Tuesday, May 07, 2013

My response to this Telegraph article

"...and then professed itself bewildered by the complaints from those who found themselves unable to cope with the flow of new arrivals."

I'm glad you included the rider "professed". It was a deliberate policy forced on the British public by the Labour party for two reasons; one pragmatic and the other ideological.

The Labour leaders calculated that most immigrants who qualify to vote give their support to the Labour party therefore by increasing their numbers and perpetuating the electoral injustice of smaller constituencies in inner city wards, they would guarantee an in inbuilt electoral advantage. The Liberal Democrats being the willing fools they are, ensured that this particular injustice will be maintained until at least the next election, after which, it may be too late to do anything about it.

Of more concern, is the ideological root for Labour's policy which conforms the the methods proposed by the Marxist Institute for Social Research of the Frankfurt School.

This group of German/American academics sought nothing less than the destruction of Western Judeo-Christian civilization.

To further this objective, they devised a program to, as they put it :

"...reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring [it] down....

To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution – but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School recommended (among other things):

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family..."


Monday, October 08, 2012

I'm back after a long break.  I'm still seething despite a change in government since the new(ish) one is only marginally less socialist than the last.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

The Madness Continues

I post comments on The Guardian's Comment is Free under the name emale. Here is my latest:


Grinch said: "If it [the government] wants to charge the rich more, then it is perfectly entitled to. It's just getting the best possible price for its services. This is how capitalism works, and it's how you'd expect a capitalist state to act. So in fact progressive taxation is, ironically, a deeply capitalist idea."

In particular the phrase "It's just getting the best possible price for its services. This is how capitalism works.... " No it doesn't. Capitalism operates under the free market system which, through competition, ensures that only companies which provide their goods and services at prices acceptable to their customers remain in business. The relationship between provider (seller) and the buyer is entirely voulantary which encourages the provider to be efficient, lean and well organised. Such efficencies reduce cost which is passed on to the consumer in the form of stable prices.

The government, on the other hand takes what it wants with the threat of force, in most areas of it's activity, it does not allow competition (and therefore has no incentive to improve it's efficiency) in fact productivity in the government(public) sector is going down. This leads to increasred costs which are passed on to the consumer in the form of tax increases. Most of the increases in tax over recent years have been eroded by public sector inflation and have produced no tangible benefit to the consumer. This is why the taxpayers feels cheated.

Of course there are those who have benefited from this huge misallocation of recources. Public sector employees, who have seen their numbers increase by nearlly a million (NuLabour's payroll vote) their salaries increase far faster than the private sector, their final salary pensions protected, virtual jobs-for-life employment rights, etc. etc.

I would hazard a guess that the majority of the commentators posting here who support Polly's argument, work in the public sector. They are acting out of self interest, and have absolutely no right to complain when the taxpayer does the same. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoiceTheory.html