Thursday, 31 December 2015
We used to have class. As the old sketch had it, the upper class looked down on the middle class and the lower class knew their place. Yes, yes, yes, the opportunities were fewer and people were obsessed with migrating from lower-middle to upper-middle class and so on, but there was a certain very British comfort in having a place on the class ladder and struggling to lift your next generation to a higher rung. This is the background to Oliver Letwin’s comments about the events at the Broadwater Farm estate in 1985 and the horrific fate of PC KeithBlakelock.
In a time of daily beheadings broadcast world-wide, or of the routine crucifixions and live burnings and hurling from tall buildings that litter the internet, the death of a copper by multiple stabbings by a mob of dark-skinned people may seem routine, but back then it was unprecedented. All police forces, being hugely outnumbered, operate by the consent of the policed and one of the features of the class system was how the police dealt with you. For the lower orders, knowing your place worked pretty well and the residents of Broadwater Farm were very much in that category. So Bernie Grant’s comment at the time: "What the police got was a bloody good hiding" ran violently counter to the accepted order.
Most young people won’t know this, but until the social upheavals that typified the last quarter of the twentieth century, the police were generally respected and relied on by society in general; they were not the unaccountable, politically correct thought police they have become today. This is the background to and context within which Letwin’s memo to Mrs Thatcher was written. It is of its time and to people of my generation he has absolutely nothing to apologise for. He wrote “Lower-class, unemployed white people lived for years in appalling slums without a breakdown of public order on anything like the present scale.” He was right, identifying that this time it was different.
Today, the Guardianistas would be more directly racist, assuming that expecting poor black people to behave as orderly as poor white people would be beyond their sensitive cultural traditions, which must be appeased by throwing money at them. Letwin’s real sin was expecting everybody living in Britain to abide by the same standards – if anything his was a more level-headed and pragmatic appraisal that throwing money at the problem would do little to improve the lot of a people bound to their behaviours by their background. He was doing his job. But no, he must be pilloried for not anticipating how times would change.
It has now become the norm to cry foul should anybody ‘offend’ you based on your colour, your religion, your ridiculous mode of dress, your personal view of what gender you are today, your sexuality, your political predilections, your perversions, age, height, hair colour, mental fragility and on and on and on... and much of such ‘abuse’ can result in criminal proceedings, sometimes many years after the fact. What next? Will we soon be criminalised now for transgressing as yet unwritten statutes; punished for 'future thought crime'? How soon will it become illegal to serve ethnically inappropriate biscuits?
Are we really ready for more diversity?
I’m not against the odd sincere public apology. Indeed, if you have genuinely done wrong it is the accepted behaviour of the honourable man. But Letwin’s apology is as pointless as it is insincere. Pointless because he was quite right to offer his opinion, with which most would have agreed at the time. Insincere as he is only making it to appease the ludicrous sensitivities of today towards the normality of yesterday. Many believe it was better before. We used to have class. Not any more.
Wednesday, 30 December 2015
The more measured and sane commentators have taken care to distinguish between weather and climate and between prevention (which is impossible) and mitigation (which is expensive but necessary) when discussing the events of the last week and the devastation and disruption to thousands caught up in the northern floods. But what a bumper festive season it has been for the rent-seekers; the lobbyists, the propagandists, the commentators and the chattering classes, all demanding ever more unearned income to maintain their own lifestyles at the expense of and with no gain to those swept away by the torrent of ideology.
It took no time at all for LBC to wheel out world renowned climate expert, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, to discuss ‘the serious reality of climate change’ on Stig Abell’s show. A plethora of Greens exposed their pale complexions to the harsh spotlights of willing broadcast media, all too ready to give them a platform. And later, Sky News invited yet another famously non-partisan scientist, George Monbiot, as a credible interpreter of the causes of the deluge and its cure. Then yet another giant of meteorology and ecology, the actor Michael Sheen, ‘guest-edited’ the Today Programme and squarely put the blame on those asking for help.
As always, those lost in the background noise emanating from all these empty vessels are the very people who need action, not words. The resources are here for recovery – our armed forces were ready as ever to knuckle down and do what a politician will never do; get their hands dirty. There is also money, plenty of money, but much of it goes to grease the wheels of commerce in corrupt foreign lands; buying limousines for thugs with private armies to subjugate their own people. But what was missing – what is always missing – was simple pragmatism, stripped of dogma and ready for action.
Whether we are responsible for progressive climate change is irrelevant. Naming every other Atlantic depression as Storm Frank Spencer or whatever, in a bid to make people believe they are witnessing extreme events is irrelevant. Whether increased CO2 warms or, as is increasingly being suggested, cools the planet is irrelevant. How large our Green taxes rise is irrelevant. A single large volcanic eruption, impossible to predict with current techniques, can result in worldwide weather disruption way in excess of any forecasts for anthropogenic climate change for several years. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation and its contrary sister La Niña are complex, difficult to forecast, entirely natural climatic events which have been blamed for truly extreme weather... usually after the event.
Don't pay the Ferryman!
Extreme weather is a feature of planet Earth and any effect that human activity has or may have is minimal and has proved elusive to determine, with each set of data the ‘facts’ are made to fit the delirious and hysterical beliefs of converts to the Church of Climate Change. And of course, what better source of converts than those affected? Why would you not say you believe if it helps bring much-needed relief? The beast walks among us in sheep’s clothing - an iron fist in a velvet glove - and its propaganda is pure genius; any adverse weather can be used to summon it. To surrender your soul to the beast, all you have to do is say its name.
Monday, 28 December 2015
The clash of cultures is a scenario played out over millennia, as visions of society compete for space and legislation and control. At times the balance is even, with compromises that suit all parties. At other times irreconcilable differences serve to heighten tensions and foment unrest. Across Europe such times are clearly upon us and no matter how much the bizarre loyalties of left-leaning commentators compel them to downplay the conflicts, those conflicts nevertheless exist and a resolution must be found by one means or another.
Across the Atlantic the same forces of misguided liberalism have sought to put Donald Trump’s pronouncements at arm’s length from the policy makers, but undoubtedly feelings are running high. Everybody has their own experience, direct or vicarious, of the changes that are happening all around. One such moment of experience occurred just a short while ago at Bert Mooney Airport in Montana. A few miles southeast of Butte this provincial hub in Silver Bow County was experiencing one of those hot prairie days...
A Montana cowboy, a Native American and a muslim student were waiting for their flights in the departure lounge. The wind outside blew tumbleweeds around and the old sun-bleached windsock was flapping listlessly under a bright, big, Montana summer sky. The airfield was devoid of activity as the three sat and continued their vigil, each wrapped in their own thoughts.
A Montana cowboy, a Native American and a muslim student were waiting for their flights in the departure lounge. The wind outside blew tumbleweeds around and the old sun-bleached windsock was flapping listlessly under a bright, big, Montana summer sky. The airfield was devoid of activity as the three sat and continued their vigil, each wrapped in their own thoughts.
The cowboy looked at the other two, then leaned back in his chair, crossed his boots on a magazine table, chewed on a toothpick and tipped his old, sweat-stained Stetson over his face. After a short while the Native American cleared his throat and softly spoke, to nobody in particular. “Once, there were many of us here. The Blackfoot, Crow and Northern Cheyenne Indians and my own tribe, the Spokane. We lived in harmony with each other and moved to follow the buffalo herds. At one time here, my people were many, but sadly, now we are but few."
The muslim student raised an eyebrow and leaned forward to reply. His voice betrayed a sneer as he said "Once, my people here were few, but now we are many and growing in number, insha’allah. Soon, we will make the laws and change the land.” The arrogance in his voice strengthened as he asked “why do you suppose that is?"
Wanna step outside and say that?
From under the brim of the Stetson came a low growl, as the cowboy shifted his toothpick to one side of his mouth, and without otherwise moving, said in a measured drawl: "Well, Abdul, that's jest ‘cause we ain't got around to playing cowboys & muslims yet."
Thursday, 24 December 2015
Up is down, left is right, history is bunk and the rights of some exceed the rights of others. Why is anybody remotely surprised that the political classes, having already decided on an outcome, would seek to get a mandate for that action by any means? Dodgy dossiers, about-turns, the convenient argument that “the facts changed so I changed my mind”. When William Hague, a man who built his political career on being a solid Eurosceptic, announces he will ditch his previously held convictions to vote out you realise that everybody has their price.
But ‘twas ever thus; history is riddled with backstabbing, betrayals, about turns and uncertainty and the longer I live the more I understand about uncertainty... or is that less? I'm not sure. Those long-held views which are overturned by a confrontation with reality or venal opportunity. The things that were once ‘true’ but are true no longer, such as practically every magnificent achievement of Victorians turning into shameful oppression of anybody with a tan. But closer to home, the certainty of youth giving way to scepticism in and of all things; believe nothing you read and only half of what you see.
In the face of change it is vital we preserve as much history as we can and cling to the old traditions that bind us, at least until we discover that what we thought was a universal truth turns out to be a local and short-lived rumour. Ah, but Christmas! Even Christmas has changed beyond recognition in my lifetime. Where we grubby urchins used to send letters to Father Christmas up the chimney, kids of today presumably Snapchat ‘Santa’ their demands from their iPhones. And while we're on the subject, how many kids today have access to a chimney? Another traditional work opportunity gone!
We’ve transitioned from an orange, some nuts and a toy in a stocking, with a trip to church and a traditional home-cooked meal at the table, to an orgy of unrestrained, non-stop consumption; bulging sacks stuffed with technology and whimsy followed by a boozy, continuous banquet of exotic, ready-made, mass-produced, calorie-laden indulgence. Our spreading waistlines are expanding at a rate unprecedented in Christmas past and many of us won’t make it to Christmas future.
The true meaning of Kentucky Fried Christmas!
The food we used to eat only at Christmas is now available all year round. Britain is supposedly starving yet the incidence of strokes, heart attacks, clogged arteries, liver failure, kidney failure, gout and all the diseases of decadence climbs ever higher, year on year. But forget all that for a couple of days; as blood pressures build and cholesterol counts soar, it is important that we maintain our old traditions. Never forget the true message of the season. Christmas is a time that families come together to celebrate the advent, the nativity and the Girth of the baby Jesus.
Now, it's Christmas Eve - have another Sherry and get fighting!
Tuesday, 22 December 2015
Another day, another episode in the oh-so-sensitive world of massive butt-hurt inhabited by today’s delicate little snowflakes at Safe Space University. This time it’s dear old empire builder Cecil Rhodes who is causing offence by, having died over a hundred years ago, leaving the towering legacy of actually having a country named after him. Maybe that’s what gets the goat of Ntokozo Qwabe the leader of the Rhodes must Fall campaign, although I wonder if you are allowed to actually have ‘leaders’ in the imaginary revolutionary world of the super-indulged.
People are pointing out the hypocrisy, or otherwise, of taking up a place essentially provided by Rhodes’ benefaction, especially as his financial legacy was deemed good enough for Saint Madiba. The Mandela-Rhodes Foundation helps students in poor black townships and maybe this is what has so irked ‘Nogozone’; it’s not unknown for escapees from the lands of poor potential to pull up the drawbridge behind them. Maybe this is the motivation behind Mugabe’s systematic destruction of opportunity for all who live in former Rhodesia? A primitive response from primitive minds does not surprise me at all.
Racist, you say? Mere observation, I reply – and it’s an observation that is hard to deny unless you inhabit the mindset of the purest snowflake whereby every white man in history is guilty of heinous wrongdoing which can only be absolved by massive financial reparation. And that reparation must be made retrospectively by every white man living today regardless of his own circumstances. The massive error made by those who indulge in such warped calculus – people who look like you did bad things to some people who look like me a long time ago – is simplistic in the extreme. To judge people of yesterday by the standards of today is ludicrous, especially when you don’t extend that same scrutiny and condemnation to those who today continue to indulge in medieval behaviour.
But, hey, never let it be said I’m not about equality and maybe Nokando’s mob should also be judged by 200-year old game-rules. Let’s assume he is just as his ancestors were; how would he like to be assessed – slave or cannibal? Or tribal warlord, ruthlessly slaying all who crossed his path? If we go back far enough I’m sure we can all find a common ancestor who was wronged by some other band of monkeys and hope that their line didn’t become extinct, so we can somehow hunt down their descendants and sue them for Neolithic land grabs. Where are these boundaries drawn and who draws them?
We can't erase all the bad from history, but isn’t that exactly what ISIS – by their own measure of acceptability - are attempting to do? The last remains of ancient cultures are being wiped from the record and when the world-wide islamic oppression comes to pass will a thousand years of the most civilisation there has ever been go the same way? The same civilisation which gives people like Qwabe the right to bitch and moan like a slapped brat - what does he think will happen to the statues of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Diane Abbott when the caliph comes?
Einstein culturally appropriated my look!
Many have warned of all this. George Orwell made it his most lasting legacy; Winston Smith’s job was to alter history to fit the narrative of today. But students are naïve and have only a part-formed understanding of how humans function. It is the grown adults of academia who are considering bowing to the pressure who have a duty to stand firm. Quite why they are even considering caving in is something of a mystery; deploying the academic method, if you discount some weird white collective guilt-trip, reparative bullshit, then sheer fucking stupidity seems the most likely reason. The old adage springs to mind that sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought stupid, than to speak out and prove it.
College authorities Statement
College authorities Statement
Saturday, 19 December 2015
David Cameron has come home from Brussels with a pathway. Not a deal, not just a ‘road map’ either, but an actual pathway. We don’t know the details; is it a gravel path with nice, tidy picket fencing up the side, or is it a meandering trail leading through dense forest? It might even be a nice paved ‘sidewalk’ leading... who knows where? And that’s a problem, isn’t it, because nobody on the outside knows where this pathway leads. Angela knows, as does Jean-Claude and so, of course, does Shiny Dave, but none of them are going to tell us that it leads, inevitably, to ever-closer union. They can’t tell you that, can they, because that would be yet another thing that Nigel Farage has been right about all along.
Nobody really knows, either, if Douglas Carswell is a fifth columnist for the Conservatives, a solitary cuckoo in the Ukip nest, although I’ve long suspected Carswell is out mainly for personal glory. But Cameron, Farage, Carswell, Merkel and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all are just part of the scenery along this pathway. Distractions to obfuscate and blur the lines; means to allow the campaign of fear to set the agenda for the referendum whose apparently simple question is: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” and that is the problem. What does this actually mean? What WILL we be voting for? And here’s the crux – nobody really knows.
A 40-year long grievance is “They said we were voting to stay in a Common Market, not a United States of Europe!” and this overly simplistic version of the big event of 1975 suits both pros and cons just fine, even though that is not what it is about at all. Common markets are no longer the way the world works. If you have something somebody else wants a way will be found to do the trade, and barriers such as punitive tariffs and customs unions are just bureaucratic confections of a bygone age. In the connected world of today, anything is possible. No, it’s not about trade alone.
Immigration then? A common complaint levelled at Ukip is that they only ever go on about immigration, which makes them evil and once again, suits both camps just fine. The Outers get to complain about Cultural Marxism and the Inners get to shout racist as loudly and as often as they can. But it’s not about that, either, not that alone. What then? Is it about who makes the laws, who controls the borders, our ‘place in the world’? Who our friend and enemies are? We are in a perpetual state of paranoia about that one and that, it appears, is exactly where they want us. It’s nuanced they say; trying to make it about binary choices is naïve.
And they have a point. The world is complex and that very complexity is the enemy of democracy. Every position on any aspect of the EU can be countered by an opposite narrative that has credibility. Look after our own borders, put out own first - or be stronger standing together? Specialise and dominate the market - or collaborate and reap the economies of scale? Is it a single currency that everybody understands - or a stifling constraint on money supply? And the EU commission is right, there can be no tailored pick’n’mix deal; it is all or nothing... except that ‘all’ is still nothing without the ability to take a different path when fortunes dictate.
How can a demos of ordinary working people, worried about job security, housing, education, healthcare, transport, defence and the like make informed decisions when for every piece of information there are a dozen nuanced interpretations of the consequences of choosing this way or that? I don’t want to live in a world that is too complicated for average people to understand because that leaves all the control in the hands of those who pull the levers and tweak the dials. It puts the power out of reach of those who supposedly decide, by voting, who has that power. And when they realise how impotent they are the only option left is to revolt, take up pitchforks and tear down the machines.
The inevitable fork in the rod metaphor!
But we do have a much simpler binary choice because unlike the rest of Europe we have an unshifting boundary which has served us as a moat for millennia. Yes, yes, yes, this is simplistic, but so too are any of the other criteria. This one, however, is the real question that should be put forward: “Do you wish the United Kingdom to be an independent sovereign nation, or do you wish to be a region of a country called Europe?” Of course it is a loaded and emotive question but look at a map. Europe will never go away, but neither will the opportunities it affords, in or out. Do you want to take the settled, once and for all path to independence, or do you choose the perpetual national neurosis of David Cameron’s chosen route? Do you want the cycle-path or the psycho-path?
Friday, 18 December 2015
Don’t you love those ‘research shows’ articles which the tabloids love to use to pad out the copy? Research shows that married people tend to be in relationships. Research shows that if you lead a healthy, active lifestyle and eschew social drugs like tobacco and booze you will live, on average, a more miserable life than those who hate you for your healthy, active lifestyle. Research shows that those who have money and great jobs generally feel better about themselves as a result. But who would have thought that good old research would show that it’s not we red-blooded meat eaters who are responsible for climate change but the very people who blame us for it?
Yes, it’s true – or as close to true as these things get, which is to say probably not true at all – that lettuce cultivation is three times the planet killer that yummy, sausagey, bacony pigs are. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have “found that many common vegetables require more resources per calorie, and produce higher greenhouse gas emissions than some types of meat.” As a result, “Sticking to a vegetarian diet may not be as beneficial to the environment as you think — in fact, it might be helping to destroy it.” Now that’s what I call bringing home the bacon.
All that hippy dippy shit and the current warm spell has ‘climate scientists’ (I think they are a bit like the team at L'Oreal who gave us ‘the science bit’ - concentrate!) all in a tizz as they desperately try to refrain from conflating current observations with their expectations and declaring barbecue summers, frost-free winters and southern England having a similar climate to Florida within a decade. A bit warm for my liking, but an old friend of mine retired to Naples, FL a few years back and he is – as they insist on saying over there - loving it.
Ron picked up a few acres for next to nothing and lived in a motorhome for a couple of years as he self-built his cabin and now he has the place fixed up pretty much how he wants it. He has an eco-friendly, timber-built, low-energy house with a four-car garage, a splendid deck with solar-heated hot tub and a sprawling, well-tended lawn at the front. Okay, he went a bit ‘native’ with the lawn ornaments and his chainlink front fence says 'keep away' in a cheap and cheerless manner, but he still has room for a huge pond out back, where he’s let nature create a little haven, far from prying eyes.
One beautiful evening – and that could be pretty much any day of the year down there - Ron grabbed a good book and headed down to his pond-side terrace to chill out and watch the sun go down. He took a bucket with him to gather a few oranges and lemons from his trees. It’s quite a way from the house, so at first he didn’t hear the noise, but as he got closer the sounds of what could only be described as ‘frollicking’ reached his ears. It wasn’t the first time; kids today don’t have either the respect or the fear we felt towards our elders and as he stepped onto the terrace he saw a group of young women naked and swimming in his pond!
The view from Ron's back yard
He stood and watched for a moment, grinning. “Hey, pervert!” one shouted, as they noticed him. “How long have you been staring, old man?” another taunted. Ron suggested they might want to get off his property. As one they pointed to where they had abandoned their clothes on the bushes and a third said “Yeah, you’d like that, wouldn’t you? We're not coming out until you leave!" Ron carried on right on, grinning and took a seat on the edge of the lake. For a few seconds nobody spoke, then Ron sat back in the recliner, indicated his bucket and said, “Hey I don’t mind, ladies. I only came down here to feed the alligator."
Wednesday, 16 December 2015
They came to work, it was as simple as that. They came and worked and began new lives far from home. Factories, buses and a few in the NHS and yes, there was racism, there never won’t be, but there was also gratitude and support for people willing to uproot and help us rebuild our economy, so desperate for workers after years of struggle; the war babies were not yet grown, rationing was a recent memory and everybody gained – this wasn’t a one-way street. Besides, it wasn’t long before we acquired a taste for the exotic, albeit of the bravado-laden, ‘bring me the hottest curry you do’ variety and as the hard workers grafted and saved and bought houses and – yes – integrated, it all seemed to be going rather well.
So what happened; where did it all go wrong? As always the trouble and strife that has never left the Middle East rumbled along, but whatever our sometimes misguided interventions and, yes, our need, our greed for oil, it was the domestic power balance of the oil-rich lands that put our money in despotic hands, suppressed minority tribes and cultures and maintained poverty in the sight of enormous wealth. The west did not create Osama Bin Laden but under the banner of islam his disciples flew airliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center a decade and a half ago and since then we have been at war.
The alarms were raised when it was revealed that the pilots and the suicide shock-troops that followed them came not from the foothills of Afghanistan, but from within our own ranks. The grandsons and daughters of all those bus drivers and doctors and factory workers turning their back on the west, which is all they have known, have been poisoned by an ideology alien to their host nation and like dormant parasites, long controlled by materialist medicine have developed immunity and proliferated. Why do they hate us? governments ask, belatedly noticing what their populations have been telling them for years.
Meanwhile the porous borders of the EU are being slowly plugged, one-by-one, by individual nations acting unilaterally to build fences, deploy troops and deter the tide of invasion from the east. But help is at hand, or at least it looks like it: “The European union’s first paramilitary force will have the power to take control over a nation’s borders without the consent of sovereign governments under plans to protect borders amid the present migrant crisis.” So says the headline in The Times. Wait, the border force wing of the – so we were told - non-existent EU Army can be deployed to shore up the breach? Or maybe, under the guise of an “integrated system of border management” it can impose a reversal of an individual countries border policy? That’s what those damned conspiracy theorists are suggesting. These days they look so much less like nut jobs.
At the same time Saudi Arabia – the source of much support and succour for the very terrorist islamist groups we fear and responsible for funding invasive mosque-building throughout the world – is setting up a 34-nation coalition of islamic nations to oppose extremism? Pull the other one, mohammed. With this coalition including Turkey, due to obtain a free pass to, er, control the EU’s borders it can’t only be me who fears what this could really mean. A Europe genuinely without borders may soon become a reality... but will it still be a union, or will we have to call it a caliphate?
Tuesday, 15 December 2015
There is a new Star Wars movie out, apparently. The Farce Awakens. Original boxed Star Wars figures – toys made never to be played with but stored, cossetted and later coveted by middle-aged men who came out of cinemas in 1977 not emulating the oh-so-cool Han Solo but considering whether to invest their pocket money on a ridiculous Wookie or the motorised vacuum cleaner R2D2. They are laughing now or rather, if there is any justice, they are gazing up at their still-boxed treasure, wondering what happened to their misspent youth. Things get old. George Lucas is old, Star War is old.
The Labour Party is getting older by the minute, too and the cracks are well past starting to show. Electing the sort of progressive ‘firebrand’ that Jeremy Corbyn seems to represent has exemplified this more than anything. You may not have noticed, Labour, but the man is not exactly the galvanising media whore that last got you elected, back in 1997. The Thatcher-lite New Labour era was the closest Labour ever got since the post-war years to actual popularity, as opposed to the grim class struggle which typified Jezz’s firebrand days. He may be ‘only’ 66 but his politics are as old as communism itself.
Now, I’m going to say something controversial here, but bear with me. Given the rocky road that awaits all politicians these days – life in the goldfish bow of public scrutiny, suspicion and contempt and possibly ending in ignominy as you are pilloried for behaving the way all we imperfect people behave – the price of power must rarely be worth the ephemeral rewards. Why then, do they do it? I have to believe that, like the George Lucas franchise, people keep telling them that what we really need right now is another tedious re-telling of the same old story. But with Labour the farce really is with you.
Far from the new politics he promised, Obi-wan Jenobi has created an enormous rift between the various factions of the fanciful rebel alliance he purports to lead. And just as nobody can reveal the plot of the Lucas movie, few seem to be able to say very much about settled policy for Labour. But what we do have is a growing cast list of heroes and villains and the latest comic relief is provided by the charming Labour MP Jess Phillips. Not content with telling Diane Abbot to fuck off she is now doing her bit for party unity by promising the glorious leader “I won’t knife you in the back, I’ll knife you in the front.” Helpful that isn’t.
Two more hopes... Bob and No.
Well, I won’t be watching Star Wars. I am, after all, no longer twelve. But I am utterly intrigued by the intriguingly dynastic and perennial saga of wrinkly old sages, robotic minions, heinous villains and fairy queens of Labour’s long-running pantomime. Jeremy Corbyn’s travails have only just begun and before he can really begin to take the reins and crack the whip he has to tackle the dissenters; more referee than leader. This winter, the only show in town is The Umpire Strikes Back
Monday, 14 December 2015
The court of Cnuts has decreed that the world will be saved by their mastery of the planetary weather systems. Turning back the tides and turning down the thermostat of the world, they will ensure peace, prosperity and energy security for your children and their children’s children. According to @toryboypierce all it took was fourteen days, 30,000 people, five million pieces of paper and 21,000 tonnes of carbon emissions and if the Paris Agreement fails to meet its almost certainly unverifiable objectives, meh, none of them are going to be around to take the blame anyway. The facts will change to fit the future, just as they are changed to paint the past.
The world leaders are experts in nothing but politics. Getting a sniff of corrupting power from early activism, they grow ever further from the people they want to rule. Not govern, not lead but simply rule. The kind view says that they are entirely in the thrall of advisers with no means themselves of telling bullshit from bollocks, but some of the alternative narratives must surely get through. In which case they must hold their noses and grit their teeth as they vote for ever more punitive measures to control the little people. So completely has the establishment accepted the new climate orthodoxy, dismissing all dissenting voices, that it is almost a crime to say you’re not totally convinced.
Ignoring the demos – the very opposite of democracy – is becoming the norm. I’m coming to an age where I am allowed to be bewildered; maybe even expected to be bewildered. COP21 was never brought about because of the demands or wishes of ordinary voters. Flood victims didn’t point to the skies and see chemtrails and climate change and lobby for action; most only discovered that their homes were built on floodplains when those plains did what they naturally do from time to time. Nobody expected anything other than flooding once funding for dredging river channels was halted on some EU whim, but now we must call it evidence of climate change. Every media outlet, every spokesman, appears to have accepted without challenge that this is so.
The ‘opinion’ of the masses is manipulated by the activism and propaganda of a relative noisy few. Nobody wants to be the baddie, so the bullies gang up and label those they disagree with as beneath the dignity of debate and deny them, through their hissing, spitting hateful rhetoric, a platform. Even the self-appointed label of ‘progressive’ oozes self-righteousness; what lumbering ape would want to halt progress? Meanwhile progress towards the over-regulated, heavy-handed state continues and the many who want to resist it are dismissed as ‘populist’ and naïve.
In this article in The Economist it states that “In America and Europe, right-wing populist politicians are on the march. The threat is real” and that “populist ideas need defeating.” Really? You’re saying that simply because a lot of people don’t want what you want, their views should be rejected? And why ‘threat’? If you don’t like what you see your governments colluding to do, now you are the threat? Whether you object to the importation of third-world terrorism, or the anti-patriotic dilution of national identity, or the destructive influence of enforced multiculturalism, or the indoctrination of your children to never question climate change, your fears now make you enemies of the state.
Eyes wide shut...
In France, tactical voting by coalitions of other parties has denied electoral gains to Marine Le Pen’s ‘populist’ Front National, but even The Guardian recognises the election “consisted of establishment parties [trying] desperately to outwit what they warned was a racist, xenophobic, islamophobic and overwhelmingly dangerous party.” Once again, a party which represents the views of many millions is dismissed as the ‘dangerous’ enemy within. Just what is it that western 'leaders' have against their own populations? For two weeks they expended hot air in their fantasy about controlling future weather. They might better have addressed themselves to understanding the very real winds of change already blowing across the land.
Saturday, 12 December 2015
These numbers are not mine – hell, I’ve not even checked them for accuracy, but why should what’s acceptable to the left not be equally acceptable to the right of the discussion? And the talking point here is all about equality and fairness to our fellow man. The important thing is not whether the facts are correct but whether they feel correct. I believe this is the way statistics are routinely authenticated these days; that and trial by Twitter. Anyways, for what it’s worth, here - of unknown provenance - is why Britain is already doing all it is morally obliged to do to help.
Given the scale of what has been called the ‘refugee crisis’ despite the fact that a majority of those arriving on European shores are neither refugees nor in crisis, having paid good money for entry to the lands of rich pickings, our rulers - Herr Merkel and Frau Juncker - have decreed that all European countries take in their "fair share" of the migrant millions headed in our direction. All very charitable, given that none of these, mainly muslim, migrants are going to be distributed near the country retreats of our so generous elites.
But how do you decide what a "fair share" is? Merkel and Juncker want to use each country's GDP as a measure of ability to accommodate, which will ensure Britain is required to take a huge proportion, similar to Germany’s already near one-million this year alone. But, given that we regularly hear that our infrastructure is at breaking point, why not use population density as the metric? At 413 people per square kilometre Europe's most densely populated country is England. Surely it makes sense that until other countries achieve parity we start filling them up first?
In order to bring other European nations up to Britain’s cheek-by-jowl intensity of competition for space, Germany would have to absorb another 67 million migrants. Similarly France could squeeze in another 160 million and Spain has room for slightly more at 161 million. Even Scotland, by this measure could take an extra million, which would allow the SNP to do their bit without constantly insisting that we do it on their behalf. A quick estimate suggests that just thirteen European countries could between them accommodate approaching 700 million migrants before reaching the same population density as England. Why, they could house half the world’s estimated muslim population.
No need for this. A couple of taxis should do it.
Using these calculations, it appears England is already doing more than its fair share, but given that the 700 million figure is only approximate and rounded up and not wanting to appear unhelpful, it seems only fair that we round up our figures as well. Taking everything into account it appears that yes, England should take in at least a few of the migrants. I estimate we can handle another dozen, just so long as none of them are called mohammed.
Friday, 11 December 2015
Well, it’s been an interesting old week, what with an American billionaire presidential candidate suddenly being declared more dangerous than ISIS or Jeremy Corbyn. And a world champion British sportsman attracting opprobrium for daring to have the wrong opinions. It’s become quite a confusing world; while those whose bile is quick to rise have no problem with the gross hypocrisies of their stances, the rest of us are left scratching our heads at what has become verboten which was formerly ignored. Indeed our supposed leaders no longer lead, instead relying on increasingly flaky barometers of approval before coming to decisions.
Obviously the numbers of people coming in to Britain has to be controlled but foreigners are all off limits for one reason or another – too poor, too brown, too islamic, too European to be subject to scrutiny – so, white British passport holders it is; don’t go on holiday unless you are prepared to pay people traffickers to smuggle you back home... where, of course , you will not be able to return to work as you will have become the wrong type of illegal immigrant to be offered amnesty. These are confusing times and in the confusion it is little wonder people are losing their way. For some the stress is beginning to affect their everyday lives.
A couple I know had become virtually estranged as a result of no longer knowing what is acceptable, he tiptoeing around the ever-vigil, politically correct HR department in fear of his job and she tiptoeing around her increasingly morose husband as he withdrew more and more from the normal business of being a husband. In particular, she confided to her doctor, she was concerned that despite being only in their early forties their love life had fallen off a cliff. No more spontaneous flowers, no more romantic mystery gifts and it had been many months since they had made love. The doctor was not unfamiliar with the condition and prescribed a new, trial version of a popular sexual pick-me-up, guaranteed to make your male ‘ardour’.
In liquid form, it was colourless, odourless and tasteless and ideally added to a drink, the doctor advised, it would quickly bring about the desired effect. Pick your moment, he suggested, find a time when he is relaxed and off his guard and just go with how the mood takes him. She left with the small vial of liquid safely tucked into the change pocket of her purse, a thrill of anticipation in her breast and began to plan her campaign. A week later she returned to the doctor to request another dose.
“Oh, doctor” she enthused, “it was like old times. He was like a lion!” The doctor was suitably impressed as he wrote out a prescription for a regular supply. “And did he suspect that this sudden new awakening of desire was anything but natural?” he enquired “Studies have shown that the effects are somewhat subdued if the patient is aware he has been administered a stimulus.” She shook her head, “He had no idea, doctor. I waited until we were at dinner then, when he nipped off to the toilet, I put the drops in his drink. When he came back it was only a matter of minutes before his mood changed. He took my hands, stared into my eyes, then threw me across the table and we made beautiful, passionate love right there and then!”
The doctor smiled as he signed and handed over the prescription. “Right there, on the table?” he asked. “Yes,” she replied, “he just swept the dishes onto the floor and then he was on me. We went at it like animals for what seemed like hours! In the end we were both naked and panting and glowing with ecstasy!” Her eyes sparkled as she recalled the event and her cheeks flushed. “Of course,” she added, “next time we’ll not be going to Nando’s.”
Thursday, 10 December 2015
A violent strain has dominated the world news for years. Its adherents practise vicious acts of torture and execution which they film and proudly put out on the internet for all to see. We have become hardened and anaesthetised to the daily parade of beheadings, burnings, stonings, crucifixions and mass head-shot killings of kneeling human beings whose only crime is to have transgressed against a set of rules so draconian that the civilised world not only long ceased to punish them but made most of them mainstream many years ago. Adultery, homosexuality, abandoning religion, being from another religion, or simply being the wrong colour are punished not only by various supposedly ‘militant’ jihadis, there are also whole nation states, recognised by the west, who indulge in much of the same everyday barbarism. Their oil is just not worth tolerating their rabid ideology for.
Meanwhile, the boxer Tyson Fury has a spitting, vitriolic hate campaign aimed at him by leftist elements because he holds views that, to a devout muslim, would not only be considered mainstream but mild in comparison to the unbending stance of islam. Furthermore, while neither he nor Donald Trump has ever – to the best of my knowledge – beheaded a live captive, stoned a woman to death for being raped, or burned anybody alive in a cage, it is they who come in for the convulsive, spitting, snarling condemnation; while against the encroaching invasion of civilisation-wrecking, fundamental islam, hands are raised in a feeble, helpless ‘what can you do?’ gesture. I know I am not alone in finding this perverse.
So, how does the world – as seen through the eyes of the supposedly independent media – recognise what is going on? Under the title of ‘Chancellor of the Free World’ they name Angela Merkel as Time magazine’s ‘person of the year’. "For asking more of her country than most politicians would dare, for standing firm against tyranny as well as expedience and for providing steadfast moral leadership in a world where it is in short supply." Roughly translated this means putting ideology before reason and putting the same warped ideology before the needs and wants of the German people. Angela Merkel has single-handedly done more to bury the German nation state and with it, all of Europe, than any who have attempted this feat before her. (Donald Trump, incidentally, came in third place for the ‘honour’...)
Something stinks. How is it that third generation immigrant children, born and schooled here still speak English with a Pakistani accent? Why is it that the burka, an affront to British values and a quite deliberate symbol of islamic superiority and separateness, is rapidly becoming almost normal? At which point did police officers have to engage in dialogue with ‘tribal elders’ before attempting to enter and patrol muslim ‘communities’? And when did such communities manage to exempt themselves from the normal scrutiny and strictures applied to the indigenous population?
In Merkel’s World we tell those incompatible separatists that the west hates them not because they refuse to assimilate fully but because they are brown and different. We give them the details with which to file their grievance and ignore the reality that it is they who are incapable of fitting in. If they wanted to abandon islam and assimilate we have the capacity to absorb them and give them the same chances as we used to enjoy. But no, the multicultural dream insists they give up nothing in exchange for all our century offers.
A very good year?
While we may not want to march every muslim at pitchfork-point to redistribution or repatriation centres – but don’t believe it isn’t a favoured option for millions – it is not wrong to be afraid of the consequences of more acquiescence to muslim mores. And it might be worth taking a moment to consider that another German Chancellor was also once named Time Magazine’s man of the year. 1938, it was. Remember how that turned out?
Wednesday, 9 December 2015
"Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a superior leadership. Propaganda as such is neither good nor evil. Its moral value is determined by the goals it seeks." A famous European leader once said that. Another added, “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” Any guesses?
Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. The message comes first; the facts can be fashioned to fit that message later. “It has nothing to do with islam” and “You ain’t no muslim, bruv.” Keep it brief, keep it simple and keep on saying it. K.I.S.S. Any criticism of an alien culture is racism. Observing any differences between the sexes is sexism. Being afraid that a rabid cult is baying for your blood is islamophobia – fear becomes hatred by simple repetition that this is so. Keep on saying it and it becomes true. Nothing is normal. Everything is normal. Not normal is the new normal. Two plus two equals five. If everybody says you are wrong, eventually you will begin to question what you know.
Our society is wary of brainwashing. Cults use brainwashing, so they must be dangerous. Cults seek to distort reality so their adherents cleave to a different doctrine. Cults are dangerous, dividing families, dividing loyalties, dividing and ruling. Cults are minority phenomena, they say, cults are evil and wrong. This is obvious, they say, anybody can see the power of the cult is limited and we can cure you. Look into my eyes and repeat after me: “Muslims account for only 5% of the population. They must be protected. They suffer the most because of the actions of ISIS. They are a force for good in our society. Diversity is good. Diversity is good. Diversity is good. Diversity is god...” Keep looking into my eyes. Keep. It. Simple. Stupid.
Donald Trump has dared to say what millions think. Of course, what those millions think is simply wrong. The deeds they have witnessed, the words they have heard or read, the fear they feel when they imagine their lives or lifestyles are threatened are all illusory. And anyway, Trump has to be wrong because the simple, repeated message of the media, world leaders and liberal commentators says so. The condemnations from Barack Obama, David Cameron, Boris Johnson, the usual voices on the left, along with the Metropolitan Police are confined to a few simple points. Repeated over and over.
Raised by popular consensus
‘The Donald’ is having none of it. While Nigel Farage was cornered into having to repeatedly discipline his party, keep his own words sober and refute the more xenophobic utterings of some members, Trump just says what he believes and far from backing down, repeats his claims louder and with more vigour when challenged. His numbers continue go up and up with every proclamation. What is wrong with ‘his’ people, this cult of Donald? Are they being brainwashed by him? The recent surge for France’s Front National is another deep stain the bien pensants want to eradicate.
In desperation the leaders of the ‘free world’, who know what's best, select another programme number, insert the pre-wash powder and up the speed of the spin cycle.
Tuesday, 8 December 2015
I'm not convinced that men marrying men is an answer to anything very much. I'm also not convinced that trapping people on welfare by paying successive generations more than their unskilled labour will ever be worth is a kind thing to do. And the one-way conveyance of human rights without in return insisting on corresponding responsibilities seems to me a strategy for failure. Thus children born into perpetual welfare can breed to increase the underclass with the certain knowledge – if such people can said to actually be sentient – that there will be no price to pay. At least, no price for them to pay.
But it all has to be paid for, this wonderful egalitarian utopia we supposedly all want to see. And as always it is those who can get by under their own steam who pay the most. I’m not talking here about the very wealthy who earn so much that even punitive tax rates mean they retain their unassailable status at the very top of the tree. Nope, it’s those who can’t afford to insulate themselves from the ruinous outcomes of the policies pursued by our current leaders who pay the highest price.
The young working families who have to struggle to live cheek by jowl with the idlers they pay for, because they can’t afford to live anywhere nicer; daily going out to work, making hard choices about spending, family size, childcare and paying the regular bills while next door, the twenty-four hour party people rub their noses in the choices they make. How easy it would be to jump into the workless void, except the workers believe they can create better chances for their children and maybe, one day, retire to somewhere more civilised. And a bit quieter.
Instead of listening to those voices – voices whose opinions ought to carry more weight than those who vote to stay aboard the gravy train – the government repeatedly comes up with bunkum such as ‘plugging diversity gaps’. Throwing money at enforcing more ‘diversity’ means less money for plugging the gaps in the breached dams of education, law and order, civic amenity and silly little things like flood defences. The more uncomfortable and unsettling diversity is pursued the greater the discontent of those who pay for it, so is it any wonder that bigotry rises in direct proportion.
Opposition to things that cause fear and unfairness is normal, yet the establishment response has been to ignore the fears, plough ahead with the project and engage in the rhetoric of ‘anti-racism’ to browbeat those who object. Odd, isn’t it, that when the declared intention is a harmonious nation of infinite variety and equality, that there is a deliberate policy to quash the indigenous, much as invading forces have subjugated peoples in the age of the conquistadors. To render the fears of the majority irrelevant, make those people a minority.
'The Donald' lurching back into bother...
Is it any wonder, then, that Donald Trump, for echoing the views of his supporters is suddenly branded inhuman for suggesting what sane voices have requested for decades? When you try and make a Frankenstein state by badly stitching together incompatible parts of other states, with no thought to the treatment needed to avoid rejection of the donor organs, what other final outcomes do you expect? When the untidy stitches of multiculturalism dissolve the scars will still be there for all to see. If Trump is a monster he is a monster created by the warped orthodoxies of socialism.
Monday, 7 December 2015
On Sky News this morning a panel of what I can only describe as ‘ordinary’ people, that is the uninformed and hard of thinking, gave their opinions on the floods in Cumbria. They described this event – utterly normal for one of the wettest places in the UK – as ‘the real face of global warming’. No question at all, this event feeds their confirmation bias and therefore must be utterly true. They then went on to declare, again without question, that this winter will be ‘the coldest on record’. Given that the severity and duration of the rainfall wasn’t forecast even a week ago, this is taking faith in an uncertain science to the extreme.
Fuelling the fire, the climate talks in Paris are stoking up the boilers to bursting point and just watch how every extra degree up or down on any particular day will be reported as ‘unprecedented’. They can even predict both warming and cooling from the same data sets and simply state, if challenged, that ‘it’s complicated’. While a tiny sample of the human race achieves astonishing technological feats it is as if that advancement must be balanced by the rump of populous becoming ever more stupid. (By stupid, I don’t mean unintelligent, I mean as in the Latin stupere: 'to be stunned or benumbed'.)
The potential of your children is being limited by teaching to agendas set by those with ever more limited ability to think independently. The misnomer of Comprehensive education is a dogma clung to like a bedraggled cat on a raft of driftwood with dry land in easy reach. Soon the feedback loop of state schooling will achieve two-tier education in a manner the ‘evil’ Grammar Schools could never manage. Grammar school kids are far more likely than others to question what they are told and far more likely to recognise that all the climate change ‘forecasts’ are nothing of the kind. Rather, they are after-the-fact summaries which seek to fit a cause to the effect.
Oh, I’m not a ‘climate change denier’; I’m just pretty sure I’ve seen all this before, both the climate change hysteria and the actual weather. It’s called memory. Now, I also know that memory can be manipulated and what better place to start than right at the beginning. The Jesuits said, “Give me the child...” and now the state is taking that principle and indoctrinating them to grow into adults with a pre-programmed set of beliefs and one of the most perfidious of them is that if we give something the label ‘science’ then it must be settled. The most perfect specimens of these model mule-citizens will be chosen to become teachers in turn.
No matter how many social laws the state introduces, the alternative to mass indoctrination will lie in the hands of private citizens; fee-paying schools and the continued supremacy of elites. Far from promoting unity and belonging, the proliferation of ever more heavy-handed tools to control the masses will only result in the powers residing in ever fewer hands. Democracy has been used very effectively so far to promote a divided society in the guise of inclusion. It won’t stop there.
Thursday, 3 December 2015
"I'm forever blowing bubbles" isn't just the anthem of West Ham supporters, nor is it merely the alleged hobby of the late Michael Jackson. Bubbles are very much a thing of the age. Yes there was the South Sea Bubble, which was three hundred years ago, but the words of the song are just as apt for bubbles old and new: “They fly so high, nearly reach the sky, then like my dreams they fade and die.” Bubbles tend to burst, but some are more robust than others. True, the housing bubble and the regular stock-market bubbles are flimsy, ephemeral things, not to be relied on, but the bubbles we try to live in are armour against harsh reality.
Everybody has heard of the Westminster bubble, within which it is said, ideologies flourish unchallenged and unsullied by any contact with the grim facts of life. There is also the BBC bubble, so thoroughly coated in diversity that it can deflect any mono-cultural opinion save that of tiny minorities whose difference must be celebrated as exemplars to the rest of us. Students, Occupy, any other V-Mask wearer not doing it ‘for the lulz’ and anybody who includes ‘social justice’ in their Twitter bio... all living the dream. Or should that be, living in their dreams?
The bubble-dwellers, who breathe only such rarefied air as has been exhaled by their fellow believers can, in some cases, exhibit such detachment from reality as to ignore all evidence that contradicts their world view as statistical blips; a single newspaper headline about the conviction of a white rapist, for instance, cancels out the thousands of rapes carried out by specific ethnic gangs. See, they need to believe, white people are just as evil! Therefore you are all Pakislamophobes for believing that repeated occurrences of a quite specific behaviour by that poor, beleaguered minority are in any way typical.
In the various bubbles ISIS has nothing to do with islam, profit is only ever evil, there is no such thing as widespread and systematic benefit fraud, Tories wish death upon the needy and we have but six days left to save the NHS. And there is no greater bubble than the Climate Change Industry, which (according to the current thesis of an alarming number of bubble-zens) caused all the other bad things to happen in the first place. Thus the vote to assist in the allied air strikes on Syria, in an attempt to weaken an enemy which can’t be reasoned with, is not in self-defence but a simple act of aggression to the thousands, possibly millions who are suitably insulated against the possibility of terror attacks by a nice warm coat of fuzzy feelings.
Christmas is coming - break out the Bublé
There is a special time in your life when you are allowed to believe in all sorts of improbable things, like dragons and unicorns and magic beans; that people will all be good if you treat them right and when you die you go to a special heaven; that everything happens for a reason; that we will all live happily ever after; that world peace is ours for the asking if we all just talk nicely to each other. But beyond childhood all that is simply pretty bubbles in the air.
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, is apparently well enough to be moved back to prison after thirty years in Broadmoor. Paranoid schizophrenia, apparently. Meanwhile Ian Brady remains as insane as ever, banged up in Ashworth. What has always puzzled me, however, is why we even need to know this. They are gone from the world and unless our intent is simple revenge it would have been better for pretty much everybody if they had been released early... into the hereafter. There are no doubts over their convictions, they leave no dependents, nobody would mourn them. Why are they even still alive?
Have we learned anything new about criminality from them? Or did we always understand that the human race can create aberrant and unrepentant monsters? The only way to stop people like this from continuing with their own malevolence is to contain them. Why do they want to send Sutcliffe back to prison? Because it costs six times as much to keep him in a psychiatric unit. Guess how much it would cost to keep him in a coffin? Containment, prevention... cure.
Of course, criminal psychologists love a celebrity nutjob; the book they get out of studying them could make their professional name. But why would you want to become feted for an in-depth and close-up study of such depravity? Maybe such people share some of the same character traits as their subjects – a desire for attention, a detachment from mainstream humanity, an unhealthy preoccupation with deviation? Psychopaths are known for their ability to manipulate their prey, even to gain their trust before slaughtering them. I wonder if Jeremy Corbyn understands this when he suggests ISIS can be negotiated with.
Like the Sutcliffes, the Hindleys, the Bradys and others, the criminally insane pull the wool over the eyes of do-gooders, appeasers and those who just want to teach the world to sing. Maybe this is why people like Jeremy Corbyn believe, as few really believe, there can be a peaceful resolution to the challenges posed by the Middle East’s millennia-long mass psychosis. If islam is the murderous basket case it needs to be excluded from influence in the sane world, not consulted as to how best to meet its appetites.
We need to talk...
We deny children, the demented and those who have demonstrated they don’t have the mental capacity, the making of decisions and control over their affairs because we rationally judge that no good can come of it. And yet we’re letting our uncertainly-equipped Lower House debate the ‘treatment’ for a serial killing machine operating in plain sight. Maybe they will get a book out of it? Maybe this is he proof, if more proof were needed, that the lunatics really are running the asylum.
Tuesday, 1 December 2015
One of my favourite truisms is that if you torture a statistic long enough it will tell you whatever you want to know. Of course this is also the backbone of the Amnesty brigade who will produce enough numbers to convince the weak and mild that information extracted by torture is never reliable, no matter how many lives have been saved. By the accounts and accounting of the multiculturalists a newly arrived immigrant family with four dependent sickly children, supported by one cleaner on minimum wage and working just enough hours to retain maximum welfare payments is a net benefit to the economy. And – so ‘they’ say - attacking ISIS will be worse than useless because it is all our fault in the first place. Global warm-change-ice-ageing, apparently.
So many experts, so little agreement. Why do stockbrokers go bust? Why does the weather not do exactly what the BBC told us it would do? What happened to the general election Labour landslide? Does the toast ALWAYS land butter side down? And – seriously – what unassailable good HAS the EU been responsible for which could not have been negotiated between sovereign nations? With the exception of the butter-side-down urban myth, which could be proved wrong by simple experiment, nobody ever has enough information to make sense of most freak number-fests and in most cases gut instinct and confirmation bias are the prime movers in choosing a side.
Once upon a time our ape-like ancestors worked out that in the daytime warmth and light and food was to be had and when the sun went down food was what you might become, for the night predators. One little monkey claimed he knew how to make sure the sun rose every day and set himself up as High Priest. Not a bad little number. Yes, there were the sacrifices but you have to remember this was way before Twitter. Religions come and go, but each bears many of the hallmarks of its predecessor and each has its high priest and rules... so many rules. But, with the exception of the religion of piss, most are harmless enough these days.
The west is doing its best to avoid tackling ISIS head-on, but boy is it ready to take on the tides and the seasons. The Paris token world leaders’ Climate Change Bunfight is ready to fund a Superman to stop the world turning if needs be in its ambition to do whatever the new godhead demands. And the mass of unreliable data to input to the computation of human-created climate catastrophe is big enough to boggle the combined brains of every expert on the planet. Nobody knows the whole truth about what is going on with the weather (although it just looks like autumn to me and who really gives a toss about Vanuatu?) which is just how new religions like it. The more incomprehensible the deity, the more complete the enthrallment.
God did it..
But just like religion, trade, government and power, if you want to seek the truth, follow the money, in both directions. Ask who stands to gain from the mass’s unquestioning belief in the climate industry and who will have to pay for it? It will take every penny of your hard-earned aspiration to hold back the relentless tides and any and all dissent must be silenced. Put up AND shut up, peasants; they’re talking directly to god now.