India and Pakistan Going to War Would Make the Migrant Crisis Look like a Tea Party

TOPSHOT - Pakistani soldiers stand next to what Pakistan says is the wreckage of an Indian fighter jet shot down in Pakistan controled Kashmir at Somani area in Bhimbar district near the Line of Control on February 27, 2019. - Pakistan said on February 27 it shot down two Indian …
Getty Images

India and Pakistan are teetering on the brink of war again.

This is a fairly regular occurrence: since Partition in 1947, there have been four actual Indo-Pakistan wars (1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999). The fact that most of us aren’t aware of this says more about our ignorance of Indian subcontinental geopolitics than it does about the seriousness of the conflicts. The seventeen-day war in 1965, for example, saw the largest tank battle since the Second World War; the one in 1971 saw Pakistan lose half its navy, a quarter of its air force and a third of its army.

The worry about this latest bout of aggression – which started with the St Valentine’s Day massacre of 40 Indian paramilitary troops in Kashmir by a suicide bomber and has now escalated with the shooting down of an Indian fighter jet – is that both nations are so much more populous, powerful and swaggeringly aggressive, and have points to prove.

India has a population of 1.3 billion.

Pakistan’s is 208 million.

Read the rest on Breitbart.

What the left would prefer you didn’t know about multiculturalism… | James Delingpole

September 1, 2014

All right, so it was only a straw poll conducted among viewers of yesterday’s BBC Sunday Morning Live debate programme: 95 per cent of Britons think multiculturalism has been a failure.
But as majority verdicts go, it was a pretty resounding one – and it was delivered despite the BBC’s best efforts to muddy the waters, first by wheeling out two of the nation’s Multi Culti Apologist big guns Owen Jones and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, and second by pretending that multiculturalism means something other than what it actually means.

Multiculturalism is a very specific political philosophy which could scarcely be further removed from the idea that we should live in one big, happy, multi-ethnic melting pot and all just get along. That’s because it means the exact opposite. It’s about separatism, not integration.

It was championed from at least the 1970s onwards by effete bien-pensants like Labour MP turned Social Democrat Roy Jenkins and is essentially a manifestation of the cultural guilt and self-hatred that afflicts the left-wing chattering classes. Rather than accept the truth which to most of us is glaringly obvious – that some cultures are manifestly superior to others – it urges us all to celebrate our differences and to accept values that we may personally find alien or even abhorrent in the name of creating a fairer, more tolerant and inclusive society.

So, for example, we in liberal Western culture generally take a dim view of marrying members of your own family, female genital mutilation, forced or arranged marriages, second-class status for women, voter fraud, systematic political corruption, honour killings, the organised grooming, trafficking and rape of underage girls, and so on.

In some of our immigrant communities, though, such practices are considered more or less acceptable. (And I’m only using that “more or less” modifier out of politeness).

From Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. There was nothing ‘illiberal’ about David Cameron’s speech on multiculturalism
  2. Rotherham: 1400 kids groomed, drugged and raped by multiculturalism
  3. I prefer my cod in batter, thanks very much
  4. Does Mitt Romney prefer dog-poop yogurt?

2 thoughts on “What the left would prefer you didn’t know about multiculturalism…”

  1. darren.halliday says:1st September 2014 at 5:19 pmMulticulturalism is no longer just about the “celebration of diversity”. Yes diversity is OK when discussing music, food, dance and traditional celebrations. But now, the debate on multiculturalism has to address the issue of state and social policy (as various cultural practices and beliefs are at odds with traditional British values). Do we encourage discrimination based on gender in inheritance matters? Do we allow the teaching that homosexuality is sinful in our schools? Do we allow segregation in public meetings at Universities? Do we allow opinion leaders/educationalists to NOT condemn stoning as a punishment when directly asked (and then practice power over schools)? What is urgently needed is a definition of the boundaries of multiculturalism. We cannot function cohesively as a society, if this boundary is not clearly defined and key (not negotiable) values must prevail in our institutions and law making.
  2. MellorSJ says:1st September 2014 at 5:30 pmI’m more or less in love with the modifier.

Cameron should scrap the Foreign Aid budget, not increase it | James Delingpole

May 21, 2011

How your DFID money is spent: the £420,000 ferris wheel

How your DFID money is spent: the £420,000 ferris wheel

Yesterday I was on BBC Radio 2’s Jeremy Vine show sparring with Cristina Odone about Dave’s mooted compulsory foreign aid levy on the British taxpayer. She was arguing – with some high level support from Lord Gummer – that it was a good thing, part of our moral obligation to the world, and really not that much money all things considered. I was arguing that, no, actually, £8 billion now (rising to £11.4 billion in 2015) is quite a lot of money and that in these dark economic times the very last thing our government ought to be doing is hosing down ungrateful foreigners with cash we haven’t got.

The biggest recipient of our foreign aid largesse is currently Pakistan to which over the next four years we will be sending a total of £1.4 billion. This is roughly the same amount that Pakistan has earmarked to spend on a new fleet of Chinese made submarines; these will go nicely with the two squadrons of Chinese J-10 fighters which Pakistan has also bought at a cost of $1.4 billion. So, in effect, our foreign aid donations are helping to underwrite the military expansion of the country which until recently was shielding the world’s number one Islamist terrorist, organised the massacre in Bombay and is doing so much to fund the Taliban insurgency killing and maiming our forces in Afghanistan.

Still, at least DFID is winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan, with spectacular projects like the amusement park and ferris wheel in Lashkar Gar (pop: 100,000) which you, dear taxpayer, cheerfully funded with a mere £420,000 of your hard earned dosh. One day a week, it’s Women Only day. That’ll certainly put paid to any funny ideas the Taliban may have of taking over the country as soon as we’ve made our ignominious departure: “You have the watches; we have the time; but, aieeee, nooo, we cannot compete with your secret propaganda weapon: impressive views of the green zone from a precariously swinging chair while struggling to eat candy floss through a burka.”

And I’m not even going to begin to mention the £10 million of taxpayers money DFID splurged on the ineffable Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI organisation. Or draw your attention to the environmental damage which has been done, quite likely as a result of the TERI-encouraged planting of bio fuel crops. It would make too many people too angry.

But though all these examples quite neatly expose the profligacy, political correctness and imbecilic incompetence of DFID what they also do is distract from the bigger picture. The real story – as I should have said on Jeremy Vine’s show if only I’d had my wits about me and hadn’t been so keen to major on the Ferris Wheel anecdote – is not that our Foreign Aid budget is grotesquely misspent (though of course it is) but that we shouldn’t have a Foreign Aid budget at all.

For chapter and verse on this I refer you to m’learned friend Dambisa Moyo, the Zambian-born, Harvard-educated author of Dead Aid. In her superb book, she explains how, far from helping the Third World, well-meaning aid packages from the West – such as the $1 trillion dollars spent in the last 50 years on aid for Africa – have only harmed it.

The notion that aid can alleviate systemic poverty and has done so is a myth. Millions in Africa are poorer today because of aid: misery and poverty have not ended but have increased. Aid has been, and continues to be, an unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster for most parts of the developing world.

Moyo explains:

Foreign aid props up corrupt governments – providing them with freely usable cash. These corrupt governments interfere with the rule of law, the establishment of transparent civil institutions and the protection of civil liberties, making both domestic and foreign investment in poor countries unattractive. Greater opacity and fewer investments reduce economic growth, which leads to fewer job opportunities and increasing poverty levels. In response to growing poverty, donors give more aid, which continues the downward spiral of poverty.

But Moyo isn’t calling for total disengagement from the developing world. She just wants us to renegotiate our relationship with it:

The mistake the West made was giving something for nothing. The secret of China’s success is that its foray into Africa is all business. The West sent aid to Africa and ultimately did not care about the outcome; this created a coterie of elites and, because the vast majority of people were excluded from wealth, political instability has ensued.

China, on the other hand, sends cash to Africa and demands returns. With returns Africans get jobs, get roads, get food, making Africans better off…..It is the economy that matters.

Let’s say that one more time:

It is the economy that matters.

You might have thought that this was a point readily comprehensible to a graduate with a first class degree in PPE from Brasenose, Oxford. Especially to one claiming to be a “conservative.” But what has become abundantly clear during David Cameron’s first year in office is that key economic concepts like secure property rights, free trade, low taxes, personal liberty and minimal government intervention – the basic necessities for stability and prosperity – simply don’t interest him. If they did, in the case of Foreign Aid, this is what he would have done:

1. Arranged a high level briefing by thinkers like Dambisa Moyo, David Landes, Niall Ferguson, Arthur Laffer et al on the strategies most likely to bring peace, stability and prosperity to the developing world while – equally important – advancing Britain’s economic and political interests.

2. Used these conclusions as the intellectual basis for a sweeping reform of British aid, based on the self-evident truth that DFID’s old policy has been an unutterable waste of money and that “White Man’s Burden” gesture politics while perfectly suited to snake-oil salesmen like Tony Blair are most certainly not the business of a conservative administration.

3. Scrap ALL foreign aid programmes. Spend a much smaller amount of public money developing trade ties throughout the world. Deal with countries which are open for business; encourage those that might be open for business; refuse to waste money on those that aren’t open for business, no matter how well stocked with nuclear weapons nor keen to foster terrorism they might be, for they won’t respect you any more for your profligacy they’ll just take the cash and laugh all the way to the bank.

It won’t happen of course because Cameron is not that kind of guy and most certainly not that kind of conservative. His attitudes are neatly, damningly summed up by Moyo:

Deep in every liberal sensibility is a profound sense that in a world of moral uncertainty one idea is sacred, one belief cannot be compromised: the rich should help the poor, and the form of this help should be aid.

David Cameron’s thinking on aid is of a piece with those of such towering intellectual sophisticates as Bob Geldof and Bono. He is the man in the crowd at the Make Poverty History concerts with the wrist bands showing how much he cares, and Sam Cam in her hippy threads next to him showing how much SHE cares, and if only we all cared as much as we do, well what a difference that would make…

No it wouldn’t. We don’t want a hippy in number 10 Downing Street. We need a man of courage and conviction.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Budget for growth’? Wot budget for growth?
  2. Dizzee Rascal speaks up for the City. Probably.
  3. George Osborne and the Budget of meh
  4. Only a nutter like Gordon Brown would think it’s a good idea to scrap Trident

One thought on “Cameron should scrap the Foreign Aid budget, not increase it”

  1. Lee says:28th May 2011 at 7:06 amThe liberal elite who rule this country just don’t have a clue; they have no idea about how much poverty there is in this country. Several years ago when I was doing voluntary work I was in the office when a woman came in and a few minutes later fainted because she hadn’t eaten for three days…then there was the man walking fifteen miles a day to attend college because he couldn’t afford the bus fare…and of course, there’s myself, diagnosed with chronic bronchitis three years ago because for ten years I couldn’t afford to heat the house properly during the winter.

    Charity begins at home Mr. Cameron…mind you, your family doesn’t need any.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation