Saturday, January 18, 2014
Yugoslavia - You Can Now Accuse Our Leaders Of Nazi Genocide Without Serious Disagreement
This is a couple of my comments and couple of replies on a thread by Boris Johnson about how Germany was the primary cause of WW1. I went OTT, in my normal way about the more recent Yugoslav wars. Though OTT by the standards of "acceptable debate" everything I say is, of course, entirely true.
Nothing particularly new here - the reason I am highlighting it is that one of the other comments is wholly supportive and though the other isn't, even he admits the western power's "rectifications" were wrongful
Compare this with a few years ago, when any suggestion that NATO/Bosnian Moslems/Croats/Kosovo Albanians were in any way at fault or that the Serbs were more sinned against than sinning could be relied on to provoke hysteria.
Now I can accuse our own leaders of being genocidal war criminals, even in a thread where there is not likely to be particular expertise about these wars, and I get fulsome agreement and less disagreement:
Nothing particularly new here - the reason I am highlighting it is that one of the other comments is wholly supportive and though the other isn't, even he admits the western power's "rectifications" were wrongful
Compare this with a few years ago, when any suggestion that NATO/Bosnian Moslems/Croats/Kosovo Albanians were in any way at fault or that the Serbs were more sinned against than sinning could be relied on to provoke hysteria.
Now I can accuse our own leaders of being genocidal war criminals, even in a thread where there is not likely to be particular expertise about these wars, and I get fulsome agreement and less disagreement:
Labels: International politics, Media, Yugoslavia
Friday, January 17, 2014
You Get The Privilege Of Paying BBC Workers An Extra £740 Million - Government Gave BBC Extra Funding To Promote What They Knew To Be Warming Lie - No News At Ten
Via Bishop Hill we find a £740 million hole in the BBC employee's pension fund, caused by the stupid parasites putting money into the windmillery they have been using public money to advertise for more subsidy of.
Share prices in windmill companies are now close to worthless.
So what is to be done to help the poor things.
"The BBC is to pump £740 million of licence fee payers’ cash into its pension scheme, to try and close a funding deficit that has nearly doubled over the last three years.
According to a new valuation, the deficit in the BBC pension fund – ie, the value of its assets minus its projected liabilities to retiring staff – has grown from £1.1 billion in 2010 to £2bn in 2013.
Well, surprise surprise, the BBC is going to pay it. Since the BBC has no money of its own and is unwillingly subsidised by us, to the tune of about £2.5 bn a year, this is going to put a significant hole in BBC spending on actual programmes &/or a significant increase in what is taken from us.
Typically mention of this does not come from the BBC who are rigorously censoring any mention on their own site, though to be fair, they have twice previously mentioned the rising problem - in 2003 & 2006.
-------------------------------------------
In a similarly corrupt vein the censorship, on BBC sites continues, of any mention that the 28 Gate fraud proves that the entire organisation have deliberately lied (& in Helen Boaden's case perjured herself in court) to promte a warming scare they have known for, at a minimum, 7 years, to be a lie itself.
However the estimable Sunday Mail does an article on it (with assistance from Bishop Hill & other bloggers) which reveals that the corruption was even more direct than appeared.
In promoting the lie they were not merely doing the state's work the very "symposium" of the "world's leading scientists", on which they depended (actually only 2 scientists but they did have a US government psychological warfare expert, a CofE divine and enough government paid ecofascist activists to fill the black hole of Calcutta. It also turns out that this psychological wadfare symposium against the British people was funded not form the BBC's government grant but from an additional direct government payment.
"The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting"
Share prices in windmill companies are now close to worthless.
So what is to be done to help the poor things.
"The BBC is to pump £740 million of licence fee payers’ cash into its pension scheme, to try and close a funding deficit that has nearly doubled over the last three years.
According to a new valuation, the deficit in the BBC pension fund – ie, the value of its assets minus its projected liabilities to retiring staff – has grown from £1.1 billion in 2010 to £2bn in 2013.
Well, surprise surprise, the BBC is going to pay it. Since the BBC has no money of its own and is unwillingly subsidised by us, to the tune of about £2.5 bn a year, this is going to put a significant hole in BBC spending on actual programmes &/or a significant increase in what is taken from us.
Typically mention of this does not come from the BBC who are rigorously censoring any mention on their own site, though to be fair, they have twice previously mentioned the rising problem - in 2003 & 2006.
-------------------------------------------
In a similarly corrupt vein the censorship, on BBC sites continues, of any mention that the 28 Gate fraud proves that the entire organisation have deliberately lied (& in Helen Boaden's case perjured herself in court) to promte a warming scare they have known for, at a minimum, 7 years, to be a lie itself.
However the estimable Sunday Mail does an article on it (with assistance from Bishop Hill & other bloggers) which reveals that the corruption was even more direct than appeared.
In promoting the lie they were not merely doing the state's work the very "symposium" of the "world's leading scientists", on which they depended (actually only 2 scientists but they did have a US government psychological warfare expert, a CofE divine and enough government paid ecofascist activists to fill the black hole of Calcutta. It also turns out that this psychological wadfare symposium against the British people was funded not form the BBC's government grant but from an additional direct government payment.
"The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting"
Labels: BBC, Government parasitism, Media, Rise of modern fascism
Thursday, January 16, 2014
The Truth About the "Highland Clearances"
This is a very thoroughly researched post by Mike Haseler on the Highland Clearances. He proves beyond reasonable honest dispute that they are a fabrication. Highland population actually rose throughout the period of "clearance" and only fell after 1851 when the dominant power was central government. I am not specifically blaming central government - they didn't want a clearance, but their "help" driven by subsidy rather than improving transport, had the effect.
It is fairly long and you can usefully skip the Preamble and start with "2 Evidence"
Also he refers to what is a genuinely shameful ignoring of our true heritage:
The real story of Scotland in this period is not that of the oppressed noble savage of the clearances but people like James Watt who invented the steam engine in 1775. But what is it that every museum and book of the period remembers? The oppressed noble savage! And where is that steam engine? It is dumped round the back of Kinneil House beside the roofless cottage where James watt lived covered in graffiti. It is as if Scotland does not want to admit that Scotsmen like James Watt led the world and it was they who were attracting the highlanders away from the uplands – not by whinging about oppression, but by creating a vibrant economy based on great thinkers like Hume and Smith and engineers like Watt. Yet where are we now? After decades of emigration, we are led by whinging politicians whose first act in power is to seek an apology for mythical genocide apparently seeking to blame the economic problems of modern Scotland on the clearances rather than their own inability to understand the ingredients that are necessary to create a vibrant economy utilising the engineering skills that once made Scotland great.
I commented:
"
It is fairly long and you can usefully skip the Preamble and start with "2 Evidence"
Also he refers to what is a genuinely shameful ignoring of our true heritage:
The real story of Scotland in this period is not that of the oppressed noble savage of the clearances but people like James Watt who invented the steam engine in 1775. But what is it that every museum and book of the period remembers? The oppressed noble savage! And where is that steam engine? It is dumped round the back of Kinneil House beside the roofless cottage where James watt lived covered in graffiti. It is as if Scotland does not want to admit that Scotsmen like James Watt led the world and it was they who were attracting the highlanders away from the uplands – not by whinging about oppression, but by creating a vibrant economy based on great thinkers like Hume and Smith and engineers like Watt. Yet where are we now? After decades of emigration, we are led by whinging politicians whose first act in power is to seek an apology for mythical genocide apparently seeking to blame the economic problems of modern Scotland on the clearances rather than their own inability to understand the ingredients that are necessary to create a vibrant economy utilising the engineering skills that once made Scotland great.
I commented:
"
The problem is lack of research – and the reason is the same as climate.
No academic would get funding for a project that did not show the Scots as a victim of English oppression.
Labels: conspiracies, History, Scottish politics
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Labour Party's Latest 2 Fascist Lies
Recently I got a Labour party email quoting Andy Burnham saying Labour intend that "The energy markets need to be opened up so that consumers aren't ripped off." and that I should support them because of this and Labour claiming they want growth.
I replied:
Are you suggesting that energy companies are, to any significant extent, responsible for the rising price of energy? I ask only because, incredible though it sounds, that does appear to be the meaning of what you wrote.
Obviously no individualm or party which was in even the tiniest degree honest could, under any circumstanmces, pretend that fuel poverty was not the deliberate fault of politicians, mainly Labour ones.
If you did actually mean to lie to me you owe me a public apology and an assurance that if I am ever contacted by any member of your party again they will, before, making their pitch, apologise for being corrupt scum and that no word they ever say on any subject can be trusted.
Neil Craig
No reply. The totalitarian thieves know perfectly well that they are blaming the energy companies for something they did, just as they have previously blamed the bankers for a recession they know they caused. Very much the same tactic as the German nationalists who blamed the Jews for the "stab in the back" when they lost WW1.
=======================
In a related piece of Fascism an official Labour candidate JoyDivision Gardner to run the police has had a BNP supporter arrested and sentence to 240 hours for using the term "darkie" in a private blog, a term that differs in meaning from "black" in what way?
She did this while lying that "I will always defend the right to freedom of speech"
I sent her this to which she has not replied:
You owe a public apology to the BNP.
You are a member of a racist Nazi party guilty of mass murder, racial genocide, war crimes, child rape & dissecting living people.That is simply a proven fact.
You are an obscene Nazi whore. A thieving, pensioner murdering Fascist parasite.
Any member of the Labour party not willing to denounce you as totally dishonest, in your claim not to be opposed to free speech is demonstrating that they personally are also wholly corrupt Fascists opposed to human freedom.
Have you any actual evidence of anybody in the BNP ever engaging in any activity 1,000th as racist as the racist obscenities every Labour party member is complicit in?
Incidentally the term "darkie" merely refers to black people having darker skin. What evidence do you have that black [people's skin is not blacker than average? Equally the fact that black people, on average, perform very much worse in IQ tests than average has been demonstrated repeatedly across the world - what actual scientific evidence do you have that proves all IQ tests wrong? When I say scientific evidence I mean scientific evidence not having the gestapo on your side.
Neil Craig
=======================
Clearly she does not have any, nor can she name a single member of the BNP who is 1,000th as racist as all the loyal members of her Fascist party.
I would assume that with both sorts of lies being approved by the party there are absolutely no circumstances under which any statement made by them can be assumed in any way truthful.
Perhaps even more worrying is the almost total censorship by our MSM of the fact that free speech, even in the privacy of your own home, no longer exists. If free speech is limited only to those who are approved by wholly corrupt genocidal scum like that party it is not free speech.
I replied:
Are you suggesting that energy companies are, to any significant extent, responsible for the rising price of energy? I ask only because, incredible though it sounds, that does appear to be the meaning of what you wrote.
Obviously no individualm or party which was in even the tiniest degree honest could, under any circumstanmces, pretend that fuel poverty was not the deliberate fault of politicians, mainly Labour ones.
If you did actually mean to lie to me you owe me a public apology and an assurance that if I am ever contacted by any member of your party again they will, before, making their pitch, apologise for being corrupt scum and that no word they ever say on any subject can be trusted.
Neil Craig
No reply. The totalitarian thieves know perfectly well that they are blaming the energy companies for something they did, just as they have previously blamed the bankers for a recession they know they caused. Very much the same tactic as the German nationalists who blamed the Jews for the "stab in the back" when they lost WW1.
=======================
In a related piece of Fascism an official Labour candidate Joy
She did this while lying that "I will always defend the right to freedom of speech"
I sent her this to which she has not replied:
You owe a public apology to the BNP.
You are a member of a racist Nazi party guilty of mass murder, racial genocide, war crimes, child rape & dissecting living people.That is simply a proven fact.
You are an obscene Nazi whore. A thieving, pensioner murdering Fascist parasite.
Any member of the Labour party not willing to denounce you as totally dishonest, in your claim not to be opposed to free speech is demonstrating that they personally are also wholly corrupt Fascists opposed to human freedom.
Have you any actual evidence of anybody in the BNP ever engaging in any activity 1,000th as racist as the racist obscenities every Labour party member is complicit in?
Incidentally the term "darkie" merely refers to black people having darker skin. What evidence do you have that black [people's skin is not blacker than average? Equally the fact that black people, on average, perform very much worse in IQ tests than average has been demonstrated repeatedly across the world - what actual scientific evidence do you have that proves all IQ tests wrong? When I say scientific evidence I mean scientific evidence not having the gestapo on your side.
Neil Craig
=======================
Clearly she does not have any, nor can she name a single member of the BNP who is 1,000th as racist as all the loyal members of her Fascist party.
I would assume that with both sorts of lies being approved by the party there are absolutely no circumstances under which any statement made by them can be assumed in any way truthful.
Perhaps even more worrying is the almost total censorship by our MSM of the fact that free speech, even in the privacy of your own home, no longer exists. If free speech is limited only to those who are approved by wholly corrupt genocidal scum like that party it is not free speech.
Labels: British politics, Cheap Energy, Rise of modern fascism
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Primark's Politically Correct Paper Bags
Primark politically correct bastards.
Went shipping last Friday and Primark put our stuff in one of their paper bags. It was raining and the thing came apart before I got home. Why can't they use the traditional, lightweight, waterproof plastic bags that cost so much less of the world's resources (as measured by money) than the soggy clothes dumpers?
Another example of "environmentalism" being nothing to do with protecting the environment (almost always the cheapest option is the one that uses least resources, that's why its cheapest) and purely about enforcing Luddism.
Not knocking Primark for their goods - clearly they are paying 12 year old Bangladeshi's sufficiently little to keep it cheap - though at the same time paying them far more than complainers do or ever would & infinitely more than always wrong Green guru Paul Ehrlich, who gets hundreds of thousands of $ from American foundations, for lying, ever would.
Went shipping last Friday and Primark put our stuff in one of their paper bags. It was raining and the thing came apart before I got home. Why can't they use the traditional, lightweight, waterproof plastic bags that cost so much less of the world's resources (as measured by money) than the soggy clothes dumpers?
A: There are really good things about plastic bags—they produce less greenhouse gas, they use less water and they use far fewer chemicals compared to paper or cotton. The carbon footprint— that is, the amount of greenhouse gas that is produced during the life cycle of a plastic bag—is less than that of a paper bag or a cotton tote bag. If the most important environmental impact you wanted to alleviate was global warming, then you would go with plastic.
Q: Why is the carbon footprint for a plastic bag less than that of a paper bag or cotton?
A: Cotton is typically grown on semiarid land so it consumes a huge amount of water and you also need a lot of pesticides. About 25 percent of the pesticides used in this country are used on cotton. Paper is just typically considered a fairly polluting industry. Whereas the petroleum industry, where we get our plastics, doesn’t waste anything. Chemists have had sixty to seventy years to make the production of plastics fairly efficient and so typically there is not a lot of waste in the petroleum industry.
Q: When you point this out at your public talks, what kind of reaction do you get?
A: A lot of people say they don’t believe it. It just feels good to think that cotton is better for the environment than plastic.
Another example of "environmentalism" being nothing to do with protecting the environment (almost always the cheapest option is the one that uses least resources, that's why its cheapest) and purely about enforcing Luddism.
Not knocking Primark for their goods - clearly they are paying 12 year old Bangladeshi's sufficiently little to keep it cheap - though at the same time paying them far more than complainers do or ever would & infinitely more than always wrong Green guru Paul Ehrlich, who gets hundreds of thousands of $ from American foundations, for lying, ever would.
Labels: eco-fascism, Errata
If the “real clearances” date from 1851 and the lack of establishment of any major urban centres in the west Highlands (I assume the countryside in the central belt also lost population to a similar proportion but it doesn’t matter because the towns grew) then the probable reason looks like the lack of transport infrastructure. You can’t make a good manufacturing centre where there are no good communications – Oban, which is a 19thC creation, being the best the area could do.
I would, in that light, be interested in seeing how population moved in the islands – this may show the same pattern in a more extreme way. Many of the islands, even out to St Kilda, held significant populations more than 4,000BC, at a time when mainland Scotland was devoid of almost any major settlements. This could happen partly because, due to weather, the islands were not overgrown with forest but also because sea transport was far easier than land, roads being non-existent, yet now St Kilda is uninhabited and Jura has a population of 250, probably less than it had when Troy was built.
Thus in the “dark ages” the ruler of Orkney and Shetland could make war on more than equal terms with the king of Scots (& may, if Dorothy Dunnit is correct, have been the same person).
(Which in turn suggests the possible utility of the Scottish Tunnel Project for reversing a real clearance which has taken place not under the rule of lairds but of politicians since 1851.)
I was unaware of the ignoring of Watt’s birthplace. Reminiscent of how in the 19thC Shakespeare’s house (at the time serving as a butcher shop) was nearly carted off to the US to be a sideshow exhibit, but when this became public the British people were shamed into the protection of his legacy that continues to today. It should be being treated as equivalent.