Author Archives: Robert Henderson

There is much that suggest George Floyd’s death was an accident

Robert Henderson

Some facts about the death of Floyd and the subsequent  trial of the police officer Derek Chauvin

1. Floyd  was a very large and powerfully built man , much larger than any of the police involved.

2. He had twice refused police orders: the first time to get out of his car and the second time to get into the police car. Had he obeyed the second order he would be alive today in all probability.

3. The second act of disobedience occasion involved Floyd going limp to avoid bring put in the police car.

4. The restraint hold Chauvin used was one sanctioned by his police force.

5. Floyd had a heart condition which may have contributed to his death. Chavin cannot have known that.

6 Floyed had drugs in him at the time which may have contributed to his death. Chavin cannot have known that.

In summary, the police had reason to believe that Floyd was simply being difficult and potentially carried a physical threat because of his size.

There is also the fact that Floyd was a violent career criminal. Whether Chauvin knew about Floyd’s criminal record is unclear from the coverage of the event. However, Chauvin may well have done because he knew Floyd having met him when he (Chauvin) worked a a security officer and Floyd was acting as a bouncer.

I find the argument  that the heart condition and drug use cannot affect the change of homicide strange. As far as Chauvin was concerned at the time of the death Floyd was simply being treated as what he was ostensibly a large powerful man who worked as a bouncer who had already been truculent. Moreover, Chauvin almost certainly had used the hold before with no ill effects.

Taking all the circumstances into account it is unreasonable to suggest Chauvin was behaving recklessly.

The UK in 1940 is not comparable to the UK in 2020

Robert Henderson

Comparisons between the UK in 1940 and the UK in 2020 are understandable but mistaken because   these are two very different societies .

To begin with the psychological/sociological situations are different.  The threat is 1940 was  one that everyone could understand, large numbers from their experience in the  Great War.   There was a clear enemy  in 1940 .

The coronavirus threat is an open ended one which the ordinary  person cannot do much to protect themselves,  not least because the virus is subject to mutation.

The war in  1940 brought full employment . For a generation which had gone through the privations of the 1930s and the Great Depression  this was both an opportunity to bring in a decent regular wage and  to  have their days filled with useful work,  the latter playing into  the sense of a collective war effort. Today people +are experiencing the reverse with fears of lost work and  much of the work done being done  is not done in the workplace but in the home.  That is isolating.

Another big difference between then and now is that far from neglecting the Nazi threat in the 1930s,  the UK government   had made considerable preparations for war , for example the development and manufacture of  high performance  fights (Spitfires and Hurricanes), the development of radar   and four engines  heavy bombers (Lancaster, (entered service 1942) Stirling (entered service 1941) , Halifax (entered service 1940.  It is worth noting that the Germans never developed a reliable  heavy bomber, the nearest they got to it was the  ill fated   Heinkel Greif (Griffin) 177 .

Equally important was  the rationing system for food and other essentials  which was up and running in 1939.    The British state was much better prepared to meet the 1940 emergency than  it is to meet the coronavirus.

But the greatest difference between 1940 and now is the composition and mentality of the British population.  In 1940   the only sizeable minority was the Jewish one.   The country was  very homogeneous .

Today the UK population is divided by the various  large ethnic and racial minorities  (whose separateness is encouraged by the purveyors of multiculturalism) and  other divisions wrought by political correctness  such  those based on gender,  sexual inclination and a faux idea of equality which promotes the interests not of all but the groups protected by political correctness.   Because of  this  country is  now noticeably heterogeneous in  race, culture and mentality.

To these differences must be added the effects of  the UK’s 47 year membership of what became the EU  and the divisions it  has created throughout  our membership and Brexit.,

Finally, devolution since   the Blair reformation  has resulted in  the Celtic Fringe gaining more and more powers  and especially in Scotland  there is  serious agitation for independence  while Wales and Northern Ireland    play at  independence forever point scoring  at England’s expense. England meanwhile has been ignored in the devolution stakes despite the fact she heavily subsidises Scotland, Wales and N Ireland.  The upshot of these changes to the UK  population has become  vastly more divided than it was in 1940. In 1940 there was a real sense of common purpose . Today that has become impossible.

Cornavirus outcomes are similar

RH156RH’s profile photo

Robert Henderson

Professor Johan Giesecke of Sweden made the prediction in April 2020 that in the long run it would not make much difference how Governments of similar states responded to the virus because the result would be broadly the same. – see https://unherd.com/thepost/coming-up-epidemiologist-prof-johan-giesecke-shares-lessons-from-sweden/

There is solid evidence to support his prediction. Here are the deaths per million for major first world countries

Australia 36 deaths per million
Austria 738 deaths per million
Belgium 1736 deaths per million
Canada 441 deaths per million
France 994 deaths per million
Germany 450 deaths per million
Italy 1272 deaths per million
Netherlands 702 deaths per million
Poland 791 deaths per million
Spain 1101 deaths per million
Sweden 882 deaths per million
Switzerland 951 deaths per million
UK 1163 deaths per million
USA 1098 deaths per million

Stats taken from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/coronavirus-uk-cases-deaths-world-map-live/
on 6 January 2021

I have only looked first world countries because the rest are either incapable of producing accurate statistics because of a want of administrative capacity or are authoritarian states which cannot be trusted to tell the truth. In addition comparing say the UK with Nigeria would be l like comparing apples to oranges.

There are two striking things about the deaths statistics above. The first is how small a part of the total populations of each country are the deaths . The second is the considerable similarity of outcome in the majority of countries.

Of the 14 counties 11 fall into the range 702 – 1736 deaths with only Australia, Canada and Germany falling outside that range.

Australia is the only really serious outlier but that may be explained in part to it possessing huge physical territory with a small population.

The degree of similarity is impressive because the various countries adopted widely different approaches to dealing with the coronavirus, ranging from the libertarian Swedes to the chaotic Italians to the make your mind up UK to the strict lockdowns of the French and Germans.

The really worrying thing is that politicians throughout the world are placing everything on vaccines to be the magic bullet to end the crisis. This is far from certain because (1) we do not know how much immunity is gained from infection or from a vaccine and (2) a mutation can come along at any moment and upset the apple cart. Nor is it reasonable to imagine that enough people in the developing world will be vaccinated to provide universal herd immunity.


If the vaccines do not solve the problem political elites throughout the world will have nowhere to go.

Coronavirus: Sweden and the UK compared

Robert Henderson

Sweden is hated by the countries which have locked down . The lockdown merchants have every reason to fear comparison between their countries and Sweden. I have done a comparison between the UK and Sweden, viz:


UK population 68.021,298 https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/

Swedish population 10,123 ,190 https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/sweden-population/


68,021,2898 divided by 10,123,190 means the UK has 6,7 times the population of Sweden


UK infections 1,134, 356 https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Swedish infections 177,355 https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

177, 355 times 6.7 = 1, 183,2785

UK deaths 51,766 https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Swedish deaths 6,164 Sweden  https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

6164 times 6.7 = 41,29,88

Hence pro rata Sweden has

a slight;y higher rate of infection – which could be ascribed to carrying on more normally than the UK

and

a considerably smaller death rate – approximately 10,000 less than the UK . This maybe because Sweden was better prepared generally for the virus, has a better healthcare system (eg more doctors and nurtures pro rata than the UK) or did not fall into the trap of neglecting the of care homes

The ballot fraud has legs

Robert Henderson

Trump is being accused of making claims of voter fraud without providing evidence. This is untrue.
Evidence can be strange events , for example, if a company experiences unaccounted for loss of stock that could reasonably be counted as evidence that theft was occurring and a reason for the police to investigate. Similarly, if voting patterns such as improbable numbers of votes for one candidate occur that may reasonably be counted as evidence of fraudulent voting.
Take another scenario: a young woman with no serious problems suddenly disappears without explanation. There is no evidence of criminality but nether is it thought unreasonable to suspect foul play and for the police to start an investigation.
Trump is quite reasonably reacting to strange events. That is not to say there is voter fraud on a substantial scale . Rather, it is simply Trump wishing to have strange voting patterns investigated.
The main thrust of the Trump suits are that the postal ballots were kept from Republican scrutiny, viz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj6Fe7hwBsE

Here is the unedited video of the material on the first video. Go in at 22 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H10wZ4SszM

Having watched these videos anyone with an open mind will have a strong sense of something very wrong with this election because :

1. Of the lengths to which those administering the counts went to to prevent republican scrutineer were denied any meaningful opportunity to see the ballot papers .

2. The difficulty in squaring the counts with Trump in the lead – for example a lead of approx 800,000 for Trump in Pennsylvania – one day and the sudden flood of supposed ballots for Biden overthrowing the Trump leads.

3. The dead voting .

Forget coronavirus: there is a true global existential threat that is almost upon us

Robert Henderson

The attention of the world is currently fixed on coronavirus  but there is another far more serious danger hurtling towards  us  in the shape of  Artificial  Intelligence (A.I.) and robotics.

Both are advancing rapidly. Probably within the lifetime of most people now living – and  quite possibly in the next fifteen  years – there will be general purpose robots (GPRs) capable of doing the vast majority of the work now undertaken by humans. When that happens international free trade and free market economics will become untenable.  The real final crisis of capitalism will be the development of technology so advanced that it makes capitalism in the impossible because machines will make humans redundant across  vast swathes of the economy.

 Economic history shows that technological advance before the advent of digital technology creates new work. It may have very painful consequences for individuals whose livelihood disappears – the British hand-loomweavers of the early industrial revolution are a classic example – but new opportunities for employment have always  as an economy becomes more sophisticated and variegated. The hand-loom weaver found work in the new factories; the redundant western factory worker of today in a call centre. At worst they might only get a MacJob but at least it was a job.

But if the GPRs can do the MacJobs as well as the more demanding work, then there will not be many new jobs for humans, not even much supervisory work because GPRs will need little supervising, and less and less as  of it they become ever more sophisticated. Hence, this technological advance will be like no other:  GPRs will not only take away existing jobs, they will devour any new work; the easier work first, then the more complex.

The normal human response to such ideas is not reasonable scepticism, but rejection based on a refusal to accept the reality of change, a rejection expressed with ridicule along the lines of the Victorians’ response to the car:  “It will never replace the horse”. Mention robots and people commonly scoff “Science Fiction” to get rid of the matter without further debate. This type of response is natural enough because human beings, apart from disliking change, do not like to think of themselves as dispensable or redundant. Moreover, incessant propagandising by western elites has made it received opinion of the age that work is becoming ever more demanding and requires an increasingly educated and knowledgeable workforce, something which seems to most humans to make them uniquely capable of doing the jobs of the future and, by implication, this excludes mechanisation (and robots) from the majority of future human employments.

The hard truth is that most modern work requires less knowledge and skill than was required in the past. A peasant four hundred years ago had to know about his soil, his plants and animals, the seasons, the weather, where natural water was and be able to do a hundred and one practical things such as ploughing, sowing, harvesting, making and repairing of fences and ditches, using tools and turning out cheese and cream and dried meat and vegetables How many jobs today require a tenth of that volume of knowledge? Nor did more demanding work stop at peasants. A 17th century craftsman would have served a long apprenticeship. Jobs which did not require an apprenticeship would have probably required some manual skill. Those who aspired to intellectual employment had to laboriously write and amend their works rather than enjoying the immense convenience of a word processor. That and the cost of writing materials forced them to become precise in a way that virtually no one is today. Perhaps most importantly,  modern division of labour with one person doing a repetitive job was not king. A person making something four centuries ago would probably make the entire item and quite often a variety of items, for example, a 17th century blacksmith would not merely shoe horses but make a wide range of iron goods., GPRs today could take over a great deal of employment in Western economies and much of the industrialised parts of the developing world, especially China, because there are so many simple jobs which would be within the capabilities of very basic GPRs.

But that is only half of the story. If most jobs are not demanding of much by way of learned skills and even less of intellect, they do need diligence. Human beings are generally more than a little reluctant to put themselves out in work which has no intrinsic interest for them or which is not very highly paid. So what will an employer do when he can employ a robot instead? He will go and gets himself some GPRs which will not get awkward, do what they are told, keep working all the time without being watched, does not make regular mistakes and requires no wages or social security taxes or holidays or sick leave. And it will not be able to sue you for being a bad employer.

In the beginning at least there will still be a sizeable chunk of jobs which GPRs will not be able to do. These will be the jobs which cannot be reduced to quantifiable tasks; jobs which cannot be done by following an algorithm; jobs which require judgement and jobs which require motivation to achieve a complex end which is not obvious from the units of means which are required to achieve it.  But that work is  only a minority of jobs, probably a small minority, perhaps 20% of the total. If the earliest GPRs could only undertake fifty per cent of the jobs which humans do that would be catastrophic. Human beings will not be able to kid themselves for long that everything is going to be all right.

There will be two further advantages enjoyed by GPRs over humans. In principle there are no limits to increases in the capabilities of GPRs; there is no such human potential in the present state of knowledge. For  the foreseeable future there is nothing to suggest that human capacity can be raised dramatically through education and training, not least because attempts to raise IQ substantially and permanently through enhanced environments have a record of unadulterated failure over the past fifty years or more. The second advantage is that GPRs will come with a guarantee of performance. An employer gets what it says on the tin. Moreover, the performance will be consistent. Humans beings do not carry such a guarantee. The individual’s qualities only become apparent once on the job and are subject to variation according to the physical and mental wellbeing of the person.  This makes them a gamble for anyone who employs them. A faulty or rogue GPR could be repaired or replaced without moral qualms; sacking a human being raises all sorts of ethical questions and matters of sentiment.

The social and economic effects of GPRs 

When the first GPRs appear those in political authority will probably try to say everything will be all right when they are first presented with the problem. Now it might be thought that it would be pretty obvious that a GPR which could do everything the average human could do and then some would spell trouble for the human race, but it never does to underestimate the power of custom, ideology and the sheer unwillingness of human beings to face troubles which are not immediately upon them.  The tired old and worthless comparison with technological change in the past will doubtless be made, namely, that new jobs for humans will be generated by the GPRs. But that will not last long because the reality of the situation will very rapidly force elites to accept the entirely new circumstances.

There will  be a dilemma for the makers and distributors of goods and services. At first it might seem attractive to use GPRs, but as humans lose their employment and the purchasing power derived from it the question for private business would be who exactly are we producing for? Fewer and fewer people  would be the answer. For politicians the question would be how can we finance government including public services when our tax base has collapsed? The answer is we cannot as things stand.

The early response

As GPRs threaten to destroy the world’s economy, politicians will be faced with an excruciating dilemma. If GPRs are allowed free rein by governments the consequence will be a catastrophic collapse in demand as humans lose their employment en masse and an inability of the state as it is presently constituted to provide welfare to those put out of work or even to maintain the essential services of the minimalist state such as the police and army.

The situation will be pressing no matter how supposedly rich a country is because the majority of people even in the developed world are actually poor. They are only a few pay packets away from destitution. Even those who own their own home will not be able to sell the property  because who will there be to buy it?

To begin with attempts will probably be made to control the crisis bureaucratically by instigating rationing and price controls. But that will not go to heart of the problem which is how do you sustain an economy in which most people are not working. In the end politicians will be faced with two choices: ban or at least seriously curb, the use of GPRs or adopt a largely non-market economy. Banning GPRs completely would create a particular problem because some countries would continue to use them and this could lead not merely to cheaper goods and services but technological leaps which exceeded anything humans could do. A country which relied only on humans would be at a hopeless disadvantage.

The end of globalisation

The widespread banning of the use of GPRs in national territories would severely shrink international trade, because as sure as eggs are eggs not all countries would stop using GPRs  to produce items for export.  Any country using GPRs could undercut any country which banned GPRs. Protectionist barriers against countries using GPRs freely would have to be erected, although human nature being what it is, this would doubtless result in GPR products being supplied through a third country which had ostensibly banned GPR produced goods and services. The likely outcome of such a situation would be for protectionism to grow beyond the banning of GPR products to the banning of products simply because they were suspected to be GPR produced. This would also be a convenient excuse for simply banning imports.

Life without  market forces in play

The alternative to a protected economy in which GPRs are banned or severely restricted is a society in which the market is largely defunct. A perfectly rational and workable society could be created in which human beings stopped thinking they had to work to live and simply lived off the products and services the GPRs produced.  The GPRs would do the large majority of the work and the goods and services they provide would be given free to everyone whether or not they had formal employment. No GPRs would be allowed in private hands. Such a situation would mean the market would not make the choice of which goods and services were provided. Rather, the choice would be made by the consumer through an expression of what was needed or wanted before products were developed or supplied.  This could be done through  elected representatives to online voting by any member of a community for which goods and services should be supplied. For example, all available items could be voted from by the general population and those which were least popular dropped. The provision of proposed new lines or inventions could be similarly decided.

As for allocating who could have what in such a world, money could be issued equally to everyone in lieu of wages (a form of the social wage). Alternatively, in a more controlled society vouchers or rations cards could be issued equally to everyone for specific classes of goods. Greater flexibility could be built into the system by allowing the vouchers to be swopped between individuals, for example, a voucher for footwear swapped for food vouchers.

In such societies there would be scope for a limited use of private enterprise. People could provide personal services, for example, entertainment, and produce goods just using human labour (human-made would gain the cachet that hand-made has now). There would also need to be some greater reward for those who occupied those jobs which still required a human to do them such as political representation, management and administration. The reward could either be material or public approbation. It would not be unreasonable to imagine that in a society where necessary work was at a premium quite a few would take on such positions for the kudos.    There could also be some legal requirement to undertake work when required.

Who would be best placed to survive?

It might be thought that the people best placed to survive would have been those in the least industrially developed states because they would be less dependent on machines. But the trouble is that there is scarcely a part of the world which had not been tied into the global economy.  Even if a  country does not manufacture products or offer services on a large scale, it probably exports food and raw materials. One could  even include the recipients of foreign Aid for that flow money,  goods  , expertise and manpower is dependent on the Aid giving countries remaining economically robust.

The future

The rate at which robotics evolves will play a large part in how the story unfolds.  The speed with which GPRs replace human beings could be truly bewildering. The example of digital technology to date suggests that the stretch from a primitive GPR doing simple work which can be broken down into physical actions to a GPR with some sort of consciousness or a facsimile of what humans think of as consciousness will not be massive. Such development could well be speeded up by GPRs assisting with development as they attain more and more sophisticated abilities. The faster the development of  really sophisticated GPRs, the more chaos there is likely to be because there will be little time to plan and implement changes or for the human population to accommodate itself psychologically and sociologically to a radically different world. It is reasonable to assume technology will develop until GPRs are showing behaviour which suggests consciousness. They will make decisions such as what would be the best way of  achieving ends which are loosely defined, for example, an instruction to design a city redevelopment in a way which would have the greatest utility for human beings. At that point the GPRs would be effectively making value judgements.).

This is a real danger with potentially catastrophic world-wide consequences. The problem is getting people in power to address the subject seriously. There needs to be discussion and  planning now about how far GPRs,  or indeed robots or any type,  should be allowed to displace human beings in the functioning of human societies. Nor should we assume humans will happily tolerate GPRs  for reasons other than the economic. Robots which are too like humans make humans uncomfortable, probably because it is difficult to view a machine which looks like a human and acts like a human simply as a machine. 

Men and  machines : which is master and which is slave?

But the loss of jobs and incomes is only part of the problem which comes with intelligent machines.  The general consequence of our ever growing reliance on digital technology is that we are increasingly being controlled by the needs of the technology rather than using technology to serve us.  It is very difficult to escape such control. If a person is in work they will almost certainly have to use it. If they are in education they will definitely have to use it. Even if a person does not encounter digital technology  in their work or education, they find it increasingly difficult to avoid it in their private lives even if they refuse to use a computer or a mobile phone, ,  not  least  because  businesses  and    government  increasingly  require those dealing with them  to  do so by computer.

In  short,  people are  being  driven  to  become   computer  owners  and users  not because they actively want  to,   but   because   they  feel  isolated and excluded  if  they  remain computerless. 

Despite all these pressures, there are still a large number of people in Britain who have remained distant from the digital world. According to a 2019  Office for National Statistics report millions of  British adults have never been online. It  is unreasonable in a civilised society to simply hang the computer ignorant or the intellectually underpowered out to dry as digital technology looms ever larger.  Yet that is precisely what is happening.

There is one thing the government of any advanced country can and should do, create circumstances in which those who cannot come to terms with digital technology can live in an ever more computer controlled world. They can do this by maintaining non-computer access to state funded organisations and forcing through legislation larger businesses and not-for-profit organisations to do the same.

Worryingly, there is little evidence that  UK politicians are taking this problem seriously. There have been rather half hearted attempts to ensure that cash point machines are provided so that  no one has to travel more than a few miles  to draw cash but that is wholly inadequate because many people, and especially the old, will still find access difficult because they cannot readily travel several miles.

At the same time the  UK government is dragging its feet over making  access to cash a   legal right .  Failure to do so could all too easily allow the UK to sleepwalk into a cashless society, a state of affairs which would not only potentially give the government immense opportunity to intrude on private lives but be  a constant worry not only for those unaccustomed to  digital technology.

A change like no other

The Industrial Revolution  meant that someone living  in Britain between 1815 and 1914 saw more radical technological change than any generation before.  But   that change   was the difference between living in a still   largely pre-industrial society (in 1815) and an industrial society in its early middle age (in 1914).   Moreover, the   change did not require the vast majority of the population to master complicated machines at their work, let alone in their own homes.

In 1914 the most complicated machine most people would have   had   to operate was probably the telephone and vast swathes   of the population would not even have had to go that far into the world of technology. 

In the past 30 years all this has dramatically changed.   We are now in a world in which computers are absolutely integral to business and public administration and they are now the norm rather than the exception in homes.  For most people, it   is literally impossible to escape them.   Worse, they have become ever more complex and demanding to use and invade ever   more of our lives as microprocessors are inserted into the most unlikely things such as clothes.  In fact, all machines are becoming more and more demanding.

We desperately need  politicians who will not only act now to avert the  looming disaster which this unique situation threatens to be bring.   Don’t hold your breath waiting for them.

Mass immigration: the most fundamental treason

Robert Henderson

British Prime Minster Boris Johnson  has recently  blithely announced that  millions of Hong Kongers will  be given the right to come to  Britain on visas which grant them the right to stay for five years  working, studying or whatever. At  the end of  five years  these people will be able to apply for British citizenship.

This astonishing promise  has met with precious little  condemnation in the British mainstream media  and from  British politicians, a fact which  tells you how strong a grip political correctness has on the British elite.   

Johnson estimates the number of Hong Kongers who would qualify at  three million.  That figure will  probably  not be the final  total because     

1. Those who  qualify will be allowed at some point to bring in dependants.  

2. if China treats Hong Kongers really badly any  conceivable UK government will  probably allow Hong Kongers  to come to the UK who are not  qualified  to receive for the Johnsonian  visa.

Of course, it is possible  that many  of those who  qualify for  the  visa  might  want to stay in Hong Kong despite the increasing destruction of their  freedoms by China.  But If , say, only a million came  it would  still put a tremendous burden both materially and psychologically on the British people .

To put the  full promised burden in  context net immigration to the UK  in the year ending 31st December 2019 was 270,000 . That means the Johnson promise of three million (and counting )  is  a fraction over eleven times the total increase to the UK population in  the year 2019.

Does Johnson believe  that the UK can deal with such an almighty influx? Possibly, but more plausibly  he  could be  taking a shabby gamble on a belief  that China will stop people coming   or Hong Kongers will move to other places in Asia.  If so, Johnson is being utterly reckless because  there is a serious chance that far more than a million will come

China’s ambitions

China has made its desire to dominate the world as clearly as Hitler made his ambitions known in Mein Kapmpf.   She wishes to be not a world power but the  world power.  ( Infuriatingly Western  politicians are doing just what most  European politicians did in the 1930s. They are  ignoring the threat  no matter how much evidence China provides.   )

If the situation is looked at honestly there can be no doubt  that  China is serious about swallowing  Hong Kong sooner rather than later.  If that happens the  repression Hong Konng  is likely to  suffer might well spark a wholesale  dash for  the UK.  

Whatever the Chinese government says publicly now  – that the U K is interfering in  internal  Chinese matters  by making the visa offer and will  suffer for it – – they might  privately welcome  such a development as it would at one and the same time seriously embarrass the UK and get rid of  the  Hong Kong opposition on the ground.

The  UK could even  be landed with large numbers of  criminals and the disabled if the Chinese wanted to be really cheeky and  copied a ploy of Castro  in 1980 when he agreed to Cubans leaving if they wished to then emptied Cuba’s prisons and  hospitals  and shipped thousands  of these people to the USA in what became known as the Mariel boatlift.

Mass immigration is conquest by non-military means

Mass immigration should be judged by its effects. Look around at virtually any  major Western city and you will find areas which  have been effectively colonised   by immigrants.   There is no inevitably about it as the politically correct  like to insist  by  claiming  that “we live in a globalised world”.  This surreptitious colonisation is ultimately entirely the responsibility of the politicians who permit it

As  the numbers of immigrants and their descendants increase the native population  becomes  more and more dissatisfied  and politicians turn ever more  to propagandising about the joys of diversity while  passing  laws which  criminalise dissent and place the immigrant descended groups in a de facto privileged position. (The  Tory  politician Enoch Powell’s   famous 1968 speech  quoted a comment made by one of his constituents:   “In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”  In terms of how public policy favours  ethnic and racial minorities  in the UK that prediction has come true. )

The great hypocrisy

Morally the  most  contemptible  thing about   mass immigration is that the elites which have allowed it to happen and  lauded it to the skies are under no illusion about the state of  heavily settled immigrant areas . We know this because they generally take very care to live far away  from the supposed  wondrous diversity .

Take London. The middle classes  bleat constantly about the joy of  diversity  in the capital  whilst taking flight from the joy by fleeing to very white, very English places.

Those left behind – primarily the white working class –   are left to deal with  the  “ joy. “

A form of theft

Mass immigration is  a form of theft. It robs the native population   because it creates competition for housing, healthcare, education, jobs and most fundamentally the right of  a people  to enjoy their country without having  to worry about their culture being diluted or even ultimately overthrown.

The futility of multiculturalism

 Albert Einstein is reported as saying “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” That is precisely  what happens when the multiculturalists  attempt to  deny reality.   They find it does not correspond with their dreams of a society comprised of multifarious minority groups  living harmoniously together . Instead of accepting human nature and its consequences they attribute  the lack of harmony to an insufficiency of social understanding and think that the answer is re-education in the ways of liberal internationalism.  

That this approach  invariably fails   is unsurprising because ironically multiculturalists   advocate  a form of living which  in practice guarantees perpetual strife by promoting the idea  that minority ethnic groups should be encouraged to maintain “their own culture”.

The reality of race and ethnicity

The  fact  that  humans  have external  racial  differences  which  are sufficiently distinct to allow  people throughout the world to  broadly categorise an individual into categories such as  white and  black , Asian and Africanis in  itself  indicative of the innate human tendency to  breed with those who are racially similar, even though for several thousands of years large human populations of different racial types have existed in close proximity. If  human beings did not have an innate preference for those who racially resemble themselves, humanity  would have bred itself  into something approaching a uniform racial type, at least in those parts of the  world  which  were not very.

The alternative explanation to an innate tendency is the truly fantastic one that Man everywhere spontaneously developed cultural barriers to breeding which had nothing to do with any innate tendency.

Trust

Any human society whether it be a small band or a huge nation state requires trust. Nothing creates trust  better than similarity.  The fact that someone looks like you in general terms and speaks your language in an accent you associate with your group provides a ready reckoner of trust. That is why both physical type and ethnicity are so important when looking at human behaviour. 

A secure territory  is integral to a successful society because without it a  the essential  trust cannot be formed.  Allow  mass immigration  and  this trust is categorically sabotaged.

The politically correct may  insist  till the cows come home that  humans are all basically the same  but  the reality is that heterogeneous societies are invariably fractious . Homogeneous societies  are not immune to discord but  it is rarely on the same all-pervading level.  

Most importantly   disputes in a homogeneous society can realistically be expected to be settled: class inequalities  can be ameliorated,  the balance between state and private enterprise  changed, tyrants can  be overthrown. 

In heterogeneous societies where each group is fighting for its own  benefit such alteration is impossible because the basis for each group is biological, that is, the group exists because of the natural tendency of humans to associate with those who most resemble them.

Treason

Consider this. If the UK  had  politicians who conspired with a foreign power to allow huge numbers of foreigners to invade  we would call it treason.   

If dissent  about   such an  invasion was suppressed we would call it treason

If a foreign power invades  though force he may  be thrown out without inviting  domestic and international opprobrium.

If invasion by mass immigration is  allowed  the situation is   entirely different for two reasons: (1) the practical difficulty of where to send them and (2)   they cannot be expelled without opprobrium.

That is why permitting mass immigration  it is the most fundamental form of treason: it is the most difficult to reverse.

An explanation of for the care home coronavirus high death rate

Robert Henderson

BAME staff form a very high proportion of  both hospital and care home staff.

Coronavirus infection rates and deaths are much higher amongst BAME staff than amongst white staff

Patients in hospitals  have a higher risk of contracting the coronavirus  because of the large number of BAME staff .

Patients in hospitals have routinely been sent back to care homes without undergoing a test for coronavirus.

Inmates of care homes are more likely to be infected with the coroonavirus because of the high incidence of BAME staff.

Neither  staff nor inmates of care homes have been routinely  tested regularly for coronavirus.

In many care homes inmates cannot be kept apart because of the design of the care home.

RESULT A high casualty  rate from the coronavirus in care homes.

How Dominic Cummings should have handled his press conference

Cummings should have done is this:

1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that people with children in special circumstances could use their judgement and ignore the rule.

2. Every time  Cummings  was asked a question about how he justified his behaviour   he should have simply referred  the questioner to the special circumstances passage in the guidance/law. The reptiles would soon have lost interest.

3. Offered to resign if

a)  every one of the reptiles who beseiged his London  home is  fired from their job  for not observing the social distancing rules and not reemployed in the media.

b) if any member of the Commons or Lords who breaks the rules is forced to resign.

Cummings most stupid mistake was his claim that his drive to Barnard Castle was to test his eyesight. He made the classic error  of someone trying to plug a hole in a story only to find he had created a bigger hole.

However, if he had done what I propose the Barnard Castle trip would have been put on the back burner  as the politicians and the  media ran away from attacking him when their own position was threatened.  If he had to give an explanation for the Barnard Castle trip he should have said his car was playing up  on his drive to the NE  –  a knocking noise would do the trick – and he wanted to make see how the car was running before the 260 mile drive home.

This would prompt the question “Why did you not seek the help of a mechanic? ”

Best answer: because I did not want to breach the lockdown rules.”

Worst answer: there weren’t any mechanics available. ”

The worst answer is the worst answer because it leads off to another line of questioning – “What efforts did you make to find a mechanic ” and such forth.

The best answer is a simple one which leads nowhere beyond the answer itself.

Finally, I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having put the “my child has special problems” into play Cummings needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child’s problem is.

 

We could be heading for a de facto identity card

Robert Henderson

The government has begun an experiment on the Isle of Wight with an app which tracks  those who have or have had the coronavirus. If successful it will be rolled out UK wide.

The app will trace your movements which is worrying enough, but it will also give a clue to who you are meeting and when and where the meetings take place.

The app  has also already be shown to be insecure.

If  the app goes nationwide an even  greater worry arises, namely, that it could become all too easily a de facto identity card with at first the population being divided in two, between those who load  the app having the de facto  ID cards being allowed to move more freely about the country and those without the  app being restricted by the present lockdown restrictions or even something more  restrictive. This of course would give a great incentive to download the app.

The next likely step would be to make using the app compulsory unless people are literally confined to their homes permanently.

Those with the app will have the most potent of identitycards, not only one which says who you are , but one which tells where you have been and who you may have met. A police state dream.

Worryingly, The Health Secretary Mike Hancock has launched the app with the claim that it is everyone’s duty to use the app.

The app is not the only worrying government development , viz:

. ” The Coronavirus Act has given the Government powers that are without precedent in peacetime, including the authority to close any building. The lesser known Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations, which are the legal basis for the lockdown, are even more draconian. Their principal stipulations are that “no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people” and “no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse”. The list of “reasonable excuses” is short. ” (See below for full article)

All of this needs to be stamped on now because  virtually all the apparatus for a police state  has been given statutory force  by the Government.

Apart from the police state aspects of the technology the impracticality of the system strikes me, vz:

You download the app and go out.

Some hours later the app notifies you that have been in the proximity of someone who has the virus symptoms.

You  return home and  stay isolated for 14 days.

On the 15th day you go out .

A few hours later your  app notifies you that you have been near to someone with the virus symptoms.

You  remain home and stay isolated for another 14 days.

On the 15th day you leave your home.

You have barely walked a  few hundred yards and your app tells  you are in the vicinity of someone with the virus symptoms.

You return home to be isolated for another 14 days…

%d bloggers like this: