Category Archives: Uncategorized

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

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
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

Swedish population 10,123 ,190

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

UK infections 1,134, 356

Swedish infections 177,355

177, 355 times 6.7 = 1, 183,2785

UK deaths 51,766

Swedish deaths 6,164 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


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:

Here is the unedited video of the material on the first video. Go in at 22 minutes.

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.

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.

Ethic minorities mote likely to be Corolavirus victims

Robert Henderson

Ethnic minorities are reported to be more susceptible to the  coronavirus.

This is intriguing  because  different ethnic minorities are involved. That suggests  it is down to behaviour rather than genetic  differences.

It could be a greater reluctance amongst ethnic minorities  to follow the stay indoors  regime laid down by the government.

Another factor might be health conditions such as obesity and diabetes  being more prevalent amongst ethnic minorities.

It might  be that ethnic minorities tend to live in urban areas more than the native majority.

It might be  because   ethic minorities  have a strong tendency to live together in certain urban  areas.

It might be because ethnic minorities are more likely leave the UK to visit areas outside of the UK  which have no strong healthcare system or a government capable of enforcing rules such as lockdown.

I doubt whether it can be down to poor socio-economic circumstances because there are far more white British families  in such circumstances

The 39 Grays  dead are not victims

Robert Henderson

The  recent discovery of 39 would be migrant bodies in a shipping container in Grays  Essex has produced behaviour from mainstream politicians, mediafolk and those representing immigrants such as charities and lawyers,  which should be seen as astonishing . Sadly, that is not the case for  political correctness now  how such a grip on the  subject of immigration that reason goes out of the window.

The  dead , all from  Vietnam, have been routinely  and wrongly  described as victims.   That word   implies that they were people who were simply unfortunate.  This will not do.  They  must have been aware of the risks they were taking  simply because of the nature of the escapade they were joining . Moreover, because of the widespread publicity,   particularly on  the  Internet,  given to the dangers of being smuggled illegally into a foreign country it is unlikely in this digital age that they would have been unaware of dangers such as dying in inappropriate vehicles.  Hence, rather than being victims these people were willing risk takers  who in this instance lost out to the risk.

The other striking aspect of the story was the fact that the dead had paid substantial sums of money up front to the traffickers. In the  reports on the story one family said they had  paid  £30,000 upfront -there is no suggestion in the media coverage that this was a deal where the person to be smuggled repaid the debt  gradually once in the UK.   This was not someone coming from wretched economic circumstances.  Presumably the other migrants would have also paid substantial sums.

But even if any of the 39 dead had come from circumstances of dire poverty  their  illegal attempt  to come to the UK that would be no excuse  for  breaking the law because no country can  or should  willingly accept people simply  because they are poor for  if they do there is no end to the numbers who will come.

The other glaring point about the  attempt to enter illegally is the distance from which the dead have come. It is not simply that they had come hallway across the word live in the UK.  What  is striking is the  fact that once they reached Europe  there were several dozen first world  countries in which  they could have applied for asylum before reaching the  UK . The fact that the UK was their chosen destination  makes it unlikely these were people fleeing persecution.

The false sense of entitlement

There has grown up amongst  Western politicians a habit of saying that  immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are understandably coming to the West for a better  life. That now often shifts to the politician saying or implying that the  immigrant is doing something admirable  in trying to get to the west, a sentiment frequently accompanied by a claim that immigrants have added so much to  the countries they have settled in .

Unsurprisingly, the multiculturalists  in the West mimic the mainstream politicians and many go further and say  or imply that immigration from  the Third and Second Worlds to the West is a human right. All of this places additional pressure on the mainstream politicians until they start to soften greatly on immigration.  From that arises the populist backlash we are now seeing throughout the developed world.

The reality is that  social heterogeneity in a society  always produces friction where there are different groups in the  society  which are differentiated by race and/or ethnicity. Conversely, homogeneity  is  much less likely to produce social friction.

