Posts Tagged 'Marxism'

Hypocritical ICIJ stooges lead an assault on privacy to aid state theft of assets

Cyprus was just a stepping stone on a far bigger and more disturbing journey.

Over on EU Referendum, Richard draws attention to another – an ‘investigation’ into offshore tax havens that is leading the headlines in certain publications.  As he explains:

For the last few days in certain newspapers, the dominant story has been a collaborative affair, running under the general title of “Secrecy For Sale: Inside The Global Offshore Money Maze“.

Styled as “one of the largest and most complex cross border investigative projects in journalism history”, it is co-ordinated by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), working with more than 86 journalists in 46 countries in “an attempt to strip away the biggest mystery associated with tax havens: the owners of anonymous companies”.

He questions the motivation of those involved in this inquiry, and with very good reason.  For the ICIJ is an organisation with an unsavoury history – as this blog discussed last year – which is working to a particular ‘big state’ agenda.  For while the investigation ostensibly seeks to shine a light on the business of ‘dirty money’ and shady nominee companies, something it would be hard for anyone to take exception to, its real motivation is demonise tax havens and close down legal avenues for people to shield their wealth from taxation and confiscation by the wasteful, unrepresentative and self serving political class.

These are people for whom the concept of paying a ‘fair share’ is to say ‘you have money so we are taking it’.  It is a spiteful and devisive approach that feeds on the envy and resentment of people who are not as well off.

Whenever tax havens are discussed they are deliberately associated with ‘dirty money’, quasi criminality and tax evasion.  Yet as the paucity of identified wrongdoing demonstrates that it is mainly hard working, law abiding and successful people who use tax havens to legally avoid and minimise tax liability, and who are having their privacy assaulted as part of this effort to demonise the offshoring of assets.  Note with care the fact that the offshore arrangements of the paymasters of these ICIJ stooges, such as the owners of the Guardian, are strictly off limits.  Orwell’s pigs are taking control.

With its Marxist roots the ICIJ despises the concept of individuals taking steps to prevent government simply helping itself to the rewards other people have earned for hard work, entrepreneurship and personal risk.  This is why the ICIJ is devoting so much energy and resource to this campaign and in the absence of widespread wrongdoing is content to muddy the waters and talks of perfectly legal tax avoidance as if it is something criminal and shameful.  The sole aim is to close tax havens, further the goal of harmonising taxation policy around the globe, and enabling governments to attain the unfettered power to take from citizens, at will, anything they want when they want.  This is the global governance agenda writ large and occasioned by the continuing erosion of liberty, private ownership and personal freedom.

The only shame in all this is that so many people have been brainwashed by a succession of parasitical governments into believing the confiscation of wealth is a socially responsible activity – despite the fact taxpayers have no say in how the revenues seized from them are used and abused by the political class to buy votes at election time with bribes to net consumers, funded with money taken from net producers and irresponsibly borrowed by the billion without realistic means of repayment.

Instead of cheering this nefarious campaign, people should be opening their eyes and understanding this represents the dismantling of what stands between limited government, barely held at bay by the people, and total domination of the citizenry by the real criminals – the undemocratic, unaccountable and unelected elite and their minions in the political class.

Organised crime is the excuse being offered up to justify this campaign.  But it’s not about criminality, it’s about removing the last barriers to total domination of people by unaccountable governments and the vested interests that direct them from behind the scenes – individuals who will benefit from state sanctioned theft by the real organised criminals who are destroying the economies of the world and with them undermining the wealth and prospects of ordinary people.

Advertisements

The great sleepwalk

The people of this country are in the process of being brainwashed to ask only those questions the political elite will allow and are, at the same time, being programmed to see every political decision as one that is unquestionably correct. This brainwashing, or social engineering, has now reached a stage where it appears that Britons are no longer able to see what is happening to them and their country.

Read the whole thing at the always excellent Witterings from Witney.

Why ‘we are the 99 percent’ has got it wrong

In the comments to a previous post, Permantexpat asked for my opinion on the burgeoning ‘we are the 99 percent‘ movement in the US.  I say the US because the UK boasts an altogether more positive 99 percent organisation with a different agenda.

In the US, ‘We are the 99 percent’ has emerged from the leftist agitprop of the Occupy Wall Street foolishness.  There are many tragic stories of misfortune among those who are now identifying with the 99 percent movement, but there are also many people who are involved for no more reason than they embody the politics of envy, the politics of entitlement, the politics of something for nothing.

There is a peculiar mindset among many on the left.  It leads them to argue that if someone has wealth the state should take a slice of it and give it to others who are less wealthy. Never mind that many of those people with wealth have earned it through hard work, long hours, risk taking, personal and emotional commitment and a determination to succeed; they have it and the Wall Street occupiers believe that without putting in the same effort they are entitled to some of it.

I am part of the 99 percent whose costs are increasing, income is falling and for whom the economic mess is proving harmful.  But I do not endorse or support the insipid, big state, authoritarian rent seekers who are leading desperate people down a dead end path.

The decent people who are suffering in the current economic situation, and through desperation are climbing aboard the leftist bandwagon, are right to protest.  However they are protesting against the wrong people.  The focus of their anger should not be Wall Street, it should be the White House and Congress. The root cause of what angers them is not those in the financial sector, regardless of the way many of them operated.  No, the root cause is a combination of themselves and the government.

  • Themselves because they allowed the politicians to con them into believing the state has all the answers and could be relied upon to throw a never ending stream of money at various agencies they could milk
  • The government because successive administrations have gradually made millions more people dependent on the state for assistance and handouts, while pursuing policies that have driven up the costs of essentials

What has been lost on too many people is the adage that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.  The consequences of allowing this to happen are now coming back a vengeance.  Now the handout tap has been turned down a large number of people are finding they have been living beyond their means.  No one denies the difficulty this causes for many decent people, but demanding the handouts continue by taking money from those who are more fortunate is not the answer.

Occupying Wall Street will change nothing.  Sleeping outside St Paul’s Cathedral will change nothing.  The first thing to do is focus a campaign on the politicians – because it is they who have encouraged and embedded this situation – and demand a change in the scandalous government spending priorities and regressive policies which are driving up the cost of food and energy, hitting the poorest hardest.

What is required is an end to the corporatism that masquerades as democratic government. It won’t happen by protesting outside the offices of bankers and financiers.  It won’t happen via movements which are steered by those who want to replace the damaging corporatist system with a damaging socialist system.

But when the decent majority wake up, stop being manipulated by the Marxists and leftists and demand action on their terms and focus on the political class, it will create the conditions for government in the people’s interest – where policies do not impoverish and the power games of the politicians are pushed out to the margins.  We might at last get proper representative democracy.

Tottenham shows it’s time to end the Jody McIntyre roadshow

Update: Bubbling with excitement, McIntyre enjoyed a second night of riot tourism this time in Brixton.  The journalistic giant, pride of The Independent, The Guardian and New Statesman, returned to his lair in the early hours to bash out some tweets glorifying the violence:

Those who have watched his evasive BBC TV interview from last year will be familiar with his technique of not answering a question, instead posing another of his own. Well, he does it on his keyboard too. There remains not a single word of condemnation from McIntyre of the looting, arson and criminal damage.  So will the newspapers continue to give this thug a platform?:

When this round of rioting is over we can but guess what ’cause’ he will attach himself to next as an excuse to take to the streets yet again and add to disorder and criminality.

————-

Original Post

Thanks to The Guardian, The Independent and the New Statesman, the self promoting rent-a-protester, Jody McIntyre, has been afforded the oxygen of publicity and a platform to spout his special brand of bile.  We’ll come back these media giants further down.

Jody McIntyre describes himself as a ‘journalist’ and ‘political activist’.  The reality is he is nothing more than a trouble-seeking wannabe thug who gets a thrill from being right in the thick of violent disorder.  On his blog he tells people:

Jody McIntyre is a journalist and political activist. With a regular blog for The Independent, he has also written for The Guardian, the New Statesman, Electronic Intifada and Disability Now.

That apparently depicts journalism despite an apparent lack of payment for his ‘work’.  In reality he is trying to cover his activities in a veneer of respectability they do not warrant.  What is noteworthy is that despite his complaint that disabled people are badly treated and discriminated against he seems to think his cerebral palsy and use of a wheelchair should exempt him from being treated in the same way as other protesters.

