A Place to Stand

  Nations aren't that keen on making war these days. It is only very small countries that benefit from our military liberation - Libya was small enough but Syria is clearly a bigger mouthful.

   Instead what we see, particularly with the world getting more democratic, is countries funding opposition political parties or movements. This is the basis of Putin's complaints about some, of his opposition. It was how the "Orange revolution" in Ukraine, the Yugoslav ones (including the creation of the parties led by assorted (ex-)Nazis. It is how the "Rose revolution" brought Georgia under the heel of its present genocidal leader. In a slightly different form it is clearly how the 2nd Irish referendum was fixed.

    This is an example of something slightly different. Not an attempt to overthrow the government but to prevent its economic growth. India decided not to put up with such external subversion. 

India said Saturday it had frozen the assets of three non-profit groups it alleges were diverting foreign aid funds to fuel protests against plans to build two atomic power stations.

The country's move to construct two giant nuclear power stations in the southern state of Tamil Nadu and one in the western state of Maharashtra has been thrown into disarray following the protests by villagers and activists.
A senior officer at the prime minister's office told AFP that the home ministry had frozen the accounts of three non-government organisations.
The move came after a minister in the federal government, V. Narayanasamy, on Friday said the three aid groups were getting funds from the United States and Scandinavian countries that were being used for anti-nuclear protests.
"These NGOs were receiving funds from foreign countries for social service causes like helping the physically handicapped and eradication of leprosy but these (funds) were used for anti-nuclear protests," he was quoted by the Press Trust of India news agency as saying.

   \What atrocities are carried out inder the term "aid".

  Of course just because money is officially given for "nice" causes doesn't mean the donors don't know the actualite. Look at the Pope giving "2 billion to the Croatian Nazis with the official requirement that they not buy weapons with it. When somebody feels the need to make such a qualification it is reasonable to believe they are expecting precisely that.

 Which raises three questions.
1 - How much of our own politics is determined by money put up by foreign governmental organisations. The money available to government is always far more than that available from personal donors not matter how rich.

2 - How long before some of the victims or some non-democracies like China decide to play this game.Would $5 billion put into supporting the various state secessionist movements in the USA be effective? That is about 1/10th of China's defence budget for 1 year. Or £100 million into Orkney a Shetland secessionists?

3 - Since this largely depends on the victim countries being open democracies, is there a better way than this to undermine democracy?

  So personally I would be happy to see anybody taking money from foreign countries to subvert their own government strung up as traitors. At least if they are subverting a state that doesn't already practise this subversion of democracy abroad themselves.

  This letter is in the Scotsman today. 

Sir,
       If the Scottish Tories were actually considering having a different policy from their London boss by coming out against windmills, as Brian Monteith advises, they might also take into account the recent report from the Global warming Policy Foundation that new gas generators at around £600 million per GW are a tenth of the estimates of what windmills will cost.
Those estimates do not include any allowance for the fact that offshore windmills have proven virtually impossible to anchor securely and are already receiving massive, expensive and officially unexpected repairs. Since windmills require expensive backup because, the weather not being perfect, they only work at 25% of their rated capacity the amount of the officially deadly dangerous CO2 they save may not be much greater than that of gas generators. Gas producing twice as much energy per unit of carbon released.
Of course if either cutting CO2 or economic sanity were considerations we would go for nuclear plants, which can be bought for £800 million per GW but work with minuscule fuel costs and produce no CO2.
However with the Brazilian economy growing past that of Britain in the last few days I think we must acknowledge that economic sanity has never been a consideration among politicians of any of the main parties. It would be good to see the Scottish Tories bucking that trend but I am not holding my breath.

Ref GWPF report http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/5151-the-p120-billion-blunder-wind-energy-ten-times-dearer-than-gas-power-stations-.html

   It was effectively unedited . They even kept in the mention of the Brazilian economy passing ours (we are now the 7th economy in the world) which John Redwood had mentioned. This and the comparative world growth rates which cause it are things I have long found even newspaper letters pages "reluctant" to allow mention of, yet, short of all out war, there is no more important subject. I am pleased particularly since they so recently published my previous letter.

   The bit about the windmills already established "unexpectedly" needing expensive repairs comes from Matt Ridley.

I have it on good authority from a marine engineer that keeping wind turbines upright in the gravel, tides and storms of the North Sea for 25 years is a near hopeless quest, so the repair bill is going to be horrific and the output disappointing. Already the grouting in the foundations of hundreds of turbines off Kent, Denmark and the Dogger Bank has failed, necessitating costly repairs

  Last week I wrote of how Sir Paul Nurse had, by sleight of hand, reversed his position from being a supporter of catastrophic global warming, having previously compared it to terminal cancer. \He now supports the traditional sceptical or "denier" position that any warming that may be happening shows no signs of being catastrophic or even outwith historic experience.

    This got covered by both James Delingpole and Professor John Brignell, (the latter described Nurse's slither in as a sign of light in the darkness) for which I thank them.

   The sleight of hand involved claiming that this position was a moderate midway between the "extremes" of believing in catastrophic global warming and of denying that any warming had ever happened. He also claimed that the "scientific consensus" agreed with him that there was no catastrophic warming rather than what the royal Society he leads had previously claimed was the "scientific consensus" that there is. No evidence of any great scientific debate, at least, outwith the sceptic's arena, was produced to explain the reversal of the "consensus" for the obvious reason that, outside sceptical blogs and discussions, there hasn't been any. This, apparently is how "science" is done according to the Royal Society now, which suggests that, as an organisation, they have no commitment to real scientific principles whatsoever.

   I said at the time I was writing to the Royal Society and sir Paul and would give them time to reply. Here it was: 

Dear Sir Paul Nurse,


In fairness I would like to give you the opportunity to comment on your recent assertion that those who promote catastrophic global warming and those who assert there definitely hasn't been any warming are equally wrongheaded "extremists".
You and your predecessor & the Royal Society have long been pushing the "catastrophic" scare story. I am not sure what "deniers" you are referring to who have denied any warming over the last 2 centuries but obviously, assuming you are honest, you will be able to name several.
Since you are acknowledging that what you have been promoting for years is an "extremist" lie it clearly follows that you must, in honour, resign your position and allow the Royal Society to become, again, a scientific body rather than an arm of the state propaganda organisation.

  Sir Paul has not replied.

   If Sir Paul is not a wholly completely and totally corrupt lying Fascist parasite he obviously must be able to name some members of the group of "deniers" who, he alleges, deny that any warming has taken place over the 2 centuries since the "little ice age". He has proven that he cannot and therefore is.

   Later, in the same speech where he says there is no catastrophic warming he says that we should act to stop climate change. 

Today the world faces major problems. Some uppermost in my mind are food security, climate change, global health and making economies sustainable

   The change since the little ice age has unquestionably been beneficial to most of humanity, indeed to most of the biosphere. Increased CO2 is equally unquestionably beneficial to crop growth, the vegetable part of the biosphere which requires CO2 to survive and the animal part which survives on the vegetable part. Of course if he accepts that little warming is taking place the question of whether stopping doing the things that are having so little effect will have any efect is, at best, moot.

  If warming is not catastrophic, indeed at least largely beneficial, there can be no scientific argument that we need to stop it. Anybody arguing that we should stop it is therefore, engaged in fact free, ecofascist  political ideology. As he is. We will see it the Royal Society makes any attempt to reestablish itself as a scientific body rather than merely yet another government funded (above £45 million now) group of propagandists for a more totalitarian state.

      This will be sent to them to see if they intend to take any action to reduce their role as totalitarian propagandist parasites. or dispute any facts here.

  The story itself is very silly 

A common heart disease drug may have the unusual side-effect of combating racism, a new study suggests. Volunteers given the beta-blocker, used to treat chest pains and lower heart rates, scored lower on a standard psychological test of "implicit" racist attitudes. They appeared to be less racially prejudiced at a subconscious level than another group treated with a "dummy" placebo pill. Scientists believe the discovery can be explained by the fact that racism is fundamentally founded on fear. Propranolol acts both on nerve circuits that govern automatic functions such as heart rate, and the part of the brain involved in fear and emotional responses. The drug is also used to treat anxiety and panic. more

    Lots of drugs can reduce anxiety and would presumably make people more laid back on a whole range of political questions.

    What disgusted me is that C4 "news" treated this as (A) a real story and (B) a ggod idea.

   John Simpson interviewed the lady responsible for the study who was obviously amazed at the coverage thie discovery that an anxiety reducing drug might have this effect.

    Simpson was almost drooling as he leaned forward and suggested drugging skinheads who he insisted are "professional racists"*. "Would you drug a skinhead" he eagerly asked.

   She gently explained to him that there might be ethical problems with doing so. Clearly the concept that there could possibly be anything unethical in doping political opponents up to the eyeballs had not even occurred to Simpson or the producer of C4 "News".

    The genteel mask has slipped and underneath it the government funded  propagandists of government fascism were indeed revealed as the obscene fascist scum thyy are.

     We already know that those taking the government's shilling to lie to us for them are scum. We know they have repeatedly lied and censored to promote obscenities, including racist crimes like the genocide and organlegging in Kosovo. It is obvious they are repeating the same lies about Syria,, censoring any mention of our al Quaida allies as they did in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya.They lie to promote freezing British pensioners to death.We already know that legally every single one of them is part of a "joint criminal conspiracy" of thieving, genocide, child rape, organlegging and genocide.

     But even so it is surprising that they are so unreflective as to make it so obvious. The hatred of the British parasitic nomenklatura for ordinary people has never been made so blatant.

     It is possible to honestly disaprove of the BNP but there is no honest person who can say that the average member of the BNP is 1/1,000th as fascistic as those animals who want to suppress free thought by reducing ordinary Britons to drugged up zombies.

    Consequently there are no circumstances under which anybody who criticises the BNP without spending at least 100 times more criticising the disgusting fascist animals in control of our state propaganmda, can be considered either honest or decent.

------------------------------------

* Simpson is also an ignoramus. "Professional" means one expects to normally make a living from it. "Amateur" menas one who does it for the love of it (ultimately from Latin amatorem nom. amator, "lover"). Whatever Simpson's metaphorical skinheads may be doing they are not being paid to be racist - they are thus amateurs. There are no "professional racists" in Britain. There are an awful lot of people making a living in the parasitic anti-racist industry - it is possible that some of them believe what they are preaching, but since they are professionals rather than doing it because they wish to it is impossible to know for sure.

   Indeed I suspect most of us have met people who use anti-racist, or feminist or anti-homophobic language for personal gain and/or the pleasure of bullying. For the reasons proven above such people are, by definition, disgusting fascist animals.

-------------------
Incidentally I have put this thread up as a comment on C4's Snowblog. It is currently "awaiting moderation". We shall see how blatantly C4 censor.

  This comment of mine was published by Spiked in relation to an article decrying the rule of "technocrats" taking over democracy in the EU countries.

What is wrong with the whole discussion over our alleged ‘technocratic’ elite is indicated when Ben-Ami writes: ‘In many ways, economics is the discipline best suited to the technocratic mindset.’
"Technocrat" means someone who understands how the technology works. If there is a science (excluding ‘creation science’, homeopathy and the ‘science of catastrophic global warming’) whose practitioners do not understand how things work, as proven by an inability to make successful predictions, it is economics. Arguably the Austrian school is relatively close to accurate prediction, but, for that reason, they are not mainstream.
In fact the new breed of self-described ‘technocrats’ are simply the same old lobbyists and politicians who got us here into the current mess in the first place. They are merely claiming a new and false authority.
The imposed prime minister of Greece is one of the economic ‘technocrats’ who fiddled the figures to get Greece into the euro in the first place.
If an engineer built a bridge with anything even slightly approaching the level of incompetence and fraud the EU ‘technocrats’ have displayed in building the euro (a much simpler matter than any bridge), they would, rightly, be in jail. If I started performing brain surgery without having any competence in the subject I would face imprisonment. Why shouldn’t someone claiming to be a ‘technocrat’ without the necessary proven competence?

  China, where everybody in the Preasidium has an engineering or accountancy degree or Singapore where the next generation of the leading party get handpicked from the proven competent can claim tom be technocracies. Britain is run by people who studied the dilettantee degree of PPE (politics, philosophy and economics) and are thus not properly competent at any of these, and wholly incompetent at any "technical" subject.
------------------------------------
  This might be a worthwhile opportunity to put up another comments of mine Spiked didn't use:
Simon Singh , while he has scientific degrees is not really a practising scientist but a science reporter popularised by the BBC. Like those given publicity by the media he is a supporter of catastrophic warming alarmism.
Directly relevent to his challenge to Morgan is that he was challeneged to answer 7 questions about warming, all of which it would be possible to answer supportively if a warming catastrophe were, in fact, true.
He has repeatedly refused to answer any of them, despite publicly supporting the scare and the conclusion is inescapable that he knows he cannot because the catastrophic warming scare is a deliberate fraud.
If you are going to claim others have no respect for science you cannot honourably act like that.
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2011/04/warming-alarmists-hypocrisy-questions.html

  In 2010 the world economy was listed as having grown at 4.8%. On the other hand the EU and USA stagnated. Last year, according to latest figures it was 3.7% but the former figure is more closely in line with long term trends and is probably also more accurate since all the final figures for 2011 will not be available yet..

  In 2010 the EU economy grew by 1.9%  and the American one by 3% so we are clearly doing much worse than the world average. But in reality it is worse than that because our own growth is being counted on both sides of the figures.

  The normal world figures must include the EU and USA. The EU makes up 25.7% and the USA 23% of human GDP.

  Thus taking the Humanity outwith US & Europe (HOUSE) countries (an acronym not widely in use since I just invented it but it builds on the BRIC one, which is more limited) alone, 51.3% we find the average growth rate of them must have been 7.05% . EU growth accounted for 0.488 of the world  4.8%, the US was 0.69 and the rest of the world thus 0.362 or 7.05%.

   If the average growth rate of the rest of the world is 7% our 1.9% (barely a quarter) or now slipping back into recession can only be explained by the degree of political parasitism imposed by our masters.

  The good news is that if the average growth rate of the world is actually 7%, an awful lot of which is still very badly ruled, then there is no question that we can, at the very least, reach that average as soon as we are allowed to and I suspect considerably exceed it whenever the political will is there.

   An article from Matt Ridley makes 2 very good points about the "environmental liars and thieves) .

Firstly

I have it on good authority from a marine engineer that keeping wind turbines upright in the gravel, tides and storms of the North Sea for 25 years is a near hopeless quest, so the repair bill is going to be horrific and the output disappointing. Already the grouting in the foundations of hundreds of turbines off Kent, Denmark and the Dogger Bank has failed, necessitating costly repairs.

  If this is true and I assume it is, it must have been known for some time by government that all the cost estimates made by them, which included expectations of very favourable falls in prices real soon now, were wholly false. all the claims they have made about windmills ever being practical were total (and in maintaining them deliberate) lies.

    Alex Salmond has based his entire future power programme on the assumption that our wind electricity would be produced at merely 3 times conventional prices and that England would buy as much of it as we could produce at that price. Then, since windmills only work at 25% of capacity, that England would sell us their power when we needed it at commercial rates. I wonder if the Westminster government told the Scottish one of this - one or other of them has clearly been dishonest for that line to be maintained.

   OK and Secondly

    Not so much an intellectual point as Matt putting his own money where his mouth is.

A family trust has signed a deal to receive £8,500 a year from a wind company, which is building a turbine on land that once belonged to my grandfather. He was canny enough not to sell the mineral rights, and the foundations of the turbine disturbs those mineral rights, so the trustees are owed compensation. I will not get the money, because I am not a beneficiary of the trust. Nonetheless, the idea of any part of my family receiving ‘wind-gelt’ is so abhorrent that I have decided to act. The real enemy is not wind farms per se, but groupthink and hysteria which allowed such a flawed idea to progress — with a minimum of intellectual opposition. So I shall be writing a cheque for £8,500, which The Spectator will give as a prize to the best article devoted to rational, fact-based environmental journalism.

   Admirable is understating it.

Dear Nick Clegg,
                             Interviewed today on the Scottish edition of the Politics Show today you said you actually wished anybody who had a solution to Britain's recession to send it to you on a postcard..

      While I recoginse your suggestion that you are actually interesetd in getting out of recession as representing the very highest stanmdard of honesty to which you and your party ever aspire I must ask you to publicly retract it as a toptal and deliberate lie. Anything else would suggest that I am lying when I say you already have that answer and I tru8st neither you nor any opther member of your corrupt racist, organlegging Nazi party will choose to slander me so.

      You have long been in receipt of such advice, admittely on an email since it wouldn't quite fit on a postcard. You have had my 24 point programme to get us out of recession within days for some months.

      At no time have you or any economic advisor of yours purported to dispute in any slightest factual way (or indeed non-factual but that would be irrelevant) that this programme would work. You cannot therefore claim to be in need of any such advice when you already have it and deliberately refuse to use it to get out of recession.

  Neil Craig

 And what will doubtless still be unpublishable in the any British newspaper unless it turns out there is now 1 with some interest in allowing factual discussion rather than Big Government parasitic propaganda.

Sir,
Interviewed on Sunday Nick Clegg said he was desperate that he wished anybody who knows of a way out of recession to send it to him on a postcard (Scottish Politics programme 1 pm). Since the rest of the world economy has not been in recession and is currently growing at 5% & China at 10% not being in recession is clearly not in any way a difficult problem if the politicians in question actually wish it.
In fact he has long had such a programme in hand - my own 24 point programme. This largely involves stopping government overspending; cutting overregulation; & allowing nuclear production of electricity at up to 93% less than Britain currently pays. Mr Clegg (or any other major party leader) has not come with any slightest factual objection to the programme. This is because they know it would work.
He, along with Cameron and Miliband & their parties owe us public apologies for ever suggesting they wish to end the recession, or indeed for ever suggesting that the fact that we are in it is in any way the fault of anybody other than these parasitic politicians and their lackeys.
Neil Craig

24 point programme. I look forward to seeing if this paper also still wishes to censor any reporting of genuine ways to end the recession, as it previously has. http://www.thinkscotland.org/change-scotland/articles.html?read_full=11369&article=www.thinkscotland.org
---------------------------------

      OK so this is a bit of a rant. We all know that neither politicians in the main parties nor the media whores who lie and censor on their behalf have the remotest interest in any action that will get us out of recession because it would weaken their hold over us. We also know, from their inability to factually dispute any point of it, that they know we could, like such bastions of more competent & less corrupt government like Nigeria, we would be out of recession now if the thieves had wanted it.

     Of course should any of the politicians feel they can dispute that this programme will work I will publish it, but I said that before.