The long march through the institutions

Why do mainstream politicians almost all sing from the same song sheet when it comes to immigration and its consequences?  The West has fallen prey to the  long march through the institutions. This brilliant  political idea was given shape  and prominence in the 1960s t by  a German student activist   Rudi Dutschke.  Dutschke  was a Marxist but one who was unorthodox. He was influenced by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramschi who  developed the idea of cultural hegemony

Dutschke ‘s idea was simple but brilliant.  He advocated that the Left  should capture positions of power and  perhaps even more impotent influence, for  example  our schools, universities, media  and government departments.

So successful has this  strategy been   that  Western societies have been not only seriously altered through mass immigration but  the suppression  of free expression. Not just about  immigration and its effects but  what is now called political correctness which revolves around any attempt at discriminating based on race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation  all of which requires an internationalist cast of mind because the non-discrimination rule operates on the basis that all human are to be treated equally.

The idea that humans may not be allowed to discriminate is a literal nonsense because humans like all organisms have to continually discriminate . It is called making choices.

The rational British response  to the  39 dead

The rational British  response  towards the   39 dead  should be alarm that so many were trying enter the UK illegally  in a single container and what that suggests for illegal immigration by such a route.

The numbers could be very substantial.  Suppose  500  immigrants a day arrive by that route, That would be 162,000 a year.  Of course the figure could much higher because the amount of freight entering the UK is colossal.

The democratic deficit

Since 1945 internationalist minded Western political elites have permitted indeed encouraged overtly or tacitly huge numbers of immigrants from the Second and Third Worlds to come to the West.  This has been done without any meaningful  consultation  about mass immigration with the native populations of  those countries.

Rather,  resentment of such immigration has been ever more  ruthlessly repressed by  Western political elites who have made any serious challenge to the  internationalist fantasy a crime which may be punished on a spectrum from the loss of a job   to criminal prosecution and imprisonment.

Does anyone honestly believe that in the case of the  UK a referendum on immigration at any time since 1945 would have returned a majority  for mass immigration?

Mass immigration should be seen for what it is, namely, invasion and settlement .   Those who have permitted, indeed often overtly encouraged, mass immigration are guilty  of the most profound treason for what could be more damaging to a society than allowing huge numbers of those who make no bones about wanting to keep their own ways at best and are actively hostile to the cultural norms of the society in which they settle?

Western politicians and all those who have  supported them – public servants, the created the enclaves of the unassimilatable have produced an entirely predictable result, namely,  fractured societies which have lost a shared cultural identity.

Film review : 22 July

22 July


Anders Danielsen Lie as Anders Behring Breivik

Jon Øigarden as Geir Lippestad

Thorbjørn Harr as Sveinn Are Hanssen

Jonas Strand Gravli as Viljar Hanssen

Ola G. Furuseth as Jens Stoltenberg

Ulrikke Hansen Døvigen as Inga Bejer Engh

Isak Bakli Aglen as Torje Hanssen

Maria Bock as Christin Kristoffersen

Tone Danielsen as Judge Wenche Arntzen

Sonja Sofie Sinding as Lycke Lippestad

Turid Gunnes as Mette Larsen

Kenan Ibrahamefendic as Dr. Kolberg

Monica Borg Fure as Monica Bøsei

Ingrid Enger Damon as Alexandra Bech Gjørv

Seda Witt as Lara Rashid

Anja Maria Svenkerud as Siv Hallgren

Hasse Lindmo as Svein Holden

Director Paul Greengrass


Having adopted the disguise of a policeman,  on  22 July 2011 Anders Breivik exploded a bomb  near a government building in  the Norwegian  capital Oslo  killing eight people. He then went to the nearby  island of Utøya where   a Workers’ Youth League (AUF) summer camp was being held. There he shot and killed 77 people  and wounded around  two hundred more.   Most of the victims were young.

Breivik’s justification for the attack  rested on his belief that Norway was being betrayed by its  politically correct elite  who were allowing large numbers of immigrants, and especially Muslim immigrants, to radically  change the nature of Norwegian society.

He chose  the government building  to bomb because it housed members  of  or auxiliaries of the elite and the summer camp because these were the children of those whom Breivik held responsible  for  what he saw as an existential threat to his society.

His  killing rampage is the  starting point of the film.  Breivik is shown as a merciless  but very efficient killer, as he must have been in real life considering the number of dead and wounded. If the bombing and shooting part of the film is viewed on its own with no clue being given that it was a dramatization of the  real life Breivik story viewers would probably respond to it as they would to a Hollywood shoot ‘en up action film. The shooting of the head of security  and the Camp’s director after they become suspicious of Breivik and ask for his I.D.  is as slick as killings in a Hollywood film.

After the killings the film follows two primary plotlines : that of Breivik and the other of the Hansen family.

We meet Viljar Hanssen (Jonas Strand Gravli  )  early in the film when he and his brother Torje Hanssen (Isak Bakli Aglen) are already on the summer camp.   Viljar is selected to give an address to the rest of the Workers’ Youth League  campers. He trots out the routine liberal internationalist line about the wonders of diversity and  how everyone from anywhere should be welcomed.  Shortly after this trite little homily  Breivik starts shooting.

Viljar   and his brother Torje escape death but Viljar suffers serious wounds including one to the head.  A substantial part  of the film after this point is devoted to showing Viljar ‘s long and painful recuperation.  His part in the story culminates with Breivik refusing to look at   him as he makes a victim statement  to the court. The problem with this element of the film is that Viljar and his family, and especially Viljar,  are  incorrigibly wet and are poor vehicles for  engaging the viewer’s sympathy wholehearted.

The aftermath of Breivik’ mass killing is shown as agonising for the Norwegian elite because,  unlike many mass killers,   Breivik neither commits suicide nor is shot resisting arrest.  In fact,  being arrested is part of Breivik’s plan because he wishes  to bring his message  to a wide audience.  To this end he rings the police  and tells them he is ready to surrender. It is telling that the film does not include  this important fact. Instead it shows police arriving on the island and Breivik coming out with his hands up before he spread-eagles himself on the ground.

The omission is important because Breivik’s phoning of the police in real life shows him in control even of his arrest. In fact throughout the film   in a curious way Breivik is portrayed as controlling matters . He successfully accomplishes the bombing and the shootings, he decides when he should be arrested , he manipulates his trial.

Breivik also has the police running around looking for other would-be assassins. After his surrender to the police Breivik starts a hare running by claiming there will be a third attack on his signal  (after the bombing and shooting) , and that there are others in his organization. The police  eventually come to the conclusion Breivik is  a “lone wolf” attacker but  ithey are never really sure whether Breivik is bluffing.. .

Breivik’s choice of lawyer is a strange one on the face of it for it is Geir Lippestad, a lawyer who comes from the Norwegian ellite whom Breivik despises.  When asked why Breivik chose Lippestad, Breivik says that he remembers Lippestad defending  a neo-Nazi in an honest fashion.  A more Machiavellian explanation would be that Breivik wanted to see a member of the in his eyes despised elite twisting and  turning in the spotlight of the Norwegian elite’s  projection of Norway as a wondrously tolerant   and politically correct society. Whether or not Breivik intended this  the choice of Lippestad had precisely that effect.

A  Breivik alive and only too eager to tell his story  is a nightmare for the Norwegian powers-that-be . They do not want to be seen as intolerant, but the horror of the massacre makes it difficult  for them to simply treat Breivik as just a criminal. Nonetheless, this is what they attempt to do.

This  plays into Breivik’s hands because the dreadful truth about his motivation, namely, that those with power and influence in Norway have effectively conspired to allow Norway to be invaded by foreigners,  many of whom are Muslim, without the native population having any say in the matter.

The Norwegian elite know two things about Breivik: he is a mass killer and his motive is not merely hideously embarrassing but based on a potent fact, namely,  that they, the elite,  had  provided the motive for Brevik’s action. That is not to excuse what Breivik did. Rather, it is to assign a cause. It is inescapably true  that without mass immigration  into Norway Breivik would have had no motive to commit the massacre.

The most telling exchange of the film is between Breivik and his lawyer, Lipstadd   says “Norway is not on trial”  to which Breivik simply replies  with a smile “Are you sure about that?” That simple exchange encapsulates the moral confusion surrounding  Breivik’s terrible act.

There is also a scene which gives a small and fleeting but important voice from outside the Norwegian elite.

Lippestad is with Breivik’s mother  trying to persuade her to give evidence about Breivik’s unsettled upbringing. She refuses because she is afraid of public condemnation, but as Lippestad  is on his way out she suddenly blurts out the Breivik is right when he says that Norway has been changed by immigration and not in a way she liked.

The issue of mass immigration is a most serious concern for any Western nation but it is a particular worry for a small country such as Norway which has a population of only  5.37 million.  Over  the past 4 years (2015-2018)  128, 000 immigrants have arrived. It is a reasonable bet that most will be from third world countries.  Since 2000 the population overall has increased by 853,996. As the Norwegian birth rate is  below replacement level it is reasonable to assume that  the increase  is due to new immigrants and  immigrants having children.

Breivik first legal ploy is to plead insanity.  The man’s  motive in choosing this  path  is  ostensibly at odds with his  desire to make his motivation known to the world  as evidenced by both his planned surrender to the police and by his extremely long political testament which he put on line before he began the killing.

Either Breivik lost his nerve temporarily or  it was done to  enrage those Norwegians who form the liberal left elite and especially the relatives of those he had killed or wounded by thrusting in their face their hypocrisy in being angered into rejecting his plea of insanity when in the abstract such a plea would in almost any other circumstance have appealed  to their liberal left mentality. Suppose for example such a massacre had been carried out in Norway by a Muslim.  Would there not have been  Norwegian  voices raised saying the killer was  variously mentally ill,  radicalised until he was not responsible and/or created by a Western society which did not allow the killer to feel included in that society.  One of the most striking things about the film is no one attempts to make any  real excuse for what he did.

But whatever Breivik’s motive for the insanity plea he overthrows it and reverts to pleading not guilty.

The stars of the fillm are undeniably Anders Danielsen Lie as Breivik and Jon Øigarden as Geir Lippestad . Both are  excellent. Danielsen lie has the look of Cassius, lean and hungry, and  I suspect that  both his general persona and his unapologetic  explanation for  his actions may make his portrayal of Breibik fall prey to what might be called the Alf Garnet effect whereby a right-wing politically incorrect character elicits sympathy from the audience.  (For younger readers Alf Garnett was the lead character in a highly popular soap opera  which ran on BBC1 from 1965 to 1975  called Till death us do part. Garnett  portrayed white workingclass values and opinions  which were meant to crash on the rocks of “right on” younger generation characters. To the horror of the left in all its varieties this did not happen for  many viewers felt  the Garnett character was saying what they felt but dared not say about subjects such as immigration. )

Breivik’s message is seriously distorted by the massacre  and his fantasy  of being  a member of a modern Knights Templars Nonetheless,  that  cannot  sweep away  a great and dangerous truth for the multiculturalist internationalists  that they have permitted mass immigration which constitutes an existential threat to Norway as a Western nation state.

Since Breivik’s  murderous assault on both the victims of his killings and the psyche of the Norwegian elite the liberal left have begun to have their  naïve belief in a single human community  has been challenged in many places in the  West d by the rise of  a widespread populist revolt against the effects of mass immigration in general and Islamic immigration  in particular. This is not a direct result of Breivik’s  actions but is a response to the same general conditions – elites seriously disengaged from those they rule – which drove Breivik to commit his dreadful massacre.

Treated purely as a film 22 July would have benefitted from more severe editing because  at 2 hours 40 minutes it was probably 40 minutes too long . Nonetheless it is still a film which is both important and watchable.  It is important because whatever the intentions of the film’s makers it cannot hide the fact that Breivik was acting to combat what he and doubtless many ordinary Norwegians consider the betrayal of Norway by an elite not merely tolerating  but actively promoting the influx of foreigners in such numbers that  native Norwegians could find themselves  in the minority  by  2050.

The film as had a very limited theatre  release  but is also available on Netflix. On the day I saw it  was appearing only on two screens in London.

%d bloggers like this: