Our round-up of the best, most pertinent and amusing comments of the week that have caught our eye.
In response to John Smith: Farage migrant video shames so-called journalists,
Though sadly devalued by celebrity and crony recipients, if ever there was someone who deserved a knighthood it is Nigel. Whatever the stance on Brexit it is clear if would not have happened without Nigel’s political talent and he still is in the forefront of our political life. In many respects one of the most successful mover and shaker on the past 30 years at least.
Yep. This is well spotted. It is an utter scandal, and not just a political one.
It shows how corrupt and useless much of the press/media now are. The BBC and Sky peddle the same fake news nonsense and conspire not to report. Even supposedly ‘sane’ papers that you thought may be objective, take the very line of this stupid woman in the Sunday Times.
The fact that it takes Farage to force the Government to lift even one finger is scandalous beyond words.
Andrew Devine wrote:
What is the point of ending free movement to mainland Europeans, but replacing it with a ferry service for every Tom, Dick & Mohammed seeking to come to the UK illegally? The security risks involved in allowing this kind of free-for-all access in terms of jihadists and criminal elements to exploit are enormous.
In response to Margaret Ashworth: The science of nonsense,
John Fannon wrote:
Science is never settled. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, it was thought that the task of physicists in the future would be to measure physical constants more accurately. Then along came nuclear physics, theory of relativity and so many other things. In the 1960s I was studying in Winnipeg and I met a very old gentleman whose name graced the physics laboratory. He was in his 90s. He said: ‘I don’t understand this modern physics. When I was studying for my BSc, I had to prove that you could not split the atom. If you couldn’t do that you did not get your degree.’ Things change continually as new observation tools develop and new theories emerge.
Very little research outside of private scholars and inventors has been free. If the state is involved it will always have an agenda and if it is controlled by an institution it will have vested interests to ensure the consensus is maintained.
The ability to do research outside of those environments these days are few and far between and the likes of Newton no longer exist in our elite.
In response to Ann Farmer: Abused and afraid – hell of the caged aged,
Reuben Wade wrote:
In the days when wives did not go out to work, they were available to help take care of elderly parents. Now that almost every woman must go to work, our parents must rely on greedy businessmen to look after them in their infirmity. Another great achievement the feminists can be proud of.
Looking back from from some distant future time, maybe the Brexit referendum will be regarded as the point where it first became tolerable, fashionable even, to mentally separate ‘the old’ from the rest of society. Having achieved that, it was easy to label those in that group (‘demographic’!) as both a drain on the country’s resources and simultaneously, (from a housing or inheritance perspective), an opportunity to be exploited.
In response to Dr Kevin Donnelly: Australia’s sinister gender agenda,
Australia and New Zealand seem to catch our worst progressive concepts and then add bells and whistles to them. Mixing Marxism with the gender debate seems to be proof positive these agitators are mentally ill!
No, the mixing with Marxism is part of the political programme. The whole point of all the various apparently unconnected progressive concepts is to create confusion and break down the opposition to the Marxist revolution. Right at the core for the Marxists is the traditional family, which they identify as being the main block to revolution. Then there is religious belief, liberal democracy, popular fiction, plural politics and so on. This is not a conspiracy as such because it is not at all secret and many academics write extensively on this as they teach it. Conservatives do need to pay more attention to this. Not least because the public services they oversee have this right through them like the ‘Blackpool’ in Blackpool Rock.
In response to Simon Elliott: Safety second – life comes first,
It has just occurred to me that the lockdown fanatics who want to be kept safe all the time ought to watch the ending of Peter Weir’s masterpiece The Truman Show.
The brilliantly but ironically named Truman has finally learned that his world is not real and attempts to escape. When he reaches the edge of this fake world, he is spoken to by the utterly sinister Christof (superbly played by Ed Harris). Christof tries to manipulate and scare Truman, telling him that the real world outside is full of lies and deceit whereas he can keep him safe. Truman pauses but then takes his leave. He realises that in real life you have to live with fear and risk, otherwise it is fake and not worth living. That’s the deal.
Mask On Brain Off wrote:
Safety second, life comes first; to live is to risk and be uncertain. Only the dead are safe from the slings and arrows of life on earth; it takes the living to take arms against a sea of troubles. Whatever happened to ‘the show must go on’?
Exacly right, and I often think about modern-day man-bashing feminism and its role within this destructive culture or safetyism – maybe it was inevitable once modern feminists gained control of the teaching profession (vast majority of teachers are now female and its no coincidence that this has coincided with an end to competitive sports, helmet-wearing for practically any outdoor activity and hi-vis bibs are now compulsory for every child whenever they are taken out of school by the teachers to the local park etc), then there is health and welfare (82 per cent of social workers are now female). Coupled with the rise of intentional single motherhood it is now quite common for a child to progress from nappies to young adulthood without ever experiencing any positive male influence to their thinking as they grow up and one of those positive aspects is that men are more inclined to be risk takers than females – risk-taking is an important part of life because it can actually lead to success and advancement in society. Modern feminist group-think is above all anti-risk which is highly problematic for any society that wants to progress rather than regress.
For at least a decade, probably longer, I can remember at the start of each winter the dire MSM-led warnings of the NHS being ‘overwhelmed’ if we get a period of Arctic weather combined with a new strain of flu (I mean ‘ordinary’ flu, so not even Coronarama). This then leads inevitably to lamentations about health provision being ‘under resourced’ and ‘underprepared’ and ‘Something Must Be Done’.
I can’t help feeling that this has all been part of a drip-drip softening-up process, which has greatly helped to condition the populace and thus explain many of the attitudes and behaviours we’re now seeing, when faced with something out of the ordinary.
In response to Michael St George: TCW’s Brexit Watch: The deadline must stay,
English Outsider wrote:
Can’t believe I’m reading the article above. Three votes and four years and Lord knows how many of our politicians and civil servants still won’t accept that referendum result.
The risk is still there. That those politicians and civil servants are still hoping that the twists and turns of politics, and particularly the coronavirus disaster, will edge us away from any genuine leaving.
This is beyond foolish. During the May era there was, I suppose, a strong hope that the remainer forces could work with Brussels to frustrate the vote. At times there seemed to be more of our politicians over there working with Brussels than there were here working for Brexit. It was a sordid business but one could see what those politicians were fighting for.
Those times are over. Remain is no longer an option. If the remainer politicians were to get their way they will merely leave the UK worse off than before: under the control of Brussels but with even less say in what it does. The best they can now hope for is for us to become a client satellite of Brussels. Can they not see that that is no win for anyone in the UK?
Fishing, defence, the agencies, the threatened disruption of customs arrangements – all that and more is still in the balance. Brussels is still, it seems, living in that May era when they could rely on strong forces in the UK to work for them. Surely time for our remainer politicians and civil servants to see that their position is now untenable. That in continuing the fight on Brussels’ behalf they are damaging their own country for no hope of any benefit.
As I commented elsewhere, it is necessary to ask what is in it for the Remainer establishment. Bribery or blackmail, I often wonder. I refuse to believe that it is entirely a genuinely ideological leaning.