot?
24 november, 2018
Merkel: EU States Must Prepare to Hand National Sovereignty over to Brussels
Merkel and Macron - he likes them old
In an unprecedented fit of honesty about the true aims of the European Union, Germany's Chancellor Merkel and France’s President Macron have revealed that in the interests of future peace and prosperity, EU member states should be happy to give the bureaucratic dictatorship in Brussels more power over their laws, economic and social policies, not less as many member states are currently demanding. For that, concessions were necessary – “in an orderly procedure”, a joint communique stated.
In particular, the French President Emmanuel Macron should like this statement as he has been running around screaming about the need for 'a proper EU army," can't think of anything more likely to provoke the Russians myself.
German Chancellor, Hausfrau - Volksfuhrer Angela Merkel has campaigned over many years for the transfer of national sovereignties to the European Union and in retuirn for her sinister efforts has seen the EU membership become more divided and more mistrustful about German economic power. “Nation-states must today – should today, I say – be ready to give sovereignty,” said the outgoing CDU leader on Wednesday at an event organized by the Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation on “Parliamentarism between globalisation and national sovereignty” in Berlin.
“But of course in an orderly procedure,” Merkel curtailed. The states must always be responsible for such contracts, first the respective national parliament would have to make the decision. Which must be just about the most meaningless of all meaningless statements ever uttered by a duplicitous, deceitful, power addicted politician trying to conceal from voters the fact that they are up to no good.
Merkel has previously warned against nationalism in the Bundestag in view of the controversial UN migration pact. “Either you are one of those who believe they can solve everything on their own and only have to think about themselves. That is nationalism in its purest form. This is not patriotism. Because patriotism is, if you include others in the German interests and win-win situations are accepted.”
Merkel condemned the fact that, in discussions over whether Germany should join a fast-growing number of nations pulling out of the UN migration pact, debate over which has continued to split her own party. “There were [politicians] who believed that they could decide when these agreements are no longer valid because they are representing The People”.
“[But] the people are individuals who are living in a country, they are not a group who define themselves as the [German] people,” she stressed.
Earlier in the day, the Chancellor, who had had previously accused critics of her plans to sign up to the Global Compact for Safe and Orderly Migration, which declares migration ‘inevitable, necessary and desirable’, of advocating “nationalism in its purest form”.
“That is not patriotism, because patriotism is when you include others in German interests and accept win-win situations,” insisted Merkel, which only demonstrates that she has little understanding of what nationalism and patriotism mean. And of course, that she heartily approves of the way in her multicultural dystopia, dark skinned men who follow a brutal, barbaric, bronze age religion have been given a free pass to rape German women.
She could more honestly have said, "Either you are one of those who believe they can solve everything on their own and only have to think about themselves or one like Germany that talks about cooperation while sneakily trying to undermine partners and establish economic hegemony (or The Fourth Reich,) by stealth.
French President Emmanuel Macron demanded more Europe on Sunday at a guest speech in the Bundestag and also a stronger handover of national sovereignty. Every country must share decision-making power, and decide together with other states on its foreign policy, its immigration and development policy, he said, failing to mention that Germany and the cheese eating surrender monkeys of France would share the decision making and everybody else would have the right to agree.
21 November, 2018
EU clashes with Rome over Italy's budget plans, again
Picture: Deutsche Welle
You thought Brexit was the only problem the EU was struggling with at the moment? How wrong were you?
The EU Commission's latest rejection of Italy;s budget is the first step in disciplinary procedures that, in typical schol bully stylem the bastards of Brussels threaten will lead to big fines and economic sanctions. The EU Commission said Italy has "seriously violated" EU budget rules when rejecting again Italy's proposed budget on Wednesday.
The Commission confirmed its assessment that "Italy's draft budget plan is in particularly serious non-compliance" with EU debt rules, Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis said in Brussels. It is woth reminding ourselves here that when Italy, with its traditionally weak currency, was bullied into joining the European Single Currency System (the Euro) after the EU had ben its own rules to breaking point in a politically motivated move to force weaker economies into financial integration, thus advancing the Federal European Superstate agenda.
Dombrovskis said with the Italian government's current plan "we see a risk of the country sleepwalking into instability." (Well he's Greek so he'd know.)
"We conclude that the opening of a debt-based excessive deficit procedure is warranted," he added, referring to the EU's disciplinary process against member states for over-spending, a policy which has impoverished millions of people in Greece, Spain, Portgal, Ireland and Italy as EU imposed austerity policies have destroyed the spending power of wages.
The Commission's move is mandated for countries whose debt levels are above the Eurozone threshold and who are not doing enough to reduce borrowing. Unfortunately not all countries are as strong economically as Germany, and with their weak economies tied to the German industrial powerhouse they cannot operayte within the eU rules.
Italy's government, led by a populist coalition of left leanin Five-Star Movement and the right-of-centre Lega, has remained largely defiant towards Brussels. On Wednesday, Matteo Salvini, Italy's interior minister, deputy prime minister and de fact leader of the government, said any EU sanctions against Rome would be "disrespectful" towards Italians.
"We are convinced about the numbers in our budget. We will talk about it in a year's time," he told reporters. Rome and the EU Commission had been at odds for weeks over Italy's budget after it had been rejected by the Commission a first time.
Last week Italy submitted a revised version of its budget with only minor adjustments that did not appease the Commission and EU member states.
Britain's enemy is not Russia but its own ruling class, UN report confirms
As the UK political establishment rips itself to pieces over Brexit, a far greater crisis continues to afflict millions of victims of Tory austerity. A devastating UN report into poverty in the UK provides incontrovertible evidence that the enemy of the British people is the very ruling class that has gone out of its way these past few years to convince them it is Russia.
Professor Philip Alston, in his capacity as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, spent two weeks touring the United Kingdom. He did so investigating the impact of eight years of one of the most extreme austerity programs among advanced G20 economies in response to the 2008 financial crash and subsequent global recession.
What he found was evidence of a systematic, wilful, concerted and brutal economic war unleashed by the country's right-wing Tory establishment against the poorest and most vulnerable section of British society – upending the lives of millions of people who were not responsible for the aforementioned financial crash and recession but who have been forced to pay the price.READ MORE on the UN Report
20 November, 2018
The end of the affair – and does it also herald the fall of a government?
When the Conservative Party announced its marriage of convenience to the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, many of us had tears in our eyes.
We were upset that Theresa May had found some stooges who were willing to prop up a minority Conservative government for the sake of a large bung – £1 billion, almost half of which has been delivered – and we were weeping for the future of the country we love.
The honeymoon period – in which we watched the DUP supporting the Tories’ terrible policies time and time again – was bitterly uncomfortable, and no doubt many of us wondered if we would be able to stomach it for the full five-year term of current Tory governments. Fortunately, it seems unlikely that we will have to put up with it that long.And it was the Conservative Party, the partner that needed the alliance to succeed, that destoyed thus unholy union when Theresa May cheated on her partner. May went off to Brussels promising to negotiate a deal that would give British voters all they wanted from Brexit without conceding the EU's deman that Northern Ireland be effectively handed over to Dublin. Theresa May, one of those stupid, arrogant middle class women who thinks she is posher than she actually is, ran off to the EU, jumped into bed with the bureaucrats and spread her legs (Oh Gawd ... it doesn't bear thinking about does it?) May ran off to the EU and promised her punters that Brexit would include a deal on the Northern Irish border that the DUP could not tolerate, as it allots special treatment to NI that is not afforded to the rest of the United Kingdom. It also includes clauses The Labour Party will never agree to and some that half the Coservative MPs will vote against. Either she had not mentioned any of this to her MPs, The House of Commons or her government partners, or she maybe she thinks she's Hausfrau - Volksfuhrer Angela Merkel and she didn’t need to because all the men in parliament are pussy whipped. Tories have such a monumental sense of entitlement that she probably thought the DUP was lucky to be in a “confidence and supply” deal with her and would accept that HER Brexit deal would include a deal on the Northern Irish border that makes the province an EU annex. Stupid cow.
19 November, 2018
Have Mainstream Media Seen Through Facebook And Google At Lastposted by Ian R Thorpe, 19 Nov,2018
Yesterday we posted on another site a report on how Britain's last two right - of - centre mass circulation newspapers, The Daily Mail and The Daily Express, have recently undergone changes of ownership or management which will likely shift editorial policy and reporting slant towards the globalist, Cultural Marxist left. It also means there is now no mainstream print or broadcast news organisation which will offer a platform to those defending the democratically expressed will of the majority against the establishment's dirty campaign to derail the process of leaving the EU and keep Britain in that perniciously authoritarian wannabe empire.
All is not lost however; among the biggest sources of fake news and scaremongering in support of the 'Remain' cause has been digital media and in particular, the self appointed censors of all that challenges the 'official' Cultural Marxist narrative put out by the government / corporate cabal. And Old Media at last seems to have recognised these upstarts as predators.
Of the many mystifying trends in the last few years few are as remakable as the fawning embrace of Facebook, Twitter, Google et al. by Big Media which wrote and filmed sychphantic hymns of praise to digital media even as Silicon Valley CVEOs spelled out so there could be no misunderstanding that their business model relied on the total destruction of mainstream and traditional media.
Now however, that adoration is turning into an outrage and a sense of betrayal. Facebook and Google, self-defined beacons of liberalism, tolerance and goodness (we're not evil, we want to protect you from evil so we'll make people who disagree with us disappear!)- were viewed by unbiased but liberal leaning (at an acute angle,) Big Media as co-combatants in the fight against Trump, conservatism, populism, nationalism, individualism, Christianity, fake news, alt_right etc. Now, to their horror, Big Media has discovered that their news is branded fake news if its does not align with the propaganda of the corporate cartel.
But like an old tart hoping some young punter will actualy love her, frowsy, faded old mainstream media could only watch as her Big Tech gigolos betrayed her desperate devotion and misplaced trust, they are just another bunch of predatory profit-maximizing monopolies who will use anyone and then throw them aside once they are of no more use. Anyone who gets in their way of higher profits and more power will be discarded or destroyed. It would be sad if it wasn't so pathetic. Poor Old Media, she hoisted her sagging tits up round her ears, put on her high heels, hid her varicose veins under surgical stockings and tried to be hot and sexy, to impress social media with experience and her willingness to accommodate any abuse, all the while hoping to exploit its reach and prop up her own dying business model.
She was so easily seduced by Big Tech: we're more liberal than you they said, hiding a nasty streak of authoritarianism behind very public support for causes like free immigratioin, same sex wedding cakes and transgender rights. Together we'll lead the world out of darkness into light. Then when Old Media had her girdle off and her platform brassiere loosened she discovered her virtue-signaling liberal sweetheart, Horny Young Tech, is just as threatened by liberals as by conservatives, and it turns its firepower on liberals with the same savage abandon as it does on independent and conservative media. The bitter rage of the rejected older lover is evident in these recent articles in The Atlantic, New York Times The Guardian and Washington Post, all flag waving, slogan chanting champions of the virtue-signaling, self-righteous, authoritarian, state-corporate Empire, a.k.a. liberalism.RELATED POSTS:
University lecturers told DON'T USE CAPS as it frightens students
by Arthur Foxake
Lecturers at a British University have been told not to use words in capital letters when setting assignments because it might frighten students into failure.
Staff at Leeds Trinity University's school of journalism have been told that capital letters ARE AGGRESSIVE and could 'trigger' emotional crises in eighteen year olds with the emotional maturity of three year olds (OK, I made that last bit up.) They have also been told to "write in a helpful, warm tone, avoiding officious language and negative instructions".
Some blasted the instruction as "mere academic mollycoddling" of the snowflake generation. A memo titled "enhancing student understanding, engagement and achievement" lists dos and don'ts - with the words "do" and "don't", which have clear and definine meanings.
Course leaders say capitalising a word could emphasise "the difficulty or high-stakes nature of the task". Well The Daily stirrer would like to remind readers, WE HAVE ALWAYS SAID EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS ARE CUNTS and this seems to prove our point.
The memo says: "Despite our best attempts to explain assessment tasks, any lack of clarity can generate anxiety and even discourage students from attempting the assessment at all. Generally, avoid using capital letters for emphasis and "the overuse of 'do', and, especially, 'DON'T'." The memo also says that staff must be "explicit about any inexplicitness" in their assignment briefs.
And it warns that when students are unsure of an assessment, "they often talk to each other and any misconceptions or misunderstandings quickly spread throughout the group (usually aided and abetted by Facebook). This can lead to further confusion and students may even then decide that the assessment is too difficult and not attempt it". But surely if a student does not understand an assignment and is too stupid to aske the tutor to elucidate, they should not be at a fucking university. Universities are for intelligent people FFS.
One staff member said capitals are used to emphasise the importance of a particular point so students do not miss it. .That's what we always thought. How will these little arseholes ever be ready to face the Big Bad World if they are froghtened of a few capital lettersMORE Education Posts
Theresa May Warns Brexit Could Be Stopped As Draft Deal Faces Overwhelming OppositionAhead of a "critical week" that will include a summit with EU bureaucrats in Brussels and culminate with a weekend session of the Cabinet to iron out the final details of the draft Brexit deal, Theresa May has run out of arguments and is reviving project fear threats and scare tactics to force Conservative MPs to support her supremely unpopular draft Brexit plan, which she insists is the "best deal possible" and "in the national interest" despite many Brexiteers and remainers alike describing it as a complete betrayal of her country. In an interview with Sky News on Sunday May faced Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and claimed that some of the concerns raised by opponents of the deal could be addressed with alternations to the draft for an agreement that is intended to create a 'framework' for the future trading relationship between the two sides. And if this isn't enough, she said MPs would be better off if they swallowed their doubts and trusted the process - at least, if they want Brexit to succeed. Because provoking a leadership change at this point would likely jeopardize the UK's ability to reach any deal with the EU. And faced with the possibility of a "no-deal" Brexit, it's likely that MPs would vote for a second referendum to would raise the possibility of Brexit being scrapped altogether. In other words this woman of zero talent and infinite ambition is telling our representative, "You've got to do as I say because I'm a woman and if you oppose me you are sexist.
"These next seven days are going to be critical, they are about the future of this country," May told Sky News. "I am not going to be distracted from the important job." "A change of leadership at this point isn’t going to make the negotiations any easier...what it will do is mean that there is a risk that actually we delay the negotiations and that is a risk that Brexit gets delayed or frustrated."May's suggestion that Brexit could still be cancelled comes as Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon said her MPs would vote against the draft plan, while a poll of 505 Tory MPs found that more were against the deal than for it. This would add to the unanimous opposition from the DUP (the Northern Irish party propping up May's government) and almost guarantee that the deal would lose by a staggering margin, given that most Labour MPs would also be expected to vote against. Meanwhile, in an interview on the Andrew Marr show, May's former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab offered his most detailed explanation yet about why he decided to resign this week. As Raab explained, with "two or three points" being changed, Raab said he would be able to support the deal. But instead of pushing for these changes, Raab said May is "being bullied, I do think we are being subjected to what is pretty close to blackmail frankly." "This is a manageable problem," Raab said. It is, if those cheese eating surrender monkeys and the sausage scoffers are trying to push us around we should send Type 45 Destroyers into the Rhine, The Elbe and The Seine and from there vapourise Brussels, Berlin and Paris and remind them who has always been the major power in Europe. The Guardian commented:
Compared with a month ago, the Conservatives have dropped five points to 36% while Labour has gained three to stand on 39%. The proportion of Leavers backing the Tories has dropped by 10 points in one month.And as if the domestic opposition wasn't enough of an obstacle, Brussels on Sunday deepened May's predicament by declaring in a seemingly arbitrary way that any extension to the Brexit transition period last at least a year, and be accompanied by an additional 10 billion euro payout (in addition to the 39 billion euros the UK would be expected to pay under May's plan, according to the Guardian. But the European Research Group, the umbrella group of Brexiteer Torys who have ferociously opposed May's deal, released on Sunday a concise accounting of its criticisms of May's plan. After reading, the 585 page document they conclude it seems to undercut May's insistence that her deal is a "good deal" that was negotiated on the "UK's terms." The ERG accuses May of abandoning her promise, made in January 2017, that she would not accept any deal that would leave the UK "half in, half out" of the EU. But by allowing for the possibility that the UK could be bound by EU rules set by the ECJ, as well as customs union rules over which the UK would have no say, May is accepting that UK will become a "vassal state" beholden to the EU's rules, with no say in deciding them.
Only University In UK With Men's Officer Scraps Role Because Of Harassment By Student Activist SJWs
by Arthur Foxake
Stupid, man-hating dyke bitches a.k.a feminists and their testicularly deficienr male supporters have forced the only university in the UK with a men’s officer to scrap the role after the only candidate for the job withdrew due to “harassment”.
James Knight applied to be men's officer at the University of the West of England, but due to harassment by feminists and SLWs, has withdrawn. He was the only candidate in the race. The University of the West of England announced that the position has now been suspended pending review.
The roles of transgender and women’s officers have been implemented this month.
Knight said he stood to highlight "the poor state of mental health services at UWE" and told a student paper: "I know how deeply mental health issues can run in men and how much of a taboo it can be for men to talk about their mental health."
Well this blog has always known students are stupid but now we learn they are insane as well and universities are doubling as replacements for the mental hospitals closed by Maggie Thatcher's government.
When the position of a men's officer to work alongside counterparts for women and transgender students was announced the National Union of
Mental Cases Students immediately began a campaign against the role. Which sends a message to male students that they are worth less in the eyes of SJWs than women or the kind of sick freaks who think having their dics chopped off and dressing as women will make them less insane.
NUS officer Ilyas Nagdee accused the university of “weaponising tragic student suicides” at Bristol University “ in order to pursue this vile undemocratic shambles of a men's officer”, labelling the election: “The worst thing I've seen in student politics.” Proof, as if anyone needed it that student Social Justice Warriors are stupid as well as insane. WTF is that daft little bint talking about?
Student Rebecca Sheeres added: “Can someone explain to me why a men’s officer is necessary please?" Well no, Rebecca you silly empty headed little tart, but neither can anybody explain why a women's or transgender officer is needed. A far more valuable addition to the university's support team would be a bevvy of nursery nurses to change SJWs' nappies for them.
Ms Sheeres gave a clue that she is aiming for a PhD in stupid when she added, "UWE students actually voted against such position. Men are not a minority at university and surely appointing a wellbeing officer would cover men’s mental health.”
Another stupid, man hating, bitch NUS women's officer Sarah Lasoye said: "The role of a men’s officer is entirely obsolete and the attempt to implement one stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of liberation and almost always an unearned sense of entitlement." The Daily Stirrer asks aren't those entering university expected to be grown up enough to look after themselves? When all our contributors started school at age five, everybody in the infants class could wipe their own arse. Darwinian evolution is in trouble thank st politically correct bullshit like this. We have to stop SJWs from breeding, they are polluting the gene pool.
The takeaway from all this boys is don't bother going to The University Of The West Country because unless you were born with a minge or have had your dick turned inside out to make one you ain't going to get a decent degree.
Who Should Make Decision About Childrens' Welfare, Parents Or Authoritarian Left Wing Schoolteachers?
We like stories about bureaucrats abusing their authority and about schoolteachers (especiall head teachers) letting their inner fascist out of the closet. So a story than combines both, like this tale of a South Yorkshire primary school head who banned packed lunches because out of concern for 'her' children's welfare she wanted them to have no alternative to the nutrition free slop served by the school kitchen.
Poor white pupils put off school by multicultural timetable
Education, should it be about learning to read, write, spell and calculate? Or should it be about feminism, gay rights, black history and 'gender awareness' whatever that is? For many years we have had multiculturalism and politically correct thinking rammed doiwn pupils throats but noe a study by a local education department suggests this obsession with politicallly corret diversity is responsible for the failure of white working class pupils.
Education, Education, Education And To Hell With The Kids
Teaching used to be a vocation and education a high minded calling for those who wished to prepare young minds for adult life by making the process of learning, in the classroom, by discovery and through osmosis, an exciting and fulfilling lifelong process
The Degree Factory: The Decline Of University Education
The decline of university education in parallel with dumbing down of the general population is contributing to the economic and social problems of the industriaised democracies. But why have standars been allowed to slip so far and can the trend in university education towards theraputic and politically correct courses be reversed?
Where Is Bicycle Repair Man When The World Needs Him
A superhero whose superpower is repairing bikes? It was a sketch in a Monty Python's Flying Circus show. But forty years on is it as crazy as it sounded then? We seem to have plenty of people with degrees in things that are not every practical and shortages of people who can do useful stuff. And when we have health and safety officers stopping people from climbing ladders unless they have been properly trained, people are discouraged from learning those everyday skills by themselves.
EU Heading for Breakup and Conflict Warns Former French P M.
A former Prime Minister of France, Dominique de Villepin has made a speech warning that the European Parliament election next year could be trigger a major political crisis for the 27 member Union (Britain will be gone before the election takes place), adding that attacking anti - integration or nationalist parties as “extremeists” in the way current French President, Emmanuel Macron repeatedly has recently, could help the Eurosceptics win votes.
The EU election has been framed by leaders favouring Europe’s progressive integration as an opportunity to push for more political leagislative and economic union, while the bloc’s far right populists hope a surge in the number of European Parliament Members, (MEPs), will hamstring the ruling elite of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels of its authortirian power.
We are witnessing the early stages of “an extremely serious political crisis,” M. de Villepin said in a joint interview with the TV station CNews, Europe 1 radio and newspaper Les Échos. He added tensions between Europhiles and Eurosceptics would likely reach boiling point in the coming months.
De Villepin also warned Macron is folish to engage in a political “arm-wrestle” with the extremes. “I think he [Mr Macron] is being a little bit presumptuous. The president is trying to highlight the deep gulf between progressives and nationalists… But polarisation inevitably leads to, in times of crisis, the victory of the toughest candidates.”
He also called on Europe’s so-called progressives to avoid lumping together all types of nationalism.
Macron overestimates his ability to wage a war against forces which have become extremely powerful because they are, in the eyes of voters, more effective and efficient. That’s the problem with populism,” he said, adding a further warning that surges in support for anti-EU, radical right parties in the May election was highly likely.
Mr de Villepin also dismissed Mr Macron’s calls for a 'true European army' to defend the bloc against threats from powers including the US as stupid.
US President Donald Trump slammed Macron's call for an EU army as “insulting” soon after landing in Paris for a weekend of events to mark the end of World War One on Friday. that he published a fiery tweet criticising his French host over his proposal.
RELATED: Europe Unglues (omnibus)
'Unbiased' Facebook Fired Executive For Pro - Trump Political Beliefs
Zuck plays with one of Luckey's gadgets but denies Luckery the right to his own opinions. Mainstream media and left wing politicians like to show how they are up with modern trends and developments by heaping praise on psychopathic Silicon Valley, virtue-signaling, shadowbanning, conservative - censoring, fake news generating social media billionaires. Thus, though the political bias towards the left / liberal parties and causes is blatantly obvious, they are allowed, when they appear before US Congressional committees to answer questions on abuse of privacy, or respond to accusations of bias by devising PR campaigns to show to the world they are truly impartial, with zero liberal bias. Unfortunately, every time they try to pull such a stunt, it backfires as their true ideological face quickly emerges from behind a fake, hypocritical mask. A case in point is that of former Facebook executive, Oculus co-founder and virtual-reality wunderkind Palmer Luckey, who was a rising star of Silicon Valley when, at the height of the 2016 presidential contest, he donated a modest $10,000 to an anti-Hillary Clinton group. His donation sparked a backlash from his colleagues, which then led to him being put on leave, and six months later he was fired. What stinks about Luckey's termination, is that when testifying before Congress about data privacy earlier this year, Mark Zuckerberg denied, or rather lied that the departure had anything to do with politics. In fact, neither Facebook nor Mr. Luckey ever gave a reason why he left the social-media giant. Now however, disgusted perhaps by Zuckerberg's continued hypocrisy in claiming Facebook is a totally neutral platform politically: according to a report from the WSJ, Luckey revealed to asociates the reason for his termination from that bastion of apolitical impartiality Facebook, was his support for Donald Trump and the furor that his political beliefs sparked within his employer, and Silicon Valley, some of those people say. We should perhaps remind you here that support for Trump does not necessarily imply agreement with Trump's policies or admiration of his abrasive style. Post election analysis showed many people supported Trump because they were horrified at the prospect of corrupt, crooked, warmongering, morally dysfunctional Hillary Clinton, who in her campaign had effectively promised war with Russia by committing herself to attacking the Assad regime in Syria as soon as she took office. Luckey's attack on Facebook and Zuckerberg is not just sour grapes either:leaked internal Facebook emails suggest the matter was discussed at the highest levels of the company. In the fall of 2016, as anger over his modest political donation to a candidate the boss didn't like simmered, executives at Facebook - which according to Open Secrets has spent over $60 million on lobbying in the past decade - including Zuckerberg pressured Mr. Luckey to publicly voice support for libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, despite Mr. Luckey’s years long support of Trump. At that point Luckey, 26, allegedly hired an employment lawyer who argued to Facebook that it had violated California law in pressuring the executive to voice support for Johnson and for punishing an employee for political activity. Which, we have to say is pretty typical behaviour among Silicon Valley billionires. Go against the 'corporate culture' as dictated by the billionaire boss, and you are dead Luckey and his lawyer are not as stupid as Zuckerberg is arrogant and megalomaniacal, and negotiated a payout of at least $100 million, representing an acceleration of stock awards and bonuses he would have received through July 2019, plus cash, according to the people familiar with the case. The stock awards and bonuses were a result of selling his virtual-reality company, Oculus VR, to Facebook in 2014 for more than $2 billion, a deal that netted him a total of about $600 million. In other words, Facebook can claim it was Trump's "fault" that a $10,000 donation resulted in a $100,000,000 payout just a few months later. What a bunch of wankers. RELATED POSTS:
Swedish couple raped and tortured for hours in their own home – Two young men arrested
Early in September two men, reportedly in their mid-twenties, broke into a couple’s home in Härnösand and subjected the homeowners to torture and sexual violence for over four hours. The man was beaten with a cane, cut with a machete, forced to swallow soap, burned with a lighter, stripped naked and subjected to aggravated sexual assault, according to the indictment.Monika Lilja, the prsecution lawyer said:
"They feel bad, of course. It is astonishing what torture-like violence and horrible things they have been subjected to. Both a knife and pliers were used. The woman was brutally raped and her partner was forced to watch. Both men are prosecuted for aggravated domestic violence, aggravated assaults, gross unlawful threats, unlawful detention and gross unlawful coercion."
The elder of the two men has been identified as the leader of the attack. As well as the torture of the male victim, he is also charged with aggravated rape of the woman, aggravated sexual assault against the man and gross abuse of judicial procedure.
He has previous convictions for violent crime, and was described by a person who had been in contact with him in three words: “NN loves violence.”The man’s lawyer Jonas Vedin says his client has admitted certain circumstances but disagrees with some parts. The younger man is defended by Johan Lavås, who says his client “is surprised that he is charged on all these counts”.
Expressen’s image of one of the men is heavily pixelated, but the man’s ethnic origin isn’t hard to guess. The questions remain – why do the Swedes allow this to happen, and when will they say enough and vote into power politicians who are not afraid to prosecute immigrants and ethnically non European Swedes for crimes against Swedish law committed in Sweden?
Ot to put it another way, when are Swedish men going to grown some balls and stand up to these scumbags to protect Swedish women, children and elderly people.
What NPCs Don’t Understand About Britain’s New £50 Note Campaign
NPC meme - satirising the 'leftie intellectuals' who celebrate diversity by all parroting the same left wing propaganda
A few weeks ago The Bank of England announced it will be issuing a new £50 note. The new note will be coated in plastic like our current £5, £10 and £20 notes, for better durability and, it is claimed, lower money laundering opportunities (although this in nonsense, it is no different in that respect to the current paper note, and of course electronic money is a far safer bet for money launderers if they are a bit tech savvy.) The current £50 note features Matthew Boulton and James Watt, industrial revolution figures who developed a commercially viable steam engine in the 1700s (they didn't actually invent the first steam engine, that was Thomas Newcomen in 1712 but his design was por and inefficient,) and engineered many machines that used steam power in industrial processes.
Suggestions of who will feature on the new £50 will be put forward by the public. What could possibly go wrong? Anyone remember when the public were asked to name a new polar exploration research ship and the most popular suggestion was Boaty McBoatface? So who should go on the new £50 note? Cue the suggestions of unheard of Black scientists, Muslim doctors and Shamanistic Animist mathematicians. The University brainwashed NPCs will go for any name the leftist propaganda machine throws up.
And why not? The boatloads of scientists and entrepreneurs that wash up on our our shores on a weekly basis hoping to culturally enrich undr age girls and take up professions related to the science of claiming banefits have help us enormously in our efforts to advance science and technology. Of course, the British Government could never make such a suggestion themselves, but if they pass it over to the public to decide, well hey, we chose it ourselves, right?
It took mainstream media just one day to jump on the bandwagon, promoting the claims of compete nonentities on the basis of skin colour and religious affiliation rather than metic.
The Daily Mail, who many oddly label as a “right wing extremist newspaper”, promoted the idea of having Noor Inayat Khan on the note. Khan was a female, Indian, Muslim Nazi fighter. The only thing that surprises me at this stage is that she didn’t have a previous lesbian, pansexual relationship too. The Independent promoted the suggestion of Mary Seacole; a mixed-race woman from Jamaica who was a nurse and businesswoman during the Crimean War. Labour MP, Wes Streeting, suggested Nelson Mandela. The fact that none of these people are British seems a completely overlooked fact.
Would any of these been suggested had they been born white? They may have but pigs might fly too. Why does it matter? Those of us who find the whole thing stupid and point out there is no good reason why the current occupants should not remain on the note. we will no doubt be assailed by “gammon”-shouting NPCs claiming we can't stand the thought of that eminent scientist ummm* being on a banknote because we don't like the look of brown people. Their myopic way of inventing a race issue is belief that who is on the £50 note is the actual issue here. The £50 note is almost irrelevant, how many of us know without looking it up who is on any banknote (apart from The Queen.) While these people see a single, harmless matter and easily categorise any criticism of it as racism, we see the bigger picture. We understand why this is being done, we understand who is doing it, and we understand where this is heading.
Official figures show that Britain was 87% "White British" at the time of our last census in 2011, there are huge tracts of the country away from the big cities where brown faces are still a rarity. This, according to those who demand absolute equality in all things means, apparently, that we should have around 13% of people in government, on TV, in the professions and in every walk of life to be non-White too. If calls for racial equality are anything more than political guilt tripping, the results must reflect the true demographics of our country. The British are expected to become a minority in our own country by the year 2066, and then Parliament and our TV shows will have to be 51% non-White to continue reflecting the demographics of our country.
But even if that happens, it still would not mean somebody who camaigners claim was "The first black chemistry teacher at Manchester Grammar School" has stronger claims to be put on the £50 note that, for example, Joseph Priestly, Michael Farrady, Alan Turing, Ernest Rutherford, Frank Whittle or Francis Crick (whose DNA discoveries were made in collaboration with an American biologist. This determination among the university brainwashed supporters of cultural Marxism, to big up the minor achievements of people who can claim minority status is purely political and is intended to disrupt and divide society.
*I looked for prominent black or Asian British scientists but had never heard of any that appeared in the search results and also discovered of those listed, the main achievement claimed for them usually began with the words, "The first black person to ..." or "The first British Asian to ..."
UK Turns Away Pakistani Christian to Appease ‘Sections of the Community’, Islamist Terrorists
Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi languished on death row for years after being convicted by an Islamic court of blasphemy for the heinous crime of drinking from the same vessel as two Muslim women. Her sentence was recently quashed by Pakistan’s supreme court.
Since that decision was announced, angry mobs of Islamic fundamentalists have paraded through streets demanding the sentence be restored and, demanding her execution, (the crime, remember, was drinking from the same cup as Muslim women, which counts as blasphemy and as such carries the death penalty in many Islamic countries. I point this out to remind people from a certain end of the political spectrum who think we need to import more Muslims to the west as a civilising influence.) The extremists are now threatening to kill her themselves, prompting the woman, her family, and her lawyer to seek refuge abroad.
“I am requesting the Prime Minister of the UK help us and as far as possible grant us freedom,” pleaded husband Ashiq Masih in an appeal to the country’s former colonial power.
The British government has reportedly rejected this plea, despite having previously signed up to take large numbers of migrants claiming to be children from France, as well as from refugee camps near Syria — although these were 100 percent Muslim in the early part of 2018, with all Christians rejected.
The reason Asia and her Christian family have been rejected, while known criminals and members of terrorist organisations are admitted without question is astounding:
"I’ve been lead to believe that the UK government had concerns that her moving to the UK would cause security concerns and unrest among certain sections of the community and would also be a security threat to British embassies abroad which might be targeted by Islamist terrorists,” reported Wilson Chowdhry, chairman of the British Pakistani Christian Association."
The Full Orwell -UK Government Comes Over All Big BrotherThe Full Orwell - everything can be seen (picture source: www.theguideliverpool.com/ )
In a stealthy, or to be more accurate, creepy move that bypasses the democratic process the British government, without debate in our elected assembly, without media coverage and without the authority of law, the UK Government has usurped to itself the power to take biometric data from all of us and store it in a central database available to police, national security agencies and, we may assume, anybody who is willing to pay for it. Independent news sites (alt_news) and bloggers have been warning for several years that that the eventual goal of mass surveillance programs was that government would claim the right, purely in the interests of protecting citizens from various threats, to collect the biometric data of every single citizen living in Britain and use it against the best interests of its citizens and residents. DNA, fingerprint, face, iris recognition and even voice data will be included.
They will justify it in the only way they can, by exhuming that old bogeyman, national security. Memes like "The Russians Are Coming," or the terrorist threat is at red alert level will be used to coerce the fearful into surrendering their inalienable rights to privacy and liberty. These very minor threats still work despite the huge fall in fatalities from terrorism and terror-related incidents since the 1970s. It only take a few well orchestrated false flag incidents to be given saturation coverage by mass media to convince a large enough number of people that the streets of our cities are no longer safe.
Apart from crime-fighting, which these days apparently means organizing witch hunts and burning those who commit heresy against the creed of political correctness by being accused of 'hate speech' (as with witchcraft in medieval Europe, to be accused of this most modern of crimes is sufficient to prove guilt,) the Home Office also proposes in its long-awaited report that it will use the centralized database for vetting migrants on the streets and borders of Britain.
Most of that actually sounds quite reasonable until you see statistics on how inaccurate biometric data is, as this infosec institute and this from itpro.co.uk explain. Furthermore, as TruePublica has explained: "There is a dark side to this. Two years ago we warned that social scoring systems were on the way. We wrote in 2016 and then again in early 2017 as a result of an in-depth report by Civil Society Futures regarding a new wave of surveillance: Citizens are increasingly categorised and profiled according to data assemblages, for example through data scores or by social credit scores, as developed in China. The purpose of such scores is to predict future behaviour and allocate resources and eligibility for services (or punishment) accordingly. In other words, rules will be set for citizens to live by through data and algorithms.”
The government is now building, without debate such a system for all of its agencies to access and input. Once complete the next step will be to ‘manage’ population behaviour through social credit scores.
Current common forms of biometric data collection include – fingerprint templates, iris and retina templates, voiceprint, 2D or 3D facial structure map, hand and/or finger geometry map, vein recognition template, gait analysis map, blood DNA profiles, behavioural biometric profiles and others.
Civil rights groups are already arguing that systems such as face recognition are faulty, of dubious legality, and too easily collected without public consent. The controversy that erupted in 2017 when Facebook's allowing Cambridge Analytica to collect the personal data of millions of people, most of whom had never were not even aware of the existence of Cambridge Analytica and some of whom who did not even have a Facebook account, should confirm that bulk data collection, used without either public debate or a legal basis is totally unacceptable and an offence against our civil liberties.
However, the legality of the creation of a centralised biometric database, or its violating at least one of the inalienable human rights defined in the Geneva convention will not stop a government who have been repeatedly caught breaking the law when it comes to privacy and data collection. Police, immigration, and passport agencies already collect DNA, face, and fingerprint data. On the latter, police forces across Britain now have fingerprint scanners on the streets of Britain with officers providing no more than a promise that fingerprint data taken will be erased if the person stopped is innocent of any crime, and no way for civil liberties groups to verify this is so.
The government’s facial regognition database is already estimated to contain details of 12.5 million people and as the government has acknowledged this is probably somewhere near correct you can bet the true figure is far more. The Home Office is already embroiled in all sorts of litigation claiming its privacy and surveillance policy violates human rights and criminal law, caused a scandal last April when an official said it would simply be too expensive to remove data gleaned from the police migshots of innocent people from its facial recognition databases.
Without proper, enforcible regulation that can be fully scrutinised by civil society, there are many opportunities for the misuse of biometric data. Some people will trot out the old claim that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear," but we know that is not true. Others will claim only a totalitarian dictatorship would abuse personal data they hold. That is just plain naive, not only in Britain but throughout the European Union, across the USA (especially in 'progressive' states like California, in Canada and Australia the same thing is happpening in parallel with activist groups promoting the idea that crimes against politically correct dogmas are being prioritized over crimes against property or the person.
It means nothing when the governments say their collection of biometric data will be “lawful,” when government sanctioned surveillance has been found by the courts in both Britain and the EU of breaking basic surveillance and data protection laws. And what laws there are, remain deliberately ambiguous on how personal information will be ethically collected, stored, or shared. Without any obstacles being put in its way, because of the secrecy surrounding the adoption of the policy, and the cooperation of mainstream media, the Home Office has essentially granted itself the right to terminate the right to privacy of any type to the people of Britain.'RELATED POSTS:
Surveillance Society Cellphone fascism - creepy surveillance UK Snoopers’ Charter Will Lead to ‘Race to the Bottom’ in Mass Surveillance NSA Planning To Exploit 'Internet Of Things' Including Biomedical Devices THEM (poem noir)
Google court documents state the corporation believes free speech is ‘disastrous’ for society
Not long ago I encountered an article, well more a paean of praise for Google really, in which the author made the somewhat jaw dropping claim that from Google we have learned a new way of thinking. All I can say is he must mean not thinking is the new way of thinking. It cannot be denied that Google and the internet in general has influenced the perceptions of web users, but to what end. The Alphabet Corporation's cosy relationship with the Obama Administration and US security agencies was not healthy for democracy and we all know Google search results are filtered to favour the parent company's business interests and political ambitions.
Every year, nearly half the world’s population uses Google. Internet Live Stats informs us that every second Google processes over 40,000 search queries, internet users view over 76,000 videos on the Alphabet owned You Tube video sharing site. Across the globe there are now over two billion a mobile devices (smart phones and tablet computers,) running Android, the Linux based operating system designed by Google. Google uses these services to track users and collect information about them. And it does not stop at gathering information about what we do while online. Google has no qualms about planting trackers on your devices and gadgets and mining information about your offline activities.
People really ought to be far more concerned that Google has been handed a near monopoly over the flow of information round the internet, yet too few people are aware of the extent of it. Google has control over the dissemination and manipulation of information around the world. Google algorithms can either suppress information or promote it. Because of this, and because of the well known political sympathies of its founders and senior managers Google Inc. is susceptible proposals for political and ideological censorship of information, 'for the greater good'. This censorship is affecting billions who use Google services annually. We have heard since November 2016 how the government of Russia collaborated with Donald Trump's campaign to steal the US presidency. Not a single shred of evidence has been produced to support this allegation, yet any story that challenges it is dismissed and discredited as 'fake news'.
In fact the Russian election meddling narrative is the real 'fake news', Google interferes with elections, business, and people’s livelihoods as part of its routine removal from results of stories that discredit the narrative Google promotes. The social and political agendas that influence Google have track records that suggest they will do anything possible to suppress truthful and diversity of opinion in order to manipulate public opinion. After all our thoughts are limited by the information we have access to.
Google is not a neutral platform as a search engine ought to be, so Google competitors must also skew results in order to attract users. Because Google has over 70% of the search market it can engineer results to highlight the viewpoints that matter most to Google executives, their political allies and their cult culture. Rich and influential people can lobby Google to push their agendas while suppressing any dissent from a political position on the web,. While some ideologies (e.g. climate change,) are popularized by Google, others, notably those that question allegations that President Assad of Syria used chemical weapons on his own people in Syria's civil war, are pushed to the shadows, de-monetized and mocked as conspiracy theories. Yet in the case of the latter, independent inspectors from the United nations Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW,) have reported finding no evidence of the use of illegal chemicals at any of the attack sites, the idea that Assad is a monster who use poison gas on innocent civilians is still embedded in the consciousness of people who reply on Google for their information.
Google is currently under fire for censoring conservative website PragerU and having already been heavily fined by the European Union (EU) for criminal abuses of its monopoly position to favour its own business interests over rivals in search results while still being involved in litigation on other charges involving privacy violations. Very few organizations have the legal firepower to fight back against Google, but the EU is certainly one, while PragerU, probably with the support of many organisations horrified at the way Google is being allowed to turn the internet into a political monoculture, has taken Google to court. Google’s true intentions are being exposed. In a statement filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Google argues that government regulation to protect free speech would have “disastrous practical consequences.”
Another example of how Google's filtering of information can skew a debate was the was a debate on 'net neutrality' was turned away from the real issue, that certain political and business interests were being favoured with high positions in search results while others were being made virtually invisible. Instead, priority was given to sites and authors who did not, or pretended not to, understand the concept of all content being treated as equal, and were screeching about how unfair it was that some people were getting 12 Mbps data transfer rates on downloads and others were only getting 2Mbps (which is nothing to do with neutrality and is a simple case of getting what you pay for).
PragerU has taken Google to court. Google’s true intentions are being exposed. In a statement filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Google argues that government regulation would have “disastrous practical consequences.”
In their statement to the court hearing the PragerU case, Google exposes its real intentions when the company submits that it cannot be held to the First Amendment of the United States constitution (free speech). Google refuses to change for its users; Google refuses to guarantee users an equal platform for freedom of speech. The anti-American behemoth refuses to enforce the First Amendment across their services because this “would undermine important content regulation.” Google stated, “If they are bound by the same First Amendment rules that apply to the government, television and newspapers, Google, YouTube and other service providers would lose much of their ability to protect their users against offensive or objectionable content — including pornography, hate speech, personal attacks, and terrorist propaganda.”
In other words Google aims to set itself up as the authority which governs what citizens of free nations can or cannot say, read or hear. They plan to become a capitalist version of the secret police in Soviet Russia and Communist China. A real life equivalent of The Thought Police in George Orwell's novel, '1984'.
What constitutes 'objectionable content' is of course a highly subjective matter. I am not offended by seeing images of people having sex althoughI do not seek out such content. On the other hand when I see a British Labour Party politician saying something like, "All white males need to be exterminated, I consider that should be removed from the net as inciting violence against any group is objectionable. But being a libertarian, (and a grown up,) I would not try to have her prosecuted, instead I would mutter to myself something like, "Stupid, hypocritical, fat - arsed black bitch," which would also be objectionable were anybody there to hear it. The problem I have with 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' which Google are determined to remove from the web is that such 'crimes' have no legal definition, instead if you or I do or say something which a member of one of the anointed minorities deems to be an expression of hatred, we could become the latest target of a left wing witch hunt.
So there you have it, an admission that Google's business model is not about 'putting all the world's information at everybody's fingertips (always a ridiculous claim as only about 5% of the information stored in online devices is avaiable via the world wide web while much more, in the form of non indexed pages, online databases and non searchable resources (collectively known as the deep web, which should not be confused with the dark web where you will find the hot goat-on-goat action, bomb making instructions and information about where to buy John Wayne movies.) The deep web, however, is not available to the majority of people and Google has far too much control of the world wide web, and is being helped to extend that control when even former employees are warning the corporate monster must be stopped before it becomes unstoppable.
Food Fascists Demand Tobacco-Style Sin Taxes to Slash Meat Consumption
https://grist.files.wordpress.com/Sky-high sin taxes on meat have been branded “inevitable” in Britain after a study asserted that the move could “save hundreds of thousands of lives” as well as helping stop climate change.
Researchers at Oxford University urged ministers to consider the move, claiming that hiking the cost of red meat by 14 per cent and processed meat by 79 per cent could prevent 5,920 deaths in Britain a year and save the NHS an annual sum of £750 million on healthcare costs.
Lead researcher Dr Marco Springmann, from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at Oxford University, said: “The consumption of red and processed meat exceeds recommended levels in most high and middle-income countries.
“This is having significant impacts not only on personal health, but also on healthcare systems, which are taxpayer-funded in many countries, and on the economy, which is losing its labour force due to ill health and care for family members who fall ill.
I hope that governments will consider introducing a health levy on red and processed meat as part of a range of measures to make healthy and sustainable decision-making easier for consumers.
“A health levy on red and processed meat would not limit choices, but send a powerful signal to consumers and take pressure off our healthcare systems.”
The Institute for Economic Affairs’ Chris Snowdon described the numbers in the study as “unfeasibly large”, stating that even if one takes the “outlandish” health claims to be true, the authors appear to have made “a classic mistake” of so-called public health research when calculating potential healthcare savings.
It also claims that processed and red meat kill 2.4 million people a year. This is nonsense, the figures, obviously plucked out of thin air, are seventeen times higher than the previous estimate (from last September).
Pointing out that “people who live to a ripe old age tend to cost a lot of money”, he explained in the Spectator that studies of this kind often make the assumption that “someone who avoids a diet-related disease will avoid every other disease and never trouble the health service again”. In fact it is impossible to prove an 80 year old meat eather with bowel cancer developed the disease as a result of eating meat. by the same criterium it is also impossible to prove that a healthy 90 year old vegetarian would not have stayed healthy so long had they eaten a steak or a chop occasionally.
“An unholy alliance of ‘public health’ campaigners, environmentalists and vegetarians will be working night and day to make this happen. Taxing food is the next battleground for the nanny state,” the Institute of Economic Affairs’ (IEA) director of lifestyle economics told The Sun newspaper.
The West’s Assassination Of Libya’s Gaddafi Is An Example Of Why We should Always Question Authority.
At around that time, a coalition of western powers, France, The UK and The USA (the FUKUS axis,) had deposed the Libyan dictator Muammar Gadaffi and turned Libya from the most prosperous and socially advanced nation on the African continent to a chaotic failed state with three rival factions, the Islamists, tribal warlords and gangsters all claiming to be the legitimate government. The propaganda released by?—?sorry, the official explanations for this action by the FUKUS axis, an action which did a lot to bring about the current deterioration in east?—?west relations, was that the brutal dictator Gaddafi was killing thousands of his own people.At around that time, a coalition of western powers, France, The UK and The USA (the FUKUS axis,) had deposed the Libyan dictator Muammar Gadaffi and turned Libya from the most prosperous and socially advanced nation on the African continent to a chaotic failed state with three rival factions, the Islamists, tribal warlords and gangsters all claiming to be the legitimate government. The propaganda released by?—?sorry, the official explanations for this action by the FUKUS axis, an action which did a lot to bring about the current deterioration in east?—?west relations, was that the brutal dictator Gaddafi was killing thousands of his own people.
Sweden’s Small Parties Look To Deal With Sweden Democrats To Solve Crisis
Sweden Democrats leader jimmy Akesson
Sweden ranks alongside Germany is the EU nation hardest hit by the insane 'open doors' immigration policy 'recommedned' by the EU and willingly embraced by elitists who do not have to live among the uneducated, illiterate, insanitary and sexually incontinent scumbags who were waved through the border without even being asked if they had a not from their mothers to identify them. Public despair as the descent of the country from Europes safest and most pleasant place to live into a lawless third world shithole led to an inconclusive election in September, since when the nation has been without a working government.
Legacy parties, including the Social Democrats who had ruled for most of the past 100 years lost many votes and were left unable to form governing coalition, as the Sweden Democrats (SDs), a nationalist, Eurosceptic, anti - immigration party made massive gains. Leaders of the legacy parties dubbed the SDs 'far right' and 'racist' (they're neither,) and refused to work with them. Sweden Democrate leader Jimmy Akesson responded by saying if his party was shut out of the governing process they would not let any other coalition pass legislation. This led to an impasse as the legacy parties in effect defied the democratic will. Now a growing number of Swedish voters are now calling on their parties to consider working with the Sweden Democrats to save the country from a second general election (which would probably result in further gains for the SDs.)
Moderate and centre-right voters in Sweden increasingly believe working with the Sweden Democrats is a workable compromise to give Sweden a government, and to influence how the country is run in the future. In a newly released poll, voters of both the Moderates and the Christian Democrats agree that the party should look toward some kind of talks with the populists.
According to the poll, conducted by Novus for Swedish broadcaster SVT, 85 per cent of Moderate voters and 83 per cent of Christian Democrat voters (i.e. both centre right parties,) held a favourable view of working with the SD.
Political scientist Jenny Madestam commented on the results saying, “If you ask the voter on the street, they think it is [an obvious solution] to sit in a government or hold talks with the Swedish Democrats. But this does not appear among the party leadership because they have so many different considerations to take.”
The call to negotiate with the SD was also been favoured by a majority of Moderate politicians in a similar poll that was conducted shortly after the election in September.
“We Moderates want the party in the Riksdag to actively pursue moderate policies and counteract socialism. If this is only possible with SD, it is worth negotiating with Åkesson,” one member said at the time.
Theresa May Touts “Secret” Brexit Deal With EU – Instantly Blocked By DUP
Picture source: AFP / Getty
A report in the Sunday Times is accurate, May has assembled a detailed "secret" Brexit plan that, among other details, would kill off the controversial Northern Ireland "backstop" that had become the main obstacle to further negotiations.
Working in secret, May has reportedly developed a detailed, 50-page plan for a Brexit treaty that will allow the entire UK to remain within the EU customs union - that is, until a final deal can be hammered out during the transitionary period, which Brexiteers fear could mean "forever".
As part of the new "secret" deal, May has effectively scrapped most of her controversial four-page "Chequers plan", and replaced most provisions governing the single market and customs union with an agreement to hash out a "Future Economic Partnership" - essentially an open-ended agreement to continue negotiations that leaves open the possibility of reaching a free trade deal like the one enjoyed by Canada, a provision that is bound to appease at least some of the Brexiteers.
However, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) a Brexit-supporting Northern Irish party currently propping up Theresa May’s minority government has rejected concessions to the European Union (EU) which could have left Britisg citizens in the province subject to EU judges for years.
The Prime Minister had reportedly persuaded EU bosses to drop their insistence on splitting up the United Kingdom and separating Northern Ireland from the rest of Britain’s Home Nations with customs checks in a so-called “customs compromise”.
Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists Party (DUP) had threatened to vote down the budget if the UK was divided in this way. Mrs May proposed to keep the entire UK tied to the EU’s Customs Union as a compromise, while Brussels was pressing for Northern Ireland to be subject to Single Market regulations as well.
Throwing this “compromise” out, the DUP’s Westminster leader Nigel Dodds said: “If Northern Ireland is subject to EU Single Market regulations, then it will also be subject to the European Court of Justice in some form as the arbiter of those regulations.
“This position leaves Northern Ireland a rule taker from Brussels. We’re confident we can get a good deal, good for all four corners of the United Kingdom.”
May has been desperately trying to keep Britain tied to the EU by stealth ever since the process began, though she never committed herself in the brexit campaign, (she's always been the kind of politicians that in public goes the way the wind is blowing, has revealed by her actions she is privately a rabid remainer and a globalist.
Nations Rebel Against The UN Migration PactThe UN's Global Compact for Migration sets out nonbinding guidelines for an integrated approach to international migration. DW looks at the agreement and at why some nations are vehemently against it. The text of the agreement was finalized by UN member states on July 13, 2018, without being offered for public debate and is scheduled to be adopted at a December intergovernmental conference in Marrakesh, Morocco. The compact is based on the recognition that the entire world needs to cooperate if current and future massive migration flows are to be managed in a humane manner, while still taking account of the values of state sovereignty. This may sound innocuous enough but as is usual when international committees of unelected bureaucrats that aspire to become global governments are involved, the devil is in the detail, precious little of which has been reported by mainstream media. Read more: Follow the money: What are the EU's migration policy priorities?
Leaked Document: United Nations Says Immigration Is Always Good And Should never Be Restricted
Only days after the European Court Of Human Rights (ECHR) gave a judgement with effectively reintroduced the notion of criminal blasphemy to Europe, but only for criticism of Islam (you can say what you like about Judaism and Christianity, and the more hateful and threatening the better,) a news reporter for German independent TV station RTL reported on details leaked from United Nations document which reveals that corrupt bunch of Cultural Marxist paskudniaks plan to use immigration from third world shithole countries to destroy western civilisation. If you don't believe me just read the subtitles of the embedded video.
This blog has been telling you for fifteen years we are at war, not with Russia, China or Iran as mainstream media would have you believe but with the ruling elites of our own nations.
The UN's Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration marks the first time the world body has agreed on a list of global measures to tackle the risks and challenges involved in migration for individual migrants, and at the same time to maximize benefits for the countries taking in immigrants.
The agreement comes as huge numbers of people across the world, often driven by conflict and poverty, are leaving their countries of origin to seek refuge elsewhere.
But not all countries agree with the compact's basic tenets and have been vocal in their opposition. Though some have already rejected it, he most significant player, the USA has not committed itself one way or the other. It is likely of course that President Trump has simply wanted to avoid this red herring from becoming a distraction in the run up to the mid - term elections in his country. Russia and China have also declined to reveal their positions as yet, but it is fairly certain thse two global powers will go their own way, and neither is keen on mass immigration.
Some resistance is coming from surprising sources, in Germany for example, where Hausfrau Volksfuhrer Merkel's love of dark sskinned foreigners is even greater than her hatred of native Germans, independent media reports are ensuring Germans, who have already seen working class suburbs in theior cities turned into third world shitholes thanks to Merkel's 'open doors' immigration policy, know exactly what the UN plan to use mass migration to destroy civilisation really means for them.
from Gates of Vienna
An RTL Commentator Utters Blasphemy Against the UN Migration Pact
RTL is the only major independent broadcaster in Germany. In the following clip from RTL, the commentator Jörg Zajonc expresses doubleplus ungood thoughts about the United Nations’ proposed migration pact. Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:Video transcript:
|00:00||The U.N. Migration Pact, a wish-list detached from reality. Convolutedly|
|00:04||written, difficult to read and even more difficult to understand except for one claim:|
|00:08||Migration is good. It is always good and should never be restricted. Why?|
|00:12||No answer is given. The doubters are assured that it is just a consensus paper,|
|00:16||not legally binding. Officially that might be the case, but it IS binding — in a political and|
|00:22||moral sense. That can have legal consequences. That would mean anyone|
|00:26||can make a claim based on the Pact and take their case to court. What judge would|
|00:30||dare make a decision against the consensus? It comes from the U.N.|
|00:34||Additionally, it is noted in the pact that national laws should be taken into account,|
|00:38||but also encouraged that these national laws be adapted according to the interests|
|00:42||of the U.N. Then there’s the matter of “information”. There should be an open,|
|00:47||Fact-based discussion concerning this matter, but I ask how?|
|00:51||If the results are already established, the perception to be created should be more|
|00:55||realistic, humane, and more constructive. The media should involved in steering the|
|00:59||immigration. It says that — literally. And those who don’t play along, they will have|
|01:04||their financial support taken away. That’s written in there too!|
|01:08||There one thing that’s not explained in the Pact. If immigration is so great, then why|
|01:12||does it require a controlled information campaign or such a pact?|
Austria’s Populist Leader On Migrant Pact Pullout: We are Only Committed to Our Own People
Austria's populist Vice-Chancellor Heinz Christian Strache rejected criticisms of his country’s move to pull out of the UN migration pact from other EU leaders including the grandmotherfucker, Little Emmanuel Macron of France, the Irish poofter Leo Varadkar and EU Commission Predident Jean - Claude Drunkard, saying he and his party were only concerned with what is best for Austrians.
The leader of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) said, “We are responsible to our Austrian population as government officials. Austrian sovereignty has top priority for us, this must be preserved and protected,” Kronen Zeitung reports.
Mr Strache added that the migration pact would also create a possibility that “people who are unlawfully coming to Austria are legally compliant.” Indeed, when details not yet released in the public domain are read it becomes clear the pact is intended as a charter for people traffickers that would impose an unbearable burden on the prosperous nations as illiterate, unemployable third world migrants flood into Europe and north America.
“In the government’s program, we have promised to stop illegal migration, to protect citizens’ safety, and to protect the borders,” Strache said, adding that voters would question the government's integrity if they reneged on that promise by signing the pact.
When asked about other countries who have signed the pact Strache said, “We do not care how many states join and which do not. We are pioneers when it comes to ensuring the sovereignty and the self-determination of Austria, so as not to end up with foreign rule.”
The move was lauded by Europes other populist parties, including Germany's Alternative for Germany (AfD) whose leader praised Austria and the United States which has not officially declared its position although it is easy to predict Donald Trump's response. Hungary have also rejected the pact. AfD co-chair Alice Weidel said, “Germany must not sign this pact which is an incalculable risk to our country and to the whole of Europe.”
The rejection by Austria is likely to encourage other countries to resist UN bullying and reject the pact. Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis has already revealed that he too does not support the pact and expressed his intention to pull the Czech Republic out of it as well.
“I do not like the pact,” Babis said and added, “There are issues that can be interpreted in various ways. I will be proposing to my partners in government that we act in the same way as Austria or Hungary.”
The poor countries of the world support the pact of course, nobody want to migrate to such shitholes anyway - apart from paedophiles maybe as most of these places have been bypassed by civilisation and have no laws against such vile practices. Of the civilised nations it seems the cheese eating surrender monkeys of France and the testicularly deficient Swedes and Canadians are keen, Germany's Merkel is hanging on to power by her fingernails and support for this latest betrayal of civilised values would see her booted out of office, likewise Theresa May in Britain, the Poles, Italians and Australians are sound and Spain is looking for a chance to dump the loony left socialist government which in effect seized power in a bloodless coup.
EU Slams Austrian Exit From UN Migration Pact as Czech Republic Prepares to Bail Next
Following news that Austria would quit the UN Migration Pact, the Czech Prime Minister has revealed his nation is looking to pull out of the United Nations’ (UN) policy on uncontroled migration too, as the European Commission lambassted Austria for withdrawing earlier this week from the agreement which is loved by globalists and hated by sane people.
Andrej Babiš, who recently compared Europe to ‘Asterix’s besieged village in asserting that citizens in the bloc must “have the right to defend our borders, our lifestyle, our heritage and our culture” against mass, third world migration, indicated Thursday he would recommend the Czech Republic withdraw from the compact. When leaders euphemistically talk of mass migration what they really mean is the transporation of illiterate religious fanatics into the propsperous, civilized parts of the world.
“I don’t like the pact. It’s not clearly interpreted and it could be abused,” Babiš said of the agreement, which claims that mass migration is “inevitable, necessary, and desirable”, warning lawmakers the agreement was “not clearly worded and could easily be abused”.
“I will be proposing to my partners in government that we act in the same way as Austria or Hungary,” stated Babiš, noting that “the United States has pulled out … and Poland is debating it as well”.
Following Wednesday’s announcement that Austria’s conservative-populist coalition was pulling the country out of the ‘Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration’, citing concern that the agreement would lead to “a human right to migration”, the European Commission, a long time proponent of letting third world shitholes dump their gangsters, rapists, murderers, terrorists and general cunts, lashed out against the decision.
A spokesman for the unelected EU executive said: “We regret the decision that the Austrian government has taken. We continue to believe that migration is a global challenge where only global solutions and global responsibility sharing will bring results.”
Poland signalled its intention to leave the agreement last month, when Interior Minister Joachim Brudzinski said he recommended that Warsaw quit the globalist compact for security reasons, asserting that the government wants “Poles to be safe in their own country”.
Earlier this week it was reported that Croatia would also withdraw from the UN compact as the Balkan nation’s president, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, said voters could “rest assured” that she would not be signing the declaration in Marrakech next month.
Hungary was the second nation to pull out after the U.S. — whose President Donald Trump characterised the compact as “no borders, everyone can come in!” — denounced the pact as a case of overreach by UN bureaucrats. The Visegrad nation slammed the “dangerous” UN document, of which it said “the thing looks as if it were copied” from open borders-backing billionaire George Soros’ blueprints for mass migration.
Russian Gold Reserves Hit Putin-Era High, Buying Frenzy Accelerates
picture: Zero Hedge
The move to dump the US dollar as the main reserve currency for international trade seems to be gatherinmg momenum in spite of US sanctions mania when smaller countries will not obey wasdhington's diktat.
Bloomberg's Yuliya Fedorinova and Olga Tanas report today that the Bank of Russia has more than doubled its monthly gold purchases, bringing the share of bullion in its international reserves to the highest of Putin’s 17 years in power, according to World Gold Council data.
In the second quarter of 2018 alone, Rusia's buying accounted for 38 percent of all gold purchased by central banks. The gold rush is allowing the Bank of Russia to continue growing its reserves while abstaining from purchases of foreign currency for more than two years. It’s one of a handful of central banks to keep the faith as global demand for the precious metal fell to a two-year low in the second quarter.
“Gold is an asset that is independent of any government and, in effect, given what is usually held in reserves, any western government,” said Matthew Turner, metals analyst at Macquarie Group Ltd. in London.
Some pundits are trying to suggest Russia's gold buying is a hedge against further US sanctions or a bid to cut off Russia's access to global financial markets, but in fact Moscow's hoarding of gold goes back a lot further than the current tensions. Russia is of course heavily involved in the creation of a gold backed financial vehicle on the Shanghai financial marke,t planned to act as a rival to the petrodollar.
If Russia’s buying continues at a similar pace, the World Gold Council said the full-year increase in 2018 “could closely match” the 200 tons purchased annually in 2015 and 2016.
At its current pace, Moscow will unseat China for the number five spot of gold-holding nations by the first quarter of 2018.
But China is no slouch, as Reuters reports, China’s proven gold reserves reached 12,100 tonnes at the end of 2016, the state news agency Xinhua reported on Monday quoting an official with the national gold association.
Top Cop Slams Politicised ‘Hate Crime’ Obsession, Demands Focus on Real Crime
Most British people agree police have lost control of the streets because of politically correct government policies
One of the UK’s highest ranking police officers has attacked the government's policy of prioritising “hate crimes,” over serious crimes such as theft, vandalism, violence and fraud, calling for officers to be reassigned to investigate more burglaries and violent attacks by focusing on “core policing.”
National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Chair Sara Thornton CBE also said she did not want to see “misogyny” and offensive comments about women specified in law as hate crimes. One can only hope she feels the same about truthful criticisms of Islam, which glorifies misogyny, violence and rape.
Thornton suggested political pressure is being put on police to record “hate incidents” that do not qualify as crimes when resources are stretched, many traditional crimes against people or property are not being investigated and violent crimes has risen to record levels.
She said “investigating gender-based hate crime… cannot be a priority for a service that is overstretched” and that “core policing” has not “received enough attention in recent years.”
The outburst was on the same day as the government revealed plans to encourage reporting of even more trivial incidents as hate crime by launching a “new nationwide hate crime campaign aimed at increasing awareness and understanding of what constitutes a hate crime.”
This blog will tell them what constitutes hate crime. Nothing, that's what. If some straight guy kicks the crap out of a homosexual because he's homosexual, is it worse than if a thug kicks the crap out of a man who might or might not be homosexual, for the purpose of stealing his wallet and watch? Both are terrible crimes for which the perp should be punished equally severely.
However, beating someone up should not be put on a par with saying homosexuals should be pushed back in the closet because they are perverts. That is mildly offensive but can only hurt someone's feelings. And in the great scheme of things, an individual's feelings are no more significant than a gnat's fart in a hurricane.
Speaking at the NPCC nation annual conference, Ms Thornton said: “We do really need to refocus on core policing. The public expects an effective response to organised crime, to terrorism, to the focus on the vunerable.
“But, they also expect the basics: responding to emergencies, investigating and solving crimes, and neighbourhood policing. It is this core policing that is seriously stretched – This is surely part of the police covenant with the public. We are, however, asked to provide more and more bespoke services that are all desirable. But the simple fact is, there are too many desirable and deserving issues.
“For example, treating misogyny as a ‘hate crime’ is a concern for some well-organised campaigning organisations."
Some police forces already began treating “misogyny” and making offensive comments to women as hate incidents back in 2016 and London’s Metropolitan force revealed last year they are considering following suit. In violation of every long establishedd principle of British justice, “no evidence” is needed to report a hate incident. An accusation by a member of one of the anointed minorities is sufficient to establish guilt.
Ms Thornton appeared to suggest that certain “well organised” political activist groups and some officers with personal agendas (members of the Gay BLT police association?) wanted “non-crime” incidents recorded for political reasons and to pressure the government.
It has frequently been reported that some UK police forces are urging people to report “non-crime hate incidents” and “offensive” online comments to “re-emphasises the need” for officers to “tackle hate.” And they thick plods wonder why they have lost the trust of the public. Still that's what happens when you make a vocation into a degree entry profession - you end up only being able to recruit university brainwashed idiots.