Monthly Archives: January 2009

Rewarding Failure


How the internet will be regulated and throttled, at an ISP near you, and soon.

http://www.littlemanwhatnow.com/2009/01/payments-for-failure.html

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam


David Davis

reprinted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eurorealist/message/27001

By John Coleman

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints.

Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led tthe public to be skeptical that any runaway global warning. There is now awareness that there may be reason to question whether CO2 is a pollutant and a significant greenhouse gas.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government? And how will we ever stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 41 hundredths of one percent.

[BLOGMASTER: I want to correct an error in the reprinted article above: the CO2 precentage is 0.031%, which is 3.1 humdredths of one percent.] [Sorry]

Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, “It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!” The student described him as “a wonderful, visionary professor” who was “one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming,” That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”. The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, “My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” He added, “…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, “I think so, but I do not know it for certain”. I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when they are asked about we skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.
And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is _the_ hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman
1-28-2009

Story Created: Jan 28, 2009 at 6:19 PM PST

Story Updated: Jan 29, 2009 at 9:15 PM PST

Gramsco-Marxian bastards destroy yet more glue holding free and liberal communities together…


in Bristol, near you.

David Davis

Just read this crap:-

Sports club removes ‘sexist’ word from name

A sports club in Bristol has been forced to remove the word “boys” from its name after councillors ruled that it was sexist.

Broad Plain Boys’ Club, which has gone under the name since 1894, faced the loss of funding unless it could show it was inclusive, so submitted an alteration.

The sports club, which does now have girl members, has changed the name to Broad Plain Working With Young People Group.

Club leader Dennis Stinchcombe MBE, 53, who ran the group for 33 years, said the rebranding was “a tragedy”.

He told the Western Daily Press: “There was a lot of history in that name and we are all very disappointed we’ve been forced to change it, especially the older lads.

“We need the funding so we have to back down. We haven’t even had any additional girls coming down – it seems another case of political correctness gone mad.” (NB he must NEVER NEVER SAY THAT – for PC is _NOT_ mad: it is directed on purpose.)

The club says it has helped thousands of youngsters since it began and relies on its £11,600 of authority funding. In 2004 Mr Stinchcombe was honoured for his efforts in helping the community.

The Labour-controlled council does fund single sex clubs including the Bristol and Avon Chinese Women’s Group.

Tory leader Councillor Richard Eddy said the club had simply been “bludgeoned into submission” by the bureaucrats.

The centre also had to recruit up to two part-time female club leaders, meaning more expense, he added.

A Bristol City Council spokesman said: “The criteria is that if you want funding, you have to show that you are meeting the needs of all young people, not a specific group of people. The name change was agreed some time ago.

“It’s all about being inclusive.”

The phrase “it’s all about…..”, as used by Gramsco-Marxians, will be listed, when uttered, as a War Crime. later.

The politically-correct drunken sailor, and destruction of culture by Gramsco-Marxians


David Davis

The Landed Underclass, in the Master-at-Arms’ Office on deck 4, brought this to our attention here on the Bridge. I wonder what the buggers will rewrite next – the national Anthem? (I forgot: they have already provided the replacement.)

Dave’s Part: another blogger in the shit


David Davis

Not my part…his!

Hat tip Obnoxio the Clown.

Dogshit street horror watch shocking photos report; now for a EUDOG DNA database … humans can’t be far behind.


David Davis

Germany leads the way: I’m not joking. More bureaucrats for more impositions, on more people, and more dogs. yes, I know it’s disgusting and nasty. What we should ask is what’s the point of a dog any more, in an urban environment?

YOU KNOW the joke! Capitalism, in Singapore – “You have two cows – the government takes them both away and fines you for keeping unlicensed animals in an apartment.”

Dogs are for hunting foxes, and killing ALL badgers for ever so we shan’t have TB, and stuff like that. They will live in hutches or kennels or houses full of animal-shit anyway. If they shit in the forest or the fields, who cares?

This is what they should do. Here’s the pic we did earlier:-

One we did earlier

One we did earlier

Gordon Brown interrupted by his own phone


David Davis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/business/2009/davos/7860310.stm

Hat tip Guido

The top ten Soviet buzzwords (and what they mean)


David Davis

Argue about them here. And please could our reader add some more? This madness came up too.

I don’t like that.


David Davis

I am indebted to Brian Micklethwait for the image. I will discourse more later, about what liberalism is up against. Again.

jewsplacard

It’s bullshit, but exactly what does it mean….?


David Davis

It’s here. And here’s an extract:-

However, Benitez believes Liverpool are still in the title race despite dropping two more points on their rivals and Chelsea and Manchester United winning their respective games with comparative ease.

“When you are top of the table you know that every single game is really important so when you lose two points you have to be disappointed,” said Benitez.

“But we have an important game on Sunday and if we play like we played in the first half we can beat anyone.

All the games will be important until the end of the season. It depends on the other teams too but we have to try to play well and try to win.”

After beating Newcastle 5-1 at St James’ Park in early Dec, they led the table by three points but Wednesday’s draw condemned Liverpool to their seventh draw in 10 league matches and their fourth on the bounce in all competitions.

“We were much better in the first half. We had control of the game. We didn’t kill the game,” he said.

“The second half was a crazy game and when it is a crazy game you cannot control things.”

When he was pressed as to what was the crazy element of the second half the Spaniard refused to comment.

“No I am disappointed with a number of things but no, the Wigan approach I will not talk about them,” he added.

“It has happened in the last three games. They have something in common I don’t like. I know why but I cannot say anything.

“The players were okay. They were working very hard in the first half but the second half changed because it was crazy.

“I was talking with my players about what to do on the pitch but there are things that you cannot control.”

Wigan manager Steve Bruce paid tribute to his team’s battling spirit.

“The resilience of them was there again,” said the Wigan manager, who in the last week has lost striker Emile Heskey and midfielder Wilson Palacios in the transfer window and had goalkeeper Chris Kirkland sidelined with a back injury.

“We have had to make five changes – big changes – from the team that played 10 days ago.

“The one thing they do is stick at it and have a right good crack at it. In the last 20-25 minutes they really got the bit between their teeth.

“Lee Cattermole got amongst them and tackled everything that moved. It was a decent performance from us.”

TESCO, government and markets: two (2) cheers for Sir Terry Leahy


David Davis

I am not in the pay of Tesco – really I am not – honest, guv.  But it deserves two cheers or at least its CEO Sir Terry does (not three  –  for reasons I will explain, and which Sean Gabb has explained below) for his spirited defence of Markets discovering the best way to allocate resources, as opposed to governments decreeing (see Sean again.)

I expect this piece by him was absolutely as far as his own “in-house” Communications Department apparatchiks would allow the poor bugger to go. Everyone knows of course that, to a first approximation, 99% of all “communications executives”, which is to say PR girls people, are left-leaning graduates of things currently called “universities”, who have studied “journal-ism” or “media studies”. There will be enough exceptions to prove me almost not quite totally right, so I await brickbats, but I feel that Sir Terry’s private views on these matters are stronger than he was allowed to express.

Because Tesco, and its plans for giving people what they want to buy, is the prime target for assaults by greenies and anti-shopping Stalinists (who like “local” shops and “car free town centres” – an oxymoronic position if ever I saw one) it falls to poor Sir Terry to do the defence. I urge you all of you who appreciate crypto-Stalinist circumlocution, to read the whole thing here about why the local Stalinists bureaucrats don’t want Tesco to expand an already successful store where parking is free – but want it to take a site nobody wants (it’s been empty for three years!) in a town centre nobody can park in except for money to the Soviet.

Sir Terry does not get the full three cheers, for he tries to defend Government’s action in propping up a gasping banking system, which, like Hitler’s Generals who first shunned him – then lauded him – then were in hock to him, ought to have seen through this government’s debauchment of money earlier. Then, they should of course have opposed it in the first instance – but they didn’t, so here we now are. (Like Hitler’s generals in the Bunker.)

Sean Gabb: Another Rant about the Recession


Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 179
28th January 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc.179

The Car Industry Bail Out:
Are There no Politicians Now Who Understand Economics?
by Sean Gabb

The British Government has just announced what may be £2,000 million of subsidies for the car industry in this country. Responses to the announcement range from gratitude that jobs and manufacturing capacity are to be saved to complaints that the subsidies do not go far enough. My reading and viewing may not be comprehensive, but I have seen nothing in the mainstream media denouncing the subsidies as at best politically motivated – much of the car industry being located in constituencies held by Labour – and at worst economically illiterate. Since the first grounds of denunciation ought, after nearly twelve years of these people, to be self-evident, I will devote myself here to the second.

We are continually told at present – which is somewhat more than usual – how government spending had created, or will create, so many jobs. Therefore, the immense expansion of the British State since 1997 has created three hundred thousand jobs or whatever. Some deplore this because most of those employed can be expected to vote Labour. Hardly anyone denies there has been a net addition to the number of employed. The same reasoning underlies all discussion of how we are to get through the recession on which we have now started.

The truth is, however, that government spending does not so much create as displace employment. Every pound spent by the Government must first be taken from the people, who cannot then spend it for themselves. If the money is taken is taken through taxes, it exactly reduces the ability of the people to spend or invest it for themselves as they wish, or to save it for transfer, via the banking system, for others to spend or invest as they wish. If the money is borrowed, it again exactly reduces the amount of money that the people can borrow to spend or invest.

It is more complex if the money is printed by the Government – or, more likely nowadays, borrowed from the banks in a fractional reserve system. But if its effects are often hard to trace until after the event, inflation is no less a tax than any other means of providing money to governments. It may reduce the actual purchasing power of money left in the hands of the people. Given the downward pressure on manufacturing costs we have seen during the past generation, inflation will at best reduce the potential purchasing power of money that already exists.

This being so, the argument that government spending creates employment relies on a blindness to the concept of opportunity cost – that every pound spent on paying one salary is a pound less to spend on another salary. Put more simply, it is a case of what Bastiat described as “what is seen and what is not seen”. We see the jobs created by the Government in it “regeneration” projects. We do not see the jobs that would otherwise have been created to supply things that people actually would have bought had the money been left in their own pockets.

For the past six months, the argument has been reinforced by the claim that government spending is needed to make up for a disinclination by others to spend or invest. This being so, it will not be a zero sum game, but will create net employment. There is no doubt that there has been a deflation. People are borrowing less and saving more. The banks have been increasing their financial reserves. But it does not follow from this admission that government spending is needed to make up the deficiency. The fall in spending is not the cause of the problems we face, but is a symptom.

For perhaps the past decade, many central banks in the rich world have kept interest rates below the level needed to balance the supply of savings and the demand for loans. When other prices are forced below their equilibrium – rent control, for example – the result is shortages. In the fractional reserve system that we nowadays have, however, pushing interest rates below their equilibrium has simply enabled the commercial banks to create money out of nothing. In the past, this would have led almost at once to price increases. This time, with most consumer goods made in countries where supply curves are very elastic, and with exchange rates only loosely related in the short term to the financing of foreign trade, and with financial and property markets able to absorb what long seemed to be limitless amounts of money, the result was a speculative bubble, in which consumer prices hardly rose, and in which most of us were persuaded that we were growing richer.

These bubbles never last. The new money is brought into being through bank lending that cannot continue forever. There comes a point where people have taken as much debt as they can service, or  where they have invested on the basis of trends that stop rising. It is then that some event that would otherwise have been overlooked becomes the excuse for a panic. The bubble bursts. Net borrowing turns negative. Prices of overbid assets fall. Prices of securities fall to the value of their underlying assets – assuming there are any that can be identified. Much investment in new capacity is shown to have been unwise.

On this reasoning, the present fall in spending is not an event in itself that needs to be and can be cured by higher government spending. What we now have is really part of a cycle that began with the artificial lowering of interest rates, and that will end with the liquidation of the unwise investments and the correction in asset prices. The British Government’s policy of trying to halt the deflation with higher spending and even lower interest rates cannot do better than lengthen the cycle during its unpleasant phase. It also increases the size of the State – which already takes far too much of our money and spends it on things we would never buy given a free choice.

But I return to the bail out of the car industry. This is not a case of limiting collateral damage. The car industry is not a fundamentally sound victim of circumstances. It is instead one of those sectors in which unwise investments were made. There is no shortage of finance for businesses that really are considered sound. Even I still receive one or two pre-approved loan offers from banks I never knew existed. If the car companies cannot borrow to maintain their working capital, it is because no one believes in their fundamental soundness. Even at the height of the boom, it was claimed that there were too many car makers, given present and future demand for cars. There will now be several years when hardly anyone with an ounce of common sense will spend money unless he must on a new car. No one seems to care if estate agents all over the country are losing their jobs. If car workers are now to lose their jobs, it is for the same reason.

Of course, there are things the Government could do and ought to do to help the car industry. These are all negative. For the past twelve years, it has been running propaganda campaigns and piling taxes and regulations that have tended to make driving less attractive than it might otherwise have been. These propaganda campaigns should be ended. The road excise and petrol duties should be cut. The cameras and yellow and red lines should be taken away. The police officers now deployed to harass drivers should be dismissed – there being, in any event, more policemen than needed to enforce the laws of a free country.

I move back now to the general difficulties we face. With increasing desperation, Gordon Brown is denouncing anyone who questions his policy of inflation as wanting to do nothing. Well, doing nothing at all would be an improvement on what he has been doing. However, there are things the Government could do. None of it would take us back straightaway to the prosperity we have lost. But it would shorten and moderate the pain that stands between us and recovery. I suggest the following:

  • The Government should balance its budget – and do so not by increasing taxes, but by spending less. This would tend to restore confidence to markets that are presently working on the assumption of a soft pound, and where default on the national debt is no longer thought impossible.
  • The Government should force all banks that have limited liability to reveal their true financial position. This would not be an interference in their private affairs, as limited liability is a privilege bringing responsibilities that may be varied as thought reasonable. This would again tend to restore confidence, and it would do more than printing money has to persuade the banks to start lending to each other.
  • The Government should return to a fully convertible gold standard. Unless otherwise contracted, it should be regarded as fraud for a banker to take a deposit and not have sufficient reserves to redeem it at once on demand. This would prevent the periodic explosions of credit that are behind the trade cycle.
  • Of course, the Government should also abolish income tax, valued added tax and excise duties. If this does not cut the tax burden by three quarters, it should abolish some other taxes. To keep the budget balanced, it should also cut spending.

I could go on, making more and more claims unlikely ever to be conceded by the British Government or any other. But the first two, plus a few cuts, would go far to shortening the recession. Sadly, even these will not be tried – not at least until the Keynesian remedies everyone wants have been tested to destruction.

Further Reading:

Murray Rothbard, America’s Great Depression
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Credit Creation or Financial Intermediation?: Fractional-reserve Banking in a Growing Economy

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3

The Bristol Brabazon (grand plane, shame about the name)


David Davis

Got this through a hat tip from Landed Underclass, who got it from him here.

A rather beautiful and stately plane I have to say.  Shame about the speed (or er, not.)

Might as well put this on:-

Charles Darwin: the complete archive on line


…apparently so! Here.

David Davis

The direct site link is here. I’m not entirely clear about the copyright position for actually reproducing images online so I have not put any on here today, but I expect you could view any stuss you wanted, and save it to your machine for “private” use.

Mr Eugenides guesting at The Devil does “climate change” wonderfully well.


Update1:- (from the Devil today 29th Jan 2009) where he picks up from Tom Nelson that more and more people are noticing the glaring contradictions and total lack of scientific rigour emanating form the warmists’ camp.

David Davis

We ought to use him to warm the planet for it will need it. Antarctica is of course getting both colder and warmer at the same moment, so the “mystery of global warming’s missing heat” is of course solved: the models predicted it all along. So pay up, taxpayer-suckers.

Hmmmm…..again (and again and again)


….and a fun letter complaining to Richard Branson, here.

David Davis

Tory boom and bust

Tory boom and bust

How nice, but are Stalinists actually human?


Vlad the Impala

Hmmmm.

Proper democracy


David Davis

I refer you all to this idea. The proposal will cut out the fake Nazi lobbyist middleman, including fake State-Nazi charities, among most other distractions.

It seems that someone is blocking the http://fakecharities.org website. I can’t guess who it would be.

Not a bail-out


No, not at all, at all at all at all.

David Davis

Lord Mandyperson of Rumba of Rio, who I cannot find it in my heart to like or trust at all, although Tony my old mate insists he is very bright and interesting and I’d be charmed to have the bugger (sorry) to dinner***, is going to not bail out the UK car industry. What he has just found out is that all the workers live in Labour constituencies Pocket Boroughs, and if the same fate befalls their firms as did nearly Northern Wreck, then he’ll have some explaining to do in front of the Gorgon.

Can’t have the electorate labour voters suffering from our polices, now, can we.

***I’m sure he’d be charming to have as a dinner guest. I’d dispute amicably with him till Kingdom Come. The trouble is, I don’t know anybody else who likes or who trusts the bugger or who – more to the point – would turn up, if Mandy was scheduled to appear. He and I and Tony would have to scoff the grub ourselves.

Ahhhhh… climate change truly is irreversible…..


….so we have to act even faster to reverse it….

Er…ummmm?

David Davis

“Celebrity-ness” analysed….


….along with “Politician-ness”, on The Landed Underclass.

David Davis

When “Landed” and I were young fellas, not only did we not know each other but also civilisation did not really contain what we now call “celebrities”. It’s true, there was The King – only briefly in my case – followed by his daughter  The Queen, and her various children who began to appear, and Sir Winston Churchill, and possibly the Queen Mother, but that was about it. Pop singers didn’t really feature in the 50s, they only earned dosh in the rather princely band of about £50 to £100 a week, and probably it was the Beatles in about, er, 1963?…who got most close to celebrity status first.

Politicians, Mr Churchill apart, who we were taught was the greatest man who had ever lived as was indeed correct with the possible exception of Barnes Wallis, were sort of, er, nowhere. They were “men in grey suits”: they were little different from the town’s librarian who stamped your books each week – whom of course nearly everybody knew by sight and name (think about it.) They just went to Parliament, and has “our interests” at heart, for us. They weren’t even paid much either.

On celebrities, their making and their breaking today: one thinks of the Incas – or was it the Mayans? (who cares?) – who sculpted all those gigantic scowling stone heads to show how advanced they were, and who publicly butchered living young men and women in bloody ways on top of very large stone structures built out of whatever was to hand. Celebrities nowadays seem to occupy the same niche, as “the people” serially worship them and then trash them a few years afterward.

The problem that Landed tries to address is why the families and children of politicians and celebrities are going to be _not_ on various “databases” which are to be set up by the State the Stalinists who tyrannise us today, and are to be for our delectation, our security and our enchainment.

Is it that politicians envy the celebrities’ perceived status, power, wealth and ability to have whatever they desire (pace the Mayans or whoever!) and therefore automatically desire the same privileges? Or is it as Old Holborn says Penguin thinks, which is that politicians have been in control of the whole process of viral-mass-idolatry all along?

Are the politicians who enslave us, been Wireless Tele Visually artificially creating phantasmal celebrities out of the fabric of real people, for some years (it coincides with the Diana-Witch-Mania and the subsequent Nationalised-synchro-Grieving-Terror that was commanded to be visited upon us all, and the real rise of the “Hello!” culture too) as a cover for themselves to hide behind, later?

The comment thread which has been allowed on Old Holborn in regard to this specific matter is, I think, vituperative and unhelpful. The State watchers will target blameless white-van-men instead of us as a result. We should approach this strategic matter in an atmosphere of calm and reasoned and cold deliberation.

God and Charles Darwin: Hate mail and the sort of people who send it….


…are related: possibly in an evolutionary way.

David Davis

Sir David Attenborough, being old and therefore in possession of the facts, probably knows about the coming Endarkenment. Apparently he is in receipt of hate-mail, for allegedly “defending” Charles Darwin and the rather poorly mis-named “theory of evolution” in a BBC prog to be transmitted on Sunday.

It is at least 99.99% certain that the planet is astonishingly old, and that diversity and shape of all creatures has altered over tremendous spans of time, so that those that live now are adapted to the external conditions. Because mathematically nothing at all is truly impossible (that is to say, an event’s probability is actually the rational number zero) given enough time and dice-throws, there may be at some time in some place in the Universe a creature called “God”, which proceeds to create – in six days – (a rush-job?) a populated world full of humming-birds and neopastorally-ecstatic human individuals, and without parasites or mosquitos. But Attenborough and I, and maybe also Richard Dawkins, would state this to be highly improbable.

Now to hate-mail. There may be for example an equal degree of hate existing in the minds and hearts of both “Darwinists” and “Creationists”: but I doubt it. For one thing, this is a field of endeavour where “The Science” (terrible phrase) is truly settled. I say this in order to see whether I get hate-mail either from paleobiologists or from creationists. Whereas “Darwinists” are in general rational individuals used to civilised argument and the informed defence of a position with fact, I suspect “Creationists” rely on what they’d term “Faith”. Faith is fine in that of course God’s Mind encompasses the Universe, has done so since the beginning of Time, and He Imagines all that was, is or will be in it: all that is, is thus a product of His thought. That much is obvious to a scientist. But the evidence that God cobbled the earth together in six days, around 6,000 years ago, is scanty at best.

The sorts of people who send hate-mail are those generally with no evidence for their position, but whose world-view is utopian and ideal-driven. For example I think here of socialists, the sort that are not as successful as Polly Toynbee and without her journalistic outlets for their ire: also of “animal rights” “campaigners”. There are of course other kinds, mostly on the left. Whether there is also a connection with the fact that they have very little to do, and lots of time to scratch their own arses, may be relevant. Tere seem to be very few such people on the Classical liberal wing of politics.

If there is a connection developing between the left’s hate-mail-generators and “Creationists”, I think we ought o find out. Both strands of pre-capitalist-idealism will lead civilisation, on purpose, to disaster.

UPDATE1:- I have unashamedly lifted part of The Landed Underclass’s almost simultaneous post to ours, and it’s below. I did wonder in fact whether to discourse in this post about The Nature Of Evil and where God fits in regarding Evil’s continued existence, but forbore this time:-

It seems that nowadays one demonstrates one’s godliness and piety not by acts of charity, humility, contemplation, prayer, etc. but by screaming for the head of anyone who expresses any view that one can, by whatever theological manipulations, deem ‘offensive’.

If I were Mr  Attenborough, I’d go to see my producer and insist that the theme music for my programme were changed to:

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat.
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings.
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small.
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiny urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small.
Putrid foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

[Python, source typos corrected]

Disasters Emergency Committee Gaza Appeal (oh, and Hamas will get the dosh)


David Davis

Here’s the appeal the BBC refused to broadcast:-

The poor wretched BBC is now hamstrung by its supposed “impartiality”. On the one hand, they are aching and bursting to execrate Israel, and on the other, they also know that Hamas will buy more rockets with the money, as it cares not a monkey’s f*** for “the children”. They use “the children bomb” after all, so a few more child deaths in Gaza is merely,as Stain said, a statistic.

RAEDWALD added


David Davis

Added here.

Perhaps the EU really IS the problem; institutional totalitarianism…


…is what’s driving our own home-grown Gestapo, who want to bask in the Brussels-Nazis’ reflected glory.

David Davis

This has come from Raedwald, a version of the story has also appeared at The Devil, and I found the disgusting picture at Obnoxio The Clown.

(…and as we know, “l’SS combat pour l’Europe”…)

The problem for libertarians is where to construct a minimal-State, in which liberalism can keep on showing Statism to be hideous, by demonstrating what will instead be achieved. The gradual subsumation of all the countries East of the Atlantic into a unitary tyranny makes it only harder. Moreover, post-war British bureaucrats seem more zealous in oppression, and more dedicated to personal interference in people’s lives, than any others.

I shudder to think what they’d have done in the event of a successful invasion of Britain in 1940. Collaboration on a large scale, probably as bad as in France if not worse, I would guess.

It’s almost certainly the glorious vista of absolute power being absolutely delightful, and which is held out by junketing-trips for town-twinning, conferences about Common-European-Procrusteanism, and the like, that is egging on our home-grown Nazis and state-snoopers to greater heights of connivance in this gigantic project of enslavement.

Nick Cohen blames the left…so do I.


David Davis

In the Observer, he analyses how it all came about.

UPDATE1:-

But to explain, perhaps, to other libertarians, why I have seemed to be praising what seems to be a lefty writing somethng, I ought to have included the link to Coffee House where his article was summarised. here’s part of what he meant:-

“the paradox of the 1997 Labour government was that it was at once a left- and a right-wing administration. It wanted a huge public works programme. It aimed to redistribute enormous amounts of wealth. To achieve both these desirable goals, it made a bargain with the markets. All right, the political left said, we will accept extremes of wealth we once denounced as obscene. With the City accounting for a fifth of the British economy, we will embrace your speculators and not drive them overseas with tough regulation. If the authorities overseeing the Wall Street markets or the Frankfurt bourse become too inquisitive, capital will always be able to find a sanctuary from scrutiny here. Nor will we restrict the operations of financial services even though they are entrapping our supporters in levels of debt that the puritan in us finds frightening. We will concede all this if in return you will give us the tax revenues that will allow us to build the new schools and hospitals, and increase the incomes of our struggling constituents. For all its virtuous intentions, the political left was living off the proceeds of loose financial morals. Prostituting itself, to be blunt.”

More moolah on “Cash for Laws” – see posting below.


UPDATE1:- Raedwald agrees, and says what the four buggers’ anticedents are.

David Davis

Guido Fawkes is of course right that (some) ordinary people assume that the  current British State legislature is entirely corrupt. The trouble is, there are not enough ordinary people to make much difference any more. Most people are extraordinary in that they watch the “News” on the Wireless Tele Vision at best (which as we know is Hello-magazine-like and unhelpful), read no News Papers – and so can get no non-centrist-cosensual-non-controversial-PC-views –  and indulge in no critical thinking as a result of that.

Reality-TV (an oxymoron) is too gripping.

We’ve been here before many times in our history. But it does not make this time any better. For your opportunity to throw rottin cabbages at the Hamiltons, please see the post below, where comments about them are accumulating and it will increase the value of the thread.

Used cars! Used cars!

Used cars! Used cars!

And this guy looks like he’s just out of “uni” – what does he know about the right behaviour when one is lording?

Cash for laws – and you thought “cash for questions” was bad?


Huh?

David Davis

I was shocked by this, but I am a normal human and easily shockable. I live in Lancashire, you see.

The Nazis New Labour crucified people called the Hamiltons, in the 1980s and early 1990s, for this. And now, the same Nazis as did the first lynching, do this. They do it by themselves, with no direction from anyone else. What bad people, or c***s, they must be, for their hypocrisy.

Bad people. Bad.

Naughty. Repent.

Before it’s too late.

We are angry with you.

If I wanted to buy a Law, which said that all socialists and crypto-Gramsco-Marxians should be deprived of the Franchise – on account of how they would skew the distribution of resources by the market  in their favour, and thus inevitably to the detriment of liberty, then how much would it cost me ot get this passed?

Eh?

Sunday morning rapping


…it is called “rapping”, isn’t it…?

And I stumbled on this, research reading to catch up on.

I wondered whe this would happen


David Davis

New-Labour-British-State-Type Socialist A-levels are dead: long live education.

This is who I am getting at in reality, with my war-axe….


I call them Gramsco-Marxians. Tony will assault me…again.

(It’s his job!)

David Davis

Hat tip Samizdata.

The killing of young children in schools and nurseries is quite modern. Is it socialism trying to use incidents to exert more control, or has something really gone wrong in the software of individual people?


David Davis


There has not been a mortal attack on a school or nursery here in the UK  for some time. Dunblane was the worst, but was not alone. I firmly believe, AND not being a conspiracy-theorist myself, that it was deliberately staged as an incident to justify the forced removal of all “hand guns” from the population of the British Isles. I have no evidence for this assertion at all, and I probably never will, nor have I time to find out. But the choreography was all so smoothly executed, and so fast – within hours – with total compliance from all side of the House of Commons. There was another one, in Tazmania.

Those of us who don’t do conspiracy theories such as the 9/11 crap, but who are quite able to impute base motives to our leaders in matters such as gun control, have probably been bracing ourselves for an event involving young children, or, preferably, babies. So here it was, but in Belgium, and involved knives not guns.

So: is the covert state strategy the same as before… “guns in the hands of the people are unacceptable, but let’s demonise knives more, so we can take those away too in time”?

Or…has something gone wrong in the way people relate to each other at a basic family level, and which also could be due to socialism or at least its lovechild femiNazism?

FemiNazism, I must explain to those not familiar with the clever leftist chappie Gramsco-Marxski (whose works are often bad-mouthed on here)  is a software-program that is for corrupting instinctive human interactions at a family level. This then creates desocialised sub-humans who go about killing autistically-defined targets – such as children or babies, or Kulaks (if you are Stalin), or “intellectuals” (if you are Pol Pot) or Jews (if you are Hitler or Stalin or Lenin or Hamas – whatever that might be – or AlQuaeda – whatever that might be, perhaps it will turn out to be the UN in disguise, we shall all, if possible, have to stay alive to find out.) FemiNazism’s principal weapon is the humiliation of males at an early age, by removing the authority – or even the presence – of the father figure.

I obviously know even less than the poor stressed Belgian Police do right now, about this poor tormented creature who decided to attack babies and their carers with a knife, while dressed as a “batman” or something. Libertarians would agree that we don’t think it’s important what he was wearing at the time. But these sorts of crimes all share a common thread:-

(1) They are terribly visible – strange, if you are going to do a crime? Why leave a trail? And in front of the MSM?

(2) They are against terribly vulnerable individuals – children, babies, unarmed teachers for example.

(3) The perpetrator is often killed, or commits suicide at the scene, such as Thomas Hamilton – also very, very, very odd – why? or is arrested and then kept in isolation for ever, such as Martin Bryant.

AND….why is there no wikipedia page for Thomas Hamilton? Eh? You are redirected to “Dunblane Massacre” only, which you already knew about or you’d have buggered off already.

Very odd. But even against that,  George Bush will be shown by history to have not blown up down the twin towers and told all 4,711 Jewish employees to stay away made it look like the “Islamists” wot dunn itttt……uuurrrrrrrrrrr, duhhhhhhhhhh.

Oh, and I’ll put a pound on that. So there. A Pound of Silver against any one Truther at 50-to one. Watch. Let’s see if truthers watch this blog. If I’m right, you pay me 50 pounds (729.9 TROY ounces) of silver metal. In metal. Here. You will bring it or courier it.

I want Silver, not Gold, sorry.

I have to say I find all this very odd, given that privately-owned firearms were quite commonplace in my youth in the 1950s, and that almost no crime was committed with them whatever. if one was, then it was a seminal and global event, and was mentioned on the WireLess Radio News, on the BBC Home Service.

The fact that “incidents” have been multiplying (and I have not even talked about the various campus-massacres in the USA) lead me to deduce that either some males are going mental under the stress of socialistic-FemiNazism, and fail to be properly socialised as free individuals able to take decisions about not harming others – therefore being reduced to the status of primitive apes, or else the State – whether it be here or elsewhere in the Anglosphere such as Australia – wants to obliterate the ownership of any kind of lethal weapon….for the protection presumably of the Statists themselves.

But how will Jamie Oliver react to the blanket prohibition of kitchen-knives for example….after the “amnesty”, of which there will inevitably be one? How will we prepare his tucker, for the cheeky-chappie?

I just ask to be told, that’s all. And here’s what somebody else whom I do not know, but who seems sane, thinks.

The facts of life: it is impossible to confront them without becoming a conservative…


…..as Old Labour chancellor Denis Healey has realised, through experience.

David Davis

In this DT interview, Healey says several things about personal wealth, and about progressive taxation, calculated to upset Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling. I don’t think hes’ just sayin’ it to make the Quisling-Graph happy: who the f*** cares about it anyway? It’s becoming dead-tree-press just like the rest, only more slowly, being nominally conservative.

Nah. the poor old bugger – God bless him – towards the evening of his life,  has realised which way is up.

I did not look kindly on him for stating on live Wireless Tele Vision, that Margaret Thatcher “glories in slaughter” – (wikiquote Guardian Newspaper 2nd June 1983) – re the Falklands War, and I think in particular regarding our sinking of the old American cruiser renemed “General Belgrano“. But if he’s repented of both that and also of socialism, then he deserves a peaceful old age.

Cathedrals: not enough money. Since the State has taken over the Church…


then it better pay for the buildings.

David Davis

£2.6 million. Well, it’s better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick I guess.

But as it costs about £2,500 a day to run a cathedral – and that’s just the modern one down the road from here, which isn’t even quite really beginning to fall down yet –  and just keep the water from coming in, let alone major repairs to buildings that may be in parts about nine centuries old, then that shows where the government’s secularists’ priorities are.

Libertarians of course may not care very much about religion. That’s fair enough. Some believe in God, or sundry other gods, and some do not. But if we want to preserve a core of civiisation which is capable of sustaining a libertarian polity, then we have to _not_ have whole great gaps in our history filled only by gigantic and mysterious ruins. History shows us, that those people for whom totalitarians have abraded out whole rafts of their history, do less well in adjusting to being properly socialised in a market civilisation. Just look at poor Russia for example.

The mediaeval cathedrals of Europe and Britain – and Ireland – represent some of the highest art and engineering synthesis ever achieved by Man. OK, I grant you-  I own up, and ask for forgiveness: it was all done “in the name of God and to His greater glory”….but that should not deter us from trying to preserve these masterpieces of civilisation. These things took sometimes centuries to build, largely by hand and animal and sinew and spade – and required extreme faith that it would work, and a very long, long view about whether you’d ever see it done yourself – you can’t just pretend it didn’t happen.

If the State wants to de-Christianise us as a people – and it is succeeding – then at least it can spend a few coppers on “the people’s” history. Unless, of course, it does not want “the people” to have or to know any. That’s another story entirely, and it concerns Gramsco-Marxians.

Or, maybe, just maybe, this government we have right now ios just worse, and more Gramsco-Marxian than most others. it will be interesting to see what they grant, via their quango English heritage, to the repair of important Mosques. Or not. We shall see.

Play “Bail Out Brown” online


David Davis

Here

Courtesy of Guido. And here’s a piece for us, by Kevin Dowd, on the coming inflation.

God versus Science: something for the commentariat to argue about over the weekend…


David Davis

This just floated in from somewhere. Personally I see no problem whatsoever with Science co-existing with religious belief. Many scientists I have known were devout Christians.

I think we all ought to read 1.John (1 and onwards a bit) and ask what it meant.

But the fella relates a nice story.

Citizen Tom obviously thinks about stuff. I might go back from time to time and see. But for now, here’s what Keeley Hazell thinks. We will continue to employ her for now, inspte of Gordon Brown and his “end to Tory boom and bust”…

The Stalinist terror-drink-police will come for you next…


UPDATE:- Lots of useful links out, from The Devil, to other state fake-charities etc, specially those which castigate you for drinking more than you oughta on “at least one day a week”….disaster: all that excise tax-take, and they don’t even thank you.

David Davis

….arriving at a “supermarket” or “off-licence” near you. They’ve done the pubs, kicking them into the bloody dust, so now it’s the turn of the “middle class professionals”. I wonder which fake charity staffed by State-sponsored-scumbags is behind this one? Obviously not a real one then, they have better things to do.

And here’s the Beeboids, direct. And why do nasty gestapoid-Gramsco-Marxians always, always always get so het up about “strong lager”? Eh? Eh? Who ya’-lookin’ at then? Gorra-problem?

And now some music, stars space and explosions, and America, Kim Jong Il is Ronery, and why are Orchestras and composers now stuck to making music for games, and some more nice music, and some music I can play on my cello…


Peter Davis

And its America, F*** YEAH!

I can play this on the cello:

and some more nice music:

I wonder what he did?


David Davis

Socialists can be really horrid sometimes, even more vilely than is normal for them in the course of “delivering” “objectives”. He’d better not have killed anybody.

Anne-Sophie Bonefield …. has anyone except me noticed what an inapproriate name this is for a woman at the Red Cross in Gaza?


Oh dear…. Anne-Sophie Bonefield….

David Davis

What the hell are you doing there? get out, before your career is compromised by your name, since “bone fields” are what happens when governments and socialists get going. And there’s going to be a lot of those in the next centuries, sadly.

Here’s a bone field:-

Lots of bones

Lots of bones

…..and for Burns Night…..


Vlad the Impala

…..this just in.

Keeley Hazell doesn’t want you to get burgled, so buy an i-Pod with a gun attached…..


David Davis

So that you can shoot straight, it seems you need an i-Pod now:-

Here she is, I expect the gun fits between the boobs, without being observed quickly:-

khburglaryimage1

And, thanks to The Remittance Man, we have this, just in! When I grow up, I want to be like mommy:-


And here she is again….(update, someone on the interwebthingy seems to have removed the image from the link…)


The price of socialism, part 46,574-C/5-a : one home burgled every two minutes


…..and where is the safe haven, just askin’ – as it’s an interesting question……….

David Davis

Well well well: the powers that be have noticed that crime might rise if people are struggling to find their daily bread. But only if you are intent – as Fabianazis and Gramsco-Marxians deliberately are – on creating an anti-civilisation of bad-people, whom you think will vote for your handouts, or better – not vote at all on anything.

The answer is more guns, and knives. In our hands. if the bastards get gutted, or blown away in shreds and their remains have to be hosed off the front path, it’s their problem.

Dunno what we’d do without the Devil


David Davis

Here he is in good form on MPs’ expenses thieving. it actually raises the question about how, if at all, MPs and indeed all other “representatives” ought to be remunerated. here’s a poll:-

Meccano … the 200-ton Brownhoist Wrecking Crane, and what do you think about children’s toys today?


Peter Davis

Ive a question for the commenters. Would more toys like this mean more people grow up to be libertarians? Today’s Meccano is a few types of small coloured plastic crap, for about £125 a box, compared with this which looks more like what my dad used to play with.

I think bigger sets with more ambitious instructions and more interesting parts, would make children more inventive.

This is a Canadian model.

If children were taught to think more and earlier, perhaps they would go more for liberty and not just get sucked into socialism? What do you think?   heres a poll:-

Get it on…


Vlad the Impala

I am indebted to David Thompson for this (er) small matter:-

The fascination among Fabian fascists and other nazis for condoms – presumably to be commanded to be used by nasty low hoi-Polloi other then themselves –  has often troubled me. Libertarians are often confused with “libertines” – in fact my dear neighbour Dominic, a blameless port-drinking 40-something  husband and father-of-three with a university degree, often gets at me over this matter. He is saying that we ought to alter our name libertarian completely since it upsets what he calls right-thinking-people, and makes them think we are in favour of what he calls Free Love….he’s even a bit concerned about the free-market thingy, too.

And yet the promotion of the mass use of these little rubber machines seems to go hand in hand with socialism. VIZ:- Wehrmacht standing orders for Barbarossa were that they were specifically to be worn by the soldiers while shagging Polish and Russian girls: and British Big-State secondary schools mandate it in PSHE lessons.

The phrase “family planning” sticks in mind, as used by the socialists. I should have thought that the only time you’d use a “durex” is when you are specifically _not_ planning a family…or have I missed something?

Harking back to University days, I do agree that condoms do actually decrease the risk of pregnancy. Here’s how it’s done. There was nothing more calculated to eliminate one’s libido than, at the ciritical moment with a young lady, she’d hop up naked out of the clinch, open her chest of drawers, and get out a…. Durex! You felt immmediately that, really, she was not for you – she clearly either had it planned, in which case “you” had been “for her” all evening and so she had just been acting in front of you: or else she did this sort of thing all the time, and therefore she plainly was not “for you” but “for anyone she had decided that fancied tonight at the student union disco”. The ability to “perform” was thus immediately severely limited, and almost none of these encounters was able to be pursued. Things didn’t improve even if you managed to get one of the blasted things on either: feeling nothing, you could do nothing, and had to fake it cleverly a second or two before you lost your erection, if you wanted to keep the girl.

I don’t really kow what’s the libertarian position (sorry) on condoms: who ought to use them, who ought not, that kind of thing – perhaps someone could “put me straight”? Would the Pope know? Perhaps we ought to ask Keeley Hazell. The blog editor does, so why not me?

Let’s hope my garage will do that….


….what service…but I don’t think I’d get it on a 9-yr-old Citroen Picasso…..

David Davis

Citizenship (the real kind) … Geoffrey Wheatcroft in the Guardian


David Davis

Here.

‘Avvin a luff


David Davis

Q:   What do you call the box strapped to the side of a satellite dish?

A:   A council house.

I chanced upon a humosour blog. (I meant to type “humorous”, but in the context I think I prefer “humosour” more.)

And here’s about calling countries by their old-fashioned names….

Fake Charities and the British “New Labour” State; now for a real one instead.


David Davis

A couple of days ago, The Devil (bless him, and may God’s Face shine upon him with radiant mercy and goodness for all ways) brought this to all our attention. For those busy chaps who have not time to click the link, it transpires that the British State under the Stalinist Gramsco-Marxians in Westmonster is setting up what appear to be “charities”, and which are accountable under Charities Commission rules, but which use treasury money, extorted by taxation, to achieve Stalinist Gramsco-Marxian lobby-goals laid down by the Westmonster-Gramsco-Marxians themselves.

That’s the kindest and most euphemistic way I can think of, to put across what they do.

I came across this just now, and I think all us here-buggers ought to give them at least £2 each at this address. This guy is exactly not like the bastards who cream off taxpayers’ funds in quangos, shagging and being shagged by their nasty Gramsco-Marxian friends in the UN, the EU, governments and “aid agencies”. I did not realise that about £9 would feed a poor Nyasaland child, who has nothing, for about a year. So I think we all ought to help him feed these poor buggers.

It is the business of libertarians to promote the growth and scope of private charity.

You can take comfort that none of it, God willing, will go towards Mercs-4-Jerks (like the jerk Mugabe for example, or many many others, some in “aid agencies”):-

We’ll do the Lifeboat people too in a minute or tomorrow, as that’s also a proper Charity, one of the diminishing few, and we even have one (a lifeboat) here. But ours is paid for entirely out of private subs, and although credited to the RNLI does not have to be subbed by them. Hat tip to the RNLI stuff  landedunderclass.

Really, this stuff ought to put ZanuLieborg to shame.

But I guess it won’t.