As McIntyre lives in south London it should come as no surprise that he was present in Tottenham, north London, last night as parts of the borough were consumed by rioting, arson, looting, house breaking and muggings.  But more of McIntyre’s big night out (presumably only for the purposes of ‘journalism’…) in a minute.  First, let’s examine the legend Jody McIntyre would have us believe, then add the reality he and his band of anarcho-fans would prefer people didn’t know.

McIntyre came to prominence during the student protests in London when he was twice taken out of his wheelchair by police and moved to the side of the road.  His complaints about his treatment were quickly picked up by the media looking for a police ‘disproportionate force’ and in no time he was on Sky News and the BBC claiming he had been ‘attacked’.

However the TV interview showed Jody McIntyre up to be slippery and evasive and his story was clearly questionable as the footage was not very clear.  When challenged about his self description as a ‘revolutionary’ who believes in ‘direct action’ McIntyre sought to get off the subject as quickly as possible.  Clearly it would be inconvenient to present himself as merely a concerned citizen when the reality is he goes out of his way to get stuck into the action anytime there is a protest, no matter what the cause.  However McIntyre can be seen trying to crawl away from the police officer in the middle of the road as he resisted before being pulled to the kerb where he wouldn’t cause an obstruction.

So here we had this poor, wheelchair bound, young lad who just wanted engage in peaceful, democratic protest, being mistreated by the police. Not once, but twice.  Or did we?  Because, before this incident, McIntyre had been right at the front of violent clashes with the police.  He deliberately put himself there despite knowing violence was taking place. He actually describes it on his blog!  Here are some snippets…

As we parked up, and began walking back down the Strand, we saw a crowd emerging from Aldwych; around 2000 students had set off from LSE. However, they were only marching down one side of the road, and we were in a militant mood. Me and Finlay crossed over, into the oncoming traffic, and within seconds the whole crowd had followed.

It was an endless sea of people, but unfortunately, they had been corralled by police and NUS stewards into one lane of the dual carriageway. Me and Finlay immediately set to work, tearing down the metal barriers which separated the two lanes. Oncoming traffic drivers looked on in wonder.

The people with the music system must have had the same thought. All of a sudden, the bicycle burst out of the crowd, rushing through the pair of armed police guarding the private road of the Treasury. A group of 200 followed, including me in my wheelchair, and Finlay pushing at full speed. A dubstep tune came on, and the chanting began; “Fuck Cameron! Fuck Cameron! Fuck Cameron! Fuck Cameron!” Not the Treasury’s proudest day.

The building was occupied on the day the Browne Review was released, so here the police were ready for us. We flooded into the courtyard, but the riot cops were called within minutes. As batons began to swing, me and Finlay stood our ground on the front line. I stood up on my wheelchair, but attempts to re-take the courtyard soon fizzled out as a riot van was brought in.

In front of us, a huge glass building towered; it was the Conservative Party’s Headquarters, and it was under attack. The crowd was so tightly packed that even with the wheelchair, it was a huge effort to force our way through. Around half way we gave up. The crowd was swaying. “They’re smashing the windows…”

Me and Finlay looked at each other. We knew that we had to make it to the front. Kareem started pushing the wheelchair again, and Finlay cleared a path in front of us.

It wasn’t long before the next surge came. A Mexican wave of bodies. I fell out of my wheelchair and pushed through two cops. Finlay stood behind me, the wheelchair still in his hands.

Scores of demonstrators followed. Finlay came running in with the wheelchair a couple of minutes later. Victorious chants rang in the air; “Tory scum! Tory scum!” “When they say cut back, we say fight back!”

But then, the chants changed… “To the stairs! To the stairs!” Two policemen blocking a tiny door were soon brushed aside, and around fifty of us forced our way through before they had a chance to re-seal the entrance.

It was an epic mission to the top. Nine floors; eighteen flights of stairs. Two friends carried my wheelchair, and I walked. We couldn’t give up now.

When we finally made it to the roof, a feeling of calm descended. I looked over the edge; thousands of students, three massive bonfires and masses of passion still occupied the courtyard. The Tory’s HQ was on it’s last legs. And we were on the roof.

This is only the start.

Gentle lamb, isn’t he?  All of this activity, yet no complaints about being disabled.  Yet the moment the police moved him out of harms way on a street, Jody McIntyre was screaming blue murder and citing his cerebral palsy and seemingly sporadic wheelchair use to underline their sheer evil and lack of concern for the disabled.

Inconveniently for McIntyre, not only was his involvement in the street part of the violence photographed, but the photographer even posted a blog piece explaining what McIntyre had done and why his subsequent complaint was vexatious.  It is a must read piece.  One of the photos included in it is of McIntyre, on his feet, about to hit a police officer – known in legal parlance as assault.

Despite this the Graun, the Indy and the marxist Staggers all publish his self indulgent tosh.  Fast forward from last autumn in central London to last night in Tottenham.  By 10.00pm it was clear that the peaceful protest outside Tottenham police station had been hijacked by those bent on violence and criminal activity.  But where there is violent protest, there is McIntyre.  We know because Guardian journalist Paul Lewis tweeted a message to McIntyre earlier today:

McIntyre was also online, winding things up and revelling in the disorder on his Twitter account.  The tweets below were screen captured at 2.00pm today, putting the time of posting the first image at around 11.00pm last night, at the height of the trouble and the second one at around 5.00am this morning when looters were still destroying businesses:

So here we have a man who is given a platform in The Guardian, The Independent and the New Statesman, out in the thick of the violence until early morning and inciting people elsewhere to riot in similar fashion.  A man who went on to condemn the police as troublemakers as properties, vehicles and businesses were torched, journalists and media were attacked and robbed, bystanders were mugged, and residents overrun by thugs who broke down their doors to steal from their homes.

The question is, having fallen for his deceitful sob story last year and given this man an unwarranted veneer of respectability, will these media outlets now remove the platform they provided this violence glorifying hooligan?  Or will they show themselves (again, more on this during the week) as part of this country’s enemy within who endorse and provide assistance those who engage in pre-meditated criminality, be it as a battering ram on wheels or walkabout agitator?

It is time to end the glorification of troublemakers like McInytre. It’s time for these papers to withdraw their endorsement and put an end to the Jody McIntyre media roadshow.

Hilarious if they were not so dangerous

The good Dr North at EU Referendum draws our attention today to two related pieces in that newsprint spattered bastion of Marxism known as The Guardian.

It seems a left wing, self appointed band of self professed worthies has announced that they are launching a campaign to hold to account Britain’s ‘feral’ elite for the series of crises which have scarred the country.

Expenses, bonuses and hacking crises share the same origins, says this campaign group, which proposes to create a 1,000-strong “public jury” that would be selected at random and ensure that power is taken away from “remote interest groups” which currently treat the public with contempt.  As North explains:

This is the view the likes of Greg Dyke, Caroline Lucas and Lord Smith of Clifton, who think we need a “people’s jury” to apply a “public interest first” test more generally to British political and corporate life. Overworked as a cliché or not, you really could not make this one up.

And he’s right.  The ‘feral elite’ they describe is comprised of figures from the establishment.  Yet without any sense of self awareness or the evident rich irony, the campaign group itself is made up of 56 academics, writers, trade unionists and politicians from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green party – in other words, left wing figures from the establishment.

A look at the list of signatories to their open letter in the Graun betrays the motivation and the objective of this little enterprise.  This is not about holding the ‘feral elite’ to account, it is about undermining their rivals in the establishment in order to secure more influence for themselves and their liberal-left worldview.  If you don’t believe that, just look at their stated priority areas for attention in the background article about the campaign:

• Media ownership and the public interest

• The role of the financial sector in the crash

• MP selections and accountability

• Policing and public interest

• How to apply a ‘public interest first’ test more generally to British political and corporate life

Quelle surprise seeing media ownership, code for ‘nail Murdoch and any opposition to the BBC and Guardian’ right up there at number one.  You can almost see the conversation where these people were asking themselves what could they do to capitalise on the current anti News Corp sentiment and solidify the dominance of the BBC on the airwaves.  This campaign is their vehicle to control the levers of power without having to share the cockpit any longer.

As if there are not enough clues as to the real aims of this campaign – oxygen of publicity by the Guardian… main figurehead the former BBC Director General Greg Dyke… supported by Media Standards Trust (deputy chair, Julia Middleton, the CEO of Common Purpose) board members Helena Kennedy QC, BBC hack Robert Peston and Amelia Fawcett who is also chair of Guardian Media Group…  – the activity is being facilitated by Compass.  Note their slogan.  The one thing absent from the campaign is any form of ideological balance.  That should tell us all we need to know.

This is nothing more than a raid.  It is an attempt to get support from unwitting people, who would reject the leftist dogma out of hand if presented to them openly, who feel concern at what they see around them.  But people who will fail to realise the state of affairs this campaign claims it wants to tackle has largely been shaped by its very signatories since 1997 because it suited their interersts in their establishment positions.

The campaign is nothing more an attempt to use people as pawns in the power games of the elite.  As North rightly concludes in his blog post:

The trouble is, you will never get the “feral elite” offer anything that amounts to the transfer of real power. If we want power, we are going to have to take it. The time is not yet, but what we are seeing here is the elites falling out. The time must be near.

That time cannot come too soon.

Gaddafi Jr and the London School of Economics

It’s as if the raft of state sponsored terrorist attacks, the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher and the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie  never happened:

The London School of Economics, one of the top-ranking universities in Europe, on Monday (21 February) acknowledged it had received a gift of €1.78 million from the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, chaired by Saif al Islam, one of the Libyan dictator’s seven sons and a former graduate.

The university also admitted it had “delivered executive education programmes to Libyan officials”, but said it had now decided to sever all those links “in view of the highly distressing news” about hundreds of protesters killed by armed forces.

“The school intends to continue its work on democratisation in north Africa funded from other sources unrelated to the Libyan authorities,” it said in a statement published on its website.

Only now is the LSE severing links with the Libyan regime, as if the actions of the Gaddafi regime over the last 40 years haven’t given enough clues about its violent and repressive nature.

But then, what else could we expect from such a bastion of left wing radicalism that embraces climate alarmism’s chief media attack poodle Bob Ward as part of its extended team?  No doubt as more people trawl over this obnoxiously pungent relationship between the Gaddafis and the LSE, the college will employ the same kind of diversionary tactics as Ward does when trying to smear someone who tells the inconvenient truth.  Birds of a feather…

Not education, propaganda

Since Mind Jr arrived home from school this afternoon I have been stewing with barely concealed anger.  For within minutes of getting in, a very earnest Junior sat down Mrs Mind and myself and solemnly announced that we would no longer eat red meat in our household.

The inevitable question ‘why?’ resulted in a detailed explanation concerning today’s Geography lesson.  It was there Junior was informed that red meat should not be eaten any more than once per week, we were told, because any frequency beyond that will kill us all with strokes or heart attacks – and in any case it contributes to global warming.

Conscious of the need to help develop Junior’s critical thinking capability, I asked her why she thought this message had been shared in the lesson.  She opined that the class had been taught this because it is good for us.  And right there was the heart of the matter.  No discussion about it in class, no contrary view presented, no balance to the message, just a binary condition of good v bad and that we must listen to what the ‘experts’ say.  So what we have is a curriculum item check box, duly ticked, relying on an appeal to authority with theory presented as fact and a class of 13-14-yr-olds duly brainwashed with the partial and biased opinions of the political class that formed the syllabus.

In Geography this week and in Science last week, the class had been fed the party line on global warming and health.  I probed further to see just how much they had been taught.

  • Which greenhouse gas is present in the atmosphere in highest concentration?  Methane.  Wrong, I explained. Had she been told about water vapour?  There had been no mention of it.
  • How much CO2 is there in the atmosphere?  That wasn’t covered either, so I explained it was 385 parts per million.  She was stunned.
  • How much atmospheric CO2 is produced by humans and how much by nature?  Most of it from humans she said.  No, only around 5% with the rest coming from nature.  Now she was bewildered.  Her next comment summed everything up when she said, cutting out red meat won’t make much difference then.

As for the dietry aspects, had there been any discussion of the effects of sugary carbohydrates, the benefits of the complex carbs and the relatively benign influence of proteins such as meat?  Clearly that was too much to hope for, nothing of the sort had been covered.

It is simply unacceptable that our children are being plied with propaganda in this way.  This is not an education, it is an indoctrination constructed by special interest groups.  Rarely have the lyrics of Pink Floyd been more appropriate, leave them kids alone.

A sense of perspective

Forget William Hague for now.  This subject is far more essential.  Across Europe today there will be plenty of talk about the agreement struck yesterday to beef up supervision of banks in EU member states.  The agreement gives new EU watchdogs a mandate to overrule national authorities (another reduction in sovereignty) and ban risky financial products that were widely blamed for the world’s worst recession in decades.

This will result in the imposition of a European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) and three new European Supervisory Authorities – a European Banking Authority (EBA), a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and a European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).  But while this is likely to have harmful implications for London as a financial centre, the issues pales in comparison to the essential subject referred to at the start, where EU inflexibility could be a matter of life and death.

The EU’s Renewable Energies Directive (2009/28/EC) mandates a 10% share of renewable energies in transport fuels by 2020.  Earlier this year a report by the International Food Policy Institute (IFPRI) presented to the European Commission advised that going beyond a 5.6% share of biofuels in transport fuel could harm the environment.  It suggested that the EU’s current target is only borderline sustainable because indirect land-use change has “an important effect on the environmental sustainability of biofuels”. While the EU takes comfort from the fact the IFPRI argued that current EU renewable energy targets are small enough to safeguard the environmental sustainability of biofuels, events around the world suggest otherwise.

The Food Security Risk Index of 163 countries, compiled by risk analysis firm Maplecroft, shows that a number of countries are at risk of food shortages.  While it lays the blame for a number of weather events at the door of that catch-all bogeyman, climate change, it nevertheless demonstrates that a number of countries could see their populations going hungry due to food shortages.  This comes at a time when the EU needs an increase in biofuel use to meet its arbitrary targets on renewable energy in transport – resulting in a conflict between feeding people and ticking a box on a piece of paper in Brussels.

Already Russia, a major wheat exporter, has banned grain exports until at least next year to protect its domestic needs after a 25% reduction in the harvest due to drought.  This has forced prices up.  Canada has lost over 15% of its harvest due to floods, adding to the pressure on grain supplies.  The Maplecroft report also details that Sub-Saharan Africa is particularly vulnerable to food insecurity because of the frequency of extreme weather events, high rates of poverty and failing infrastructures, including road and telecommunications networks, which decrease both production and distribution capacity.

Despite this, Friends of the Earth research suggests the demand in Europe for more crops for food and fuel (almost certainly a result of the Renewable Energies Directive) is driving a land grab in Africa.  The report ‘Africa: Up for grabs’ explains how agrofuels are competing with food crops for farmland, and agrofuel development companies are competing with farmers for access to that land.  The land grab is not only increasing food supply insecurity for those Africans who are losing their land, it is also resulting in the clearance of forests to increase the amount of agricultural land for biofuel development.  So far an area the size of Denmark has been bought up to service European demand in just 11 African countries.  The consequences could prove fatal.

The wrongheadedness of the EU’s obsession with biofuels as a way of tackling climate change is clear for all to see.  The possible impact on people who would be affected by food shortages is clear for all to see.  But the EU doesn’t care.  It doesn’t want to change its approach because of the perception that would be created by backing down on such a flagship policy.  It would rather people died from avoidable hunger than the EU be seen as having erred.  Don’t believe me?  Permit me to refer you back to the EU’s response previously carried on this blog.  Barbara Helfferich the spokeswoman for EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, offered this startling rationale for refusing to back down on biofuels::

“There is no question for now of suspending the target fixed for biofuels.

“You can’t change a political objective without risking a debate on all the other objectives.”

You couldn’t make it up.  Sacrifice the people for the sake of the greater good.  Doesn’t this remind you of the approach of a certain Soviet leader with a penchant for repression and death?  It puts a lot of concerns in our lives into perspective.

Economic illiteracy and distortion infests the BBC

BBC Director General Mark Thompson was so acutely aware of the institutional bias in the corporation’s political reporting he felt minded, when the General Election was called, to state that the BBC would be reporting impartially on the campaign, saying it was:

‘…vital that the BBC is able to provide a strong and independent place where the big debates can take place – free from political or commercial influence’.

They were fine words that should have been unnecessary.  However they reflected the reality of the situation.  Tonight that reality was once again brought into stark relief on Newsnight, courtesy of Paul Mason, the programme’s economics editor.  Mason, a supporter and previous member of the hard left Workers Power, a Trotskyist group which is the British section of the League for the Fifth International, has adopted lock, stock and barrel, Labour’s economically illiterate rhetoric about ‘removing £6 billion from the economy’.

When a BBC journalist repeats the unfounded campaign mantra of one of the political parties as a given truth, how is that free of political influence?  It is nothing but bias.

The concept that a decision not to impose additional taxation has the effect of taking money out of the economy  is complete and utter rubbish. It is a distortion.  A lie.  Labour’s and Mason’s view is clear, if our money isn’t in government coffers it isn’t part of the economy.  Well, if the money in my bank account and my pension plan isn’t part of the economy, what the hell is it exactly, and is the government doing taxing it?

This economic illiteracy is what passed for balanced assessment on the BBC’s flagship news and politics programme, just before Labour’s Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, was rolled out to talk about the economy’s anaemic growth of just 0.2%.  Why not be done with it and put a huge ‘Vote Labour’ backdrop behind Jeremy Paxman?  Perhaps Mason should have stuck to being a music teacher where his capacity for distortion and economic fallacy might have been contained.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Cameron is allied with Obama’s marxists

Saul AlinskyWhile the evidence had been all around me for a while, suddenly it is all becoming much more clear what is going on.  Hardly news, is it?  Others have surely already made the point some time ago, making this post well behind the curve.  But it’s a point still worth repeating.  If only I had spotted this piece in The Times from last week I would have arrived here sooner.  Where exactly?  Let me explain.

The Jonathan Oliver piece tells us probably little more than people had worked out for themselves, but it would have helped me join some important dots that go to the heart of the origin for David Cameron’s increasingly and distinctly unconservative political outlook.  Less than a fortnight ago there was quite a spat as David Cameron launched his vision of a Big Society, with the Conservative party saying:

‘This plan is directly based on the successful community organising movement established by Saul Alinsky in the United States and has successfully trained generations of community organisers, including President Obama.’

A number of conservatives reacted with horror.  After all, Saul Alinsky (above) is known as a Marxist, a lifelong cultural revolutionary and political subversive, a point well made by Gerald Warner.  Not the sort of bedfellow any true conservative would want.  If I had read the comments to Warner’s piece, again I would have got here sooner as other people had already made the link.

The point is, I had been both concerned and puzzled about how Cameron arrived at Alinsky’s knee.  But now I know whom the puppetmaster is, it all makes perfect sense.  For helping to pull Cameron’s strings is none other than the Obama lizard woman, Anita Dunn.

Who she?  The former White House Director of Communications and leading light in the Obama campaign – and a veteran of Jimmy Carter’s shambolic administration.  She became an internet celebrity when Fox News’ Glenn Beck played footage of her, licking her lips repeatedly while speaking, declaring that Chinese communist despot, Mao Zedong was one of her favourite political philosophers.

Only today have I learned what others discovered in February – that Anita Dunn is now on the Conservative party payroll.  Her company, Squier, Knapp, Dunn Communications — a Washington-based Democrat-leaning political consultancy — is helping Cameron to prepare for the television debates between the party leaders.  A search on ConservativeHome for more information about the Tory tie up with ‘Squier, Knapp, Dunn’ and ‘Anita Dunn’ returns no results.  But the Mail on Sunday has it today.  Below you can see the footage of Dunn talking (without irony) about her fascination with Chairman Mao:

Can the British Conservative Party really be considered conservative when its leader cites the ideas and strategem of Saul Alinsky – a disciple of Marx – and hires as his political consultants a firm run by Anita Dunn – a woman who looks (despite her later weak denial) to a mass murdering Chinese communist Chairman Mao for inspiration in political philosophy?  In years gone by, if the Labour party had done this, the Conservatives would be tearing them apart for lurching to the left and channelling old style socialism and communitarianism.  Michael Heseltine’s ‘left… left… left left left’ line at conference, anyone?

So what are conservatives supposed to think when the Conservative Party does exactly the same thing?  Somehow I doubt this was the change people thought they were being asked to sign up for by Team Karl Cameron.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine


Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

Advertisements