If many people are speaking of it, then there might be something to it, no?

When many people are on about something – and by many, I mean a sizable minority, say 20 to 30%, then logic dictates that they might have something that needs looking at seriously.

When it moves just over the line into a majority, then even people like Cameron have to reposition themselves.  When someone like Abbott can boast of his party’s record on stopping the boat people and one other local issue, then he obviously feels, through his minders, that that is a vote winner, irrespective of his personal view.

For someone to then come in and trash the people with the view, as distinct from attacking the view itself with facts and figures – that then is the hallmark, in today’s world, of the left and I’m going to show this further down.

The Daily Telegraph on 26 May quotes a recent YouGov poll putting the concerns of the people of the UK:

Immigration and asylum is now the top issue facing the country with 56% selecting it.

Crime (49%) and Health (46%) followed.

72% thought that the British government took account of the people’s views almost never
or only occasionally.

67% thought that Britain was already an over crowded island.

Only 17% agreed that we need immigrants to meet skills shortages.

OK, let’s look at this one.  Not to be accused of bias here, first the Independent, a leftwing, stay-in-the-EU paper:



The point is not to argue Immigration or Brexit as issues in themselves in this post but that a large number of people are concerned.  Ferguson similarly split opinion along political lines, with a large number not in sympathy with the black rioters and expressing concern.

There is great concern about what, on our side of politics, we see as important – the word “assimilation” and past history of certain groups not to.  To ignore that in what we would call “open slather” immigration with not the slightest concern about what sort of criminal or other is coming in – we see that as insanity.

The issue of all women quotas is a fierce one too.


Note this statement:

It is not enough to have women running as candidates, voters also need incentives to vote for those female candidates.

That is a pure left view – it needs interference and coercion to achieve a “well formed result” [see NLP and groupthink].

You might also like to check the links in this post.

The left then invents “studies” which back interference, one such being:

A considerable amount of scholarship has paid attention to voters’ preference for male or female candidates, and one of the central mechanisms is the ‘gender affinity’ effect. Gender affinity assumes that voters will prefer candidates of their own gender.

Therefore, it is necessary to enforce quotas, says Silvia.  This next one would be quoted by both left and right:

Belgium has strictly enforced quota laws. The current parity law requires 50 per cent of the candidates on all party lists for all government levels to be women, and at least one of the top two candidates has to be a woman as well.

The right would point out that this is nothing less than coercion. The left though would say:

There is thus a perfectly balanced gender ratio among political candidates.

Note the insertion of the adjective “perfectly”, a value judgment, the idea that enforced, Procrustean* “even-ing-up” is necessary to overturn a “natural” result, as reflected in the “gender affinity” study.

world's worst boss

However, what if the “gender affinity” was bunkum, a construct?


And before you even say it – yes, sample size will be attacked by the feminists.  This next is a feminist article, explaining away this lack of preference, i.e. acknowledging it:


No mention that there might be quite cogent reasons based on things workers find about female bosses.  And there is a parallel concern about the psychopathy of bosses in general, male or female.  That one never gets a look-in in the argument.

Once again, I’ll not continue to argue the issue itself but stick to the point that there is a body of opinion which does not accept the left constructs and that body of opinion deserves at least to be given a proper forum.  We could get onto Palestine/Israel and find similar.

And if there is this body of dissident opinion, you can invent reasons why it is so and put it down to all sorts of factors or you can acknowledge that there are good reasons why people find this, reasons never mentioned in left articles.

But the left never does this.  It adopts a whole range of behaviours to deal with dissenting opinion backed by facts and figures – it invents studies, mocks, marginalizes, attacks ad hominem or if in govt. – legislates over the top of everyone.

Those dissenting are now called “haters”, the catch-all cry of those whose arguments have not carried the day.  We’re seen as a remnant, thankfully dying out so the Brave New Dystopia can go ahead.

There was a post yesterday about replacing the American flag with a Planet Earth flag and the design was that much beloved of the UN – the pale blue and white, it not saying anything, it assuming that there must be a continental bloc approach rather than pride in one’s nation.

This official view has been put by the UN in the last few days, telling the EU is must act to undermine national pride. It’s been around a long time:

May 18, 1972 – In speaking of the coming world government, Roy M. Ash, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, declares that: “…within two decades the institutional framework for a world economic community will be in place…and aspects of individual sovereignty will be given over to a supernational authority.”

1973 – The Club of Rome, a U.N. operative, issues a report entitled “Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System.” This report divides the entire world into ten kingdoms.

April 1974 – Former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Trilateral and CFR member Richard Gardner’s article “The Hard Road to World Order” is published in the CFR’s “Foreign Affairs,” where he states that: “…the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

1974 – In a report entitled “New International Economic Order,” the U.N. General Assembly outlines a plan to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor nations.

1975 – In Congress, 32 Senators and 92 Representatives sign “A Declaration of Interdependence,” which states that “we must join with others to bring forth a new world order…Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation.” Congresswoman Marjorie Holt refuses to sign the Declaration saying: “It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a ‘new world order’ that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people.”

Any idea, my friends on the left, why we might be just a tad sceptical of the creation of a new Planet flag?  Not the slightest idea?

And I mentioned the token black woman in the picture at the top.  She is “token” because the majority of women in America are white – therefore the astronaut should at least have been Anglo-Saxon.  As to woman or man – who have been the majority of astronauts?  Go with the majority, whoever that turns out to be.  If you’re worried about it, why not have both a male and female astronaut, to be scrupulously fair?

However, to have a black astronaut there is statistically incorrect, numbers-wise.

Once again though, in this post, I’m less interested in pursuing the issue itself as the reaction to dissident opinion s by the politically correct.

And sure enough, in came a fine member of the left [not a Guardianista, she’s American] with:

Yes, what a horribly offensive flag, we should all avert our sensitive eyes immediately! And the black woman as astronaut, how dare they?

Yes, the flag and the photo of the black female astronaut are the real horrors, here – NOT the fact that somebody in the comments sections then provided a link regarding chimps in space.

I mean, anyone offended by something that , well, they must be oversensitive, not know what’s funny and must be leftist/mentally ill.

No one said it was “offensive”, we said it was awful in design, aesthetically.  Even my own comment above attacked the aesthetics as well as the necessity to even have a planet flag to give to aliens.  Using the term “offensive” is dipping into the left lexicon. It’s a sensitive issue just now, yes, as there is a major push to create a bloc identity called the EU and many of us are not too happy with this failure to support one’s own nation.

She goes on:

So I’m sure you gentleman wouldn’t mind signing my new petition for a religious freedom law, then?

We must protect our Christian civil liberty of UCM-TOH-WADALU (Unjustified Christian Meanness Towards Other Humans We Arbitrarily Deem Aren’t Like Us). I can’t find it anywhere in the bible, but I’m sure Jesus would approve it, B’God.

Just what religion has to do with it I’m not sure but she turns opposition, for the reasons stated, into “hatred” – unjustified meanness – and plays the religious card by saying we should not be so mean if we call ourselves Christian.

No mention of our arguments, the data quoted, no mention that there are many people who came to the same conclusion without being told to because it was that bleedin obvious to the sane.  No mention of any of that. It had to be “meanness” and “hatred”, didn’t it because there could not be any valid reason to oppose PC constructs?

And as if we still did not get the point, our noses are rubbed in it:

Wow, gentlemen, just when most of us thought those remaining on this blog couldn’t possibly stoop any lower as far as lack of basic human decency…thanks for reminding us of what no one is missing out on by not being on here anymore. Toodles

My first reaction is this – did she, at any stage, take any of the arguments put, the stats such as that YouGov poll, the Bloomberg study and say something like: “Well yes, that is so but …”

Nope, not a bit of it. No attempt what-so-ever to take those onboard. None. So pardon me if I do not take these criticisms deeply to heart. In a fairminded person, yes – I might go through the facts and figures, the quotes and see there might be something there.

But not to someone adopting these tactics.  Oh yes, this one:

those remaining on this blog

That assumption being, of course, that there can’t be many remaining because the arguments are not PC.  Therefore, there must only be a remnant remaining.

I’m too weary to start on that.



  1. (especially of a framework or system) enforcing uniformity or conformity without regard to natural variation or individuality.
    “a fixed Procrustean rule”