Click to get your own widget

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Adolf Hitler in Line For Posthumous Nobel Prize For Peace

Steve Sailer''s reaction:

 European Union Wins 2012 Nobel Peace Prize
For what? Not invading Poland?
Couldn't they have given it to Obama again?

I commented:

Included in its list of "achievements" its role in the Yugoslav wars. That contribution started by, to please Germany, "recognising" the Croatian & Bosnian Moslem regimes, both led by unrepentent (ex-)Nazis publicly committed to genocide & continued by supporting every aspect of NATO's wars and the subsequent genocide and ethnic cleansing of Kosovo by NATO's KLA "police".
So though they may not have got it for avoiding invading Poland they did officially get it for invading Yugoslavia.
I don't think the "Peace" prize has had a worthy holder since Norman Borlaug in 1970.

The general opinion was similar.

  Actually in that last line my memory was playing me slightly false.

  Back in 2008 I did a summary of Nobel Peace Prize winners back to 1968 and there are several who aren't war criminals, UN or western govenment funded organisations or career diplomats. And among the rest there are even some who aren't "dissidents" from countries our government would like to bomb or well meaning front persons for government activity (usually in Northern Ireland), or government leaders. And of the remaining some whose work was even of net benefit to humanity. Well 2:


RIGOBERTA MENCHU TUM, Guatemala. Campaigner for human rights, especially for indigenous peoples. A worthy winner & almost alone in not supporting what western governments wanted done.

AUNG SAN SUU KYI, Burma. Oppositional leader, human rights advocate

and the latter had actually been elected government leader and has since had the appointment. The former ran for President of Guatamala but lost.

Not much when compared with this role of murderers, fraudsters  and war criminals:

Barak Obama, the IPCC, Al Gore, the Atomic Energy Agency (which discourages atomic energy), Hofi Annan (who built his career on assisting NATO in genocide in Bosnia & Kosovo), Doctors Without Frontiers (whose support of genocide by ex-Nazis in Bosnia was total), Yasser Arafat, Sadat and Beguin, Amnesty International (state funded propagandist of genocide in Yugoslavia), Henty Kissinger.

  The EU is clearly worthy to stand in such company.

Labels: , ,

Friday, October 12, 2012

Britain faces risk of blackouts, warns Ofgem

It said spare generation capacity – the margin the power system has to respond to increases in demand – could fall to 4pc by 2015/2016 from 14pc today and tightening electricity supplies "could lead to higher bills". "Coal fired-generation is likely to close earlier than expected under EU environmental legislation and the risk of a shortfall in electricity is highest in 2015/16," the regulator said.
The threat of electricity shortages reinforced the need for energy reforms to encourage investment, according to the report.

   Bastards. There is no possible remotely honest argument that this, the inevitable deaths and the current excess winter deaths of 25,000 pensioners annually, us anything other than the deliberate fault of our corrupt parasitic political class.

   We could have had 10 times out current electricity supply at under 1/10th of the cost any time in the last 20 years.

    Meanwhile, as US gas prices are in freefall because of shale (& the US economy in slight growth because of it) British Gas are increasing prices as are N-Power, by between 6% & 9% (which incidentally is about the total % of electricity costs that are actually necesary).

   Onbviously every LabNatConDemgreen who is not a wholly corrupt lying whore has acknowledged this is entirely their fault.
Caroline Flint, Labour’s shadow energy and climate change secretary, said people will “not understand why British Gas are putting prices up”.
She said: “Unless ministers get to grips with spiralling energy bills, people will rightly think that this Government is completely out of touch with families and pensioners struggling to make ends meet.”

 That corrupt lying whore was one of the BBC's guests last night. The BBC, who arrange all the questions, did not allow any discussion of this issue, far more imoportant to most people than most of what they will discuss. As normal the 1st, 2nd & 4th parties were represented & the 3rd, UKIP, was censored.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Recent reading

Cold Hard Fact: Antarctic Sea Ice is at Record High

As censored by the same mainstream media which has been pushing the claims about low Artcic ice. About 90% of ice is in the Antarctic.

SpaceX launch - one rocket had to be closed off and it still launched successfully
So basically the lowest oxygen levels for 200 million years. Who would have thaought that a 10% change of oxygen would have so much less effect than 0.01% change of CO2.

A compilation of news about LENR (cold fusion).

Qatar is building a gas to oil refinery. That means that oil prices will, in due course, fall in line with shale fas ones.

"Innocence of Muslims" - just in case anybody was interested in the name of the anti-Muslim film our media are so careful never to name while denouncing it.

Slovakia taking Britain before the human rights court over our social service's obscene kidnapping of happy kids to put them through the bureaucratic empire building hell of the "care" system.

Econazi saying global warming is killing 5 million people annually - quote as a source her own previous statement which had actually, equally falselt, saud it was 400,000.

Take a number, any number & join the econazi queue.

The DDT ban - no actual evidence of a single humanm being ever being harmed but that didn't stop the econazis killing 85 million people banning it.

Global grain production hits a record high. Since the CO2 increase correlates experimentally with a 20% increase in plant growth we should assume around 20% is fue to this but even so it is a spectacular gain.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Boris V Cameron

  The obvious thing that makes Boris Johnson ineligible to be Prime minister is that he isn't a member of the House of Commons.

  To become so he would have to get elected - either in 2015, which would break his promises to be purely London's mayor, or 2020, or the improbable willingness of some Tory MP to step down and hand him a by-election (by no means a certainty since voters, both at the constituence level and indeed the Tory MPs who would have to vote him in, don't like being taken for granted).

  So basically "Boris for PM" means "Cameron for PM till at least 2020".

    No wonder the BBC are bigging up the rivalry between them.

   Boris stands no chance of being PM in any reasonable time period. He could, if he wished, be kingmaker with merely a few words. So far he clearly chooses not to which says volumes.

Tuesday, October 09, 2012

Dumb and Dumber running the country

  I saw this via Tim Worstall.

The Royal Statistical Society asked MPs "If you spin a coin twice what are the chances of getting 2 heads.

It appears that 47% of Conservative MPs are idiots who shouldn't be trusted with anything that involves arithmetic.

Graph of MPs' ability to calculate probabilities
And 77% of Labour MPs.

I suppose this talent is useful to them when they maintain their certainty about election promises, "Keynsian" economics and catastrophic global warming.

And this is the sort of people who metamorph into EU technocrats whenever it is a matter of making a decision most of us won't like.

Monday, October 08, 2012

Pope's Butler - What It Is About

   A minor item in the British media has been the Pope's Butler getting 18 months for leaking various documents (known as Vatileaks).

  What has been noticeable by its absence is any mention of what was actually leaked. This is reminiscent of the BBC reporting of  climategate which the BBC initially was entirely silent about until it was obvious that it had already gone viral online. Then they reported that the emails had been "hacked" while omitting the various contents about hiding declines, trying every trick to make the graph come out as wanted (& failing) & leaning on peer reviewers.

  Since it is already a little reported but undisputed fact that the Vatican supplied $2 bn to the Croatian Nazis, expecting them to use it to commit genocide, which they duly did; and that the Vatican has supplied Moslem terrorists with NATO ground to air milliles allegedly stolen from NATO I wasn't likely to be overly surpridsed at anything His Holiness had put down on paper.

   And I was right - the scandal is merely that there is an awful lot of corruption, smear campaigns, forging of legal documents, millions of $s of unaccountable funds going somewhere, pribate papal secret societies (Communion and Liberation, Legionaires of Christ, the Vatican police) etc., all of which thrives because the current and previous Pope's were, at the very least, actively not interested in cleaning house.

   None of which would be much of a surprise if our media did not have a long record of censoring to protect His Genocidal Holiness.

  The book based on this "His Holiness: Pope Benedict XVI's Secret Papers" by Gianluigi Nuzzi is available, but only if you read Iralian. I assume all the world's English language publishers feel there is no public interest ;-)

  However this precis is available:

The nine content chapters cover the following subjects:

The Dino Boffo case

Controversies surrounding Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, currently the papal ambassador in Washington, D.C.

Vatican finances

The Vatican's role in Italian politics

The Vatican security forces

Controversies surrounding Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican's Secretary of State

Communion and Liberation, the Legionaries of Christ, and the Lefebvrists

Globalization and its economic impact on the Catholic church

Vatican diplomacy

Sunday, October 07, 2012

4 Unpublished Letters

  About warming and the forthcoming debate:


We are continuously told by the state broadcaster that there is a "scientific consensus" about catastrophic global warming and the need to spend hundreds of billions on windmills and the like to ameliorate it.

This makes it difficult to explain a problem UKIP are having. We are recording a public debate on alleged warming and the need for windmills in Glasgow 30th October (upstairs at Yates, West George St)

We have had no problem getting people from the sceptical community, even though 1 Scots politician is on record as saying that everybody not supporting the warming scare is "from Mars". Lord Monckton, the author Andrew Montford & now Jim Sillars have consented to speak. One could hardly have a more widely representative group.

However having asked all of these supporters of warming alarmism

All 129 MSPs; All 5 party organisations; SEPA; Scottish Natural Heritage; The head of the Scottish Civil Service; The Carbon Trust; NERC (a quango you've never heard of but it gets £500 million a year to promote alarmism & did previously call for a debate); Scottish Renewables; Renewable UK; WWF; Friends of the Earth; Stop Climate Change Scotland (an umbrella organisation covering around 90 other alarmist groups); Professor Ann Glover (former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Scottish government, now to the entire EU(; and some individuals I won't embarrass by naming (including the non-Martian former MSP).

Also Glasgow University; Strathclyde University; Glasgow Caledonian University; The BBC and Channel 4

we have yet to find a single solitary supporter of the warmist "consensus" willing to promote their views in a public forum where, unlike the BBC state broadcaster, both sides get heard.
Perhaps readers, or indeed journalists, here would be able to suggest some supporter of climate alarmism who feels able to put the case for a scare story which is costing us all hundreds of billions of pounds.

It is not just that otherwise people might feel drawn to the thought that these people largely know that it is a false scare story. It is also a serious matter of principle. All real democracies, from the time of ancient Greece onwards, have depended on the voters being allowed to hear both sides before voting. A "democracy" in which the state controlled media decide what views may be heard and what may not is not a genuine democracy.

Before anybody suggests it I am aware that on the same day a conference of 5,000 people, gathering to "do business" & schmooze in the subsidy dependent "renewables industry" will be gathered in Glasgow under the aegis of RenewablesUK & Scottish Renewables. Unfortunately none of them are able to attend the debate.

went out to all major papers in Scotland - also with an invitation to those "environment correspondents" who promote warming to do so in this debate. None are willing to.


To the major newspapers across Britain.  

British news broadcasting is among the more thoroughly state owned in the developed world - even moreso across the anglosphere. The correlation between state ownership of broadcasting and both authoritarianism and failure is undisputable and has been proven by a recent scientific report from Harvard.

The state owned BBC & Channel 4 control 75% of news on terrestrial TV. 70% is the legal definition of monopoly. This monopoly is justified by the fact that the BBC Charter legally requires them to be "balanced". Unfortunately it is quite obvious that, on many many subjects from bombing people, to the catastrophic warming the BBC insist is as proven as the Law of Gravity (really) to political party coverage in which the BBC barely hide their partisanship. The Greens get 10 times more coverage, all supportive, than UKIP, even though polls show UKIP has the support of 9 times as many people Even the BNP get twice as many votes as the Greens but I defy any employee of the BBC to deny that they deliberately propagandise and censor for the one and against the other.You don't have to be a BNPm supporter to recognise that this is inconsistent with democract - indeed since it is the very definition of Fascism, it may help not to be.

So long as we have the BBC propagandising, censoring dissent a frankly lying we will not be a free nation. Legally they have an obligation to balance but make no attempt whatsoever to do so, even on obvious matters like party political reporting. We need to make a fuss about this. Stare ownership of the mass media is inconsistent with real democracy and with freedom.

Ref - report mentioned


To Scotland on Sunday in response to a clearly false letter from a windmill promoter. Top be fair though they did not publish rhis they did publish another, shorter rebuttal.  

SNP councillor Richard Thomson is not merely wrong but the precise and exact opposite of factual in much of what he says in support of windmills and against Clark Cross.

He specifically denies that French nuclear is cheap but the fact is that it costs less than 3p per kwh.

He denies and in the next sentence admits that windmills, particularly offshore ones, are the most expensive - hardly news since if they were not they would not need massive subsidy would they?

He claims that windmills are new technology and nuclear palnts an old one.Since windmills were first built in ancient Persia about 500 AD the pretence that they postdate the atomic pile is clearly untrue.

His claim that windmills are going to drop massively in cost (in which case building them now rather than waiting is perverse) is nonsence because the laws of physics show that a diffuse power source, like wind, cannot achieve the efficiencies of a concentrated one like nuclear.

His contention that nuclear prices cannot fall is ludicrous since at least 75% of their cost is government regulatory parasitism. That fact also proves his claim that nuclear benefits from state aid is untrue - enforcing a fourfold increase is not subsidy.

Repeating this claim that windpower is cheap does not make it factual.

I am certain that every remotely honest SNP politician will be quick to dissociate from this rubbish. Let us hope there are a few.
Every serious politician in the country knows that 93% of our electricity costs are state enforced and that, such is the correlation between electricity use and GDP, we could be out of recession very quickly if they simply allowed the market to choose the least expensive without their interference.

Response to the Herald. No other letter criticising the clearly totally dishonest claim that the SNP are against fuel poverty was allowed either.

I note Alex Neil's long letter leading off today's letter page, in which he claims to be trying to reduce fuel poverty. The truth is the opposite. The inevitable effect of ensuring that we get ever more power from the most expensive and least reliable method (windmillery) while reducing the cheapest and most reliable (nuclear) is that prices go up and as the trend continues, blackouts become inevitable,

Tthe 2.4 times increase in electricity prices in recent years is entirely because the politicians, with the SNP in the vanguard, have determined to increase them. To achieve the SNP target of 100% "renewables" will mean more than doubling again. In December 2010, when temperatures in Scotland fell to 20C only 0.2% of our power came from wind. The effect when the SNP have ensured that all of our electricity comes from such sources, by 2010, as they promise, will be terrible.

The fact is that our electricity bills would be reduced by 93% to under £100 a year if our politicians were not powerful enough to prevent the free market working. This would also be more than enough to get us out of recession. While some politicians do claim that the price increases are because the people producing it have suddenly become greedy, no politician who is remotely honest has ever flirted with that lie. Fuel poverty is entirely the fault not of feebleness but of deliberate policy by technphobe politicians in the LabNatConDemGreen Party. Every honest politician acknowledges this, though there appear to be few of them outside UKIP.

  Good examples of what many not be said in our newspapers, even in the one section which is supposed to represent reader's opinions.  

   No serious criticism of the state broadcasting monoploy; no balanced debate of the facts about "catatrophic global warming"; no serious questioning of the integrity of politician's promises; censorship of UKIP.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.