Scottish Sceptic

I’ve just discovered that in Iron-age Britain we supposedly had group “marriages” – so I was wondering what would come next … When I read in the Sun, this article:

‘I’m not a monster’ One-armed ‘virtuous paedophile’ is ‘not ashamed’ of being sexually attracted to kids as young as THREE… because he doesn’t act on urges

I’d just finished the article, and was going to leave it a day to think about it when I read this appalling and probably illegal* tweet:

Coincidentally I would not be ashamed to hang him. https://t.co/GI1YmgNrTc

— Guido Fawkes (@GuidoFawkes) November 17, 2016

I’m disgusted with the individual, and as a result I’ve decided to publish immediately .

In the same way as I cannot imagine what it is like to share a wife with my brother (that may be because he never shared anything), I cannot imagine what it is like to be sexually attracted to a child. However, it does happen. And whilst I have very little interest in the subject, I was wondering when someone would point out the glaring hypocrisy in the media.
Because on the one hand the media will attack anyone who dares to suggest homosexuals aren’t entirely equal to normal people and the media go bananas if anyone even suggests they can be “cured” by treatment … but on the other hand that same media will ruthlessly attack paedophiles irrespective of whether they are actually harming children, and then insist they should be “treated” (often by castration is mentioned).
Now, unlike some people (Guido Fawkes) I’m of the view that I am who I am by chance, and equally by chance I could have turned out as many other people. A homosexual, a paedophile or even a journalist or politician. So, I shouldn’t treat others in a way that I wouldn’t wish on myself if I had been born into their position.
Now I’m no expert on the subject of “treating” sexual orientation, so I’ve no real idea whether or not it is plausible to treat either “condition”, but it seems to me if the media “experts” are saying it is not possible to treat homosexuals and that their sexual “condition” should be respected, then I do have to wonder why they they insist that paedophiles can be treated and that their sexual “condition” cannot be tolerated in any form?
Now Obviously paedophilia cannot be equated to homosexuality in the sense that it necessitates sexual activity with a minor who cannot reasonably give their consent. So unlike a homosexual, any paedophile who engages in their sexual deviancy is committing a rape. But theoretically, if paedophiles abstained completely, then why doesn’t their particular sexual deviancy deserve the same kind of treatment as homo-sexuals (if neither group engages in sexual acts of any kind – surely they have to be treated the same?)
As far as I was concerned this was just the press being the normal bigoted hypocrites they are on so many issues. But then this “Todd Nickerson” came along …and put the cat amongst the pigeons (or paedophile amongst the PC luvvies). What will the PC brigade do? Will they praise him for “coming out” and say we should all respect his particular sexual orientation as we’ve all been instructed we must for homo-sexuals?

If one deviancy must be treated as equal, then all must be

Obviously the problem for the PC brigade originates because they have insisted that all sexual preferences must be treated the same. And as I know, we the public were not allowed to have a debate about the subject – so it’s entirely the fault of the narrow minded PC brigage that they’ve got into this mess.
It is the natural outcome when idiotic self-serving activists push through legislation to demand that one particular form of sexual deviancy must be treated as completely equivalent to heterosexuality. Because the “human rights” logic is this: if you cannot discriminate on one particular sexual deviancy, then you cannot discriminate on any.
The same argument for homo-sexual “equality” can be made for any sexual preference so it is pretty obvious that once you say that there can be no distinction between hetero-sexual and homo-sexual then all sexual preferences (abiding by other laws) must be treated the same. And as you can’t legislate for people to stop being paedophiles, and apparently cannot treat sexual orientation, then by inference if homo-sexuals must be treated the same as hetero-sexuals, then paedophiles must also be treated the same as hetero-sexuals.

Children’s Rights

And indeed, they both homo-sexual and paedophile rights both raise similar issues to do with children’s rights.
The issue for homosexuals is in marriage. Marriage is the historical institution that protected children from “selfish lustful adults”. This is because marriage was a way for society to protect the rights of children who were not yet born: to ensure wherever possible, that they were born within a family that would nurture them. I think most reasonable adults would see that as a benefit (but we weren’t allowed to discuss this by the PC bigots). Indeed, contrary to what is often said, marriage is not discriminatory against homosexuals. Homosexual were free to marry like anyone else, and many did and had children otherwise the trait would have been removed by natural selection.
So, redefining “marriage” so as to change it from an institution helping to protect children’s rights to one where children would be irrelevant, may benefit the “rights” of homosexuals, but it does so at the expense of the rights of children.
There’s no win-win. Someone loses out … and because children seem to be ignored in
Law-markers have made an ass of themselves, they have changed marriage so it no longer has anything to do with protecting children and they have proscribed that sexual deviancy must be treated as the same as “normality”**
But once you say you cannot discriminate on deviancy, by inference, people who love sheep, love siblings, mothers, fathers, whatever their sexual orientation – must for the sake of “equality” all be treated the same.

Sexual preferences are not equal, but people are.

Obviously once you start saying there can be no discrimination on sexual deviancy, there is no practical limits to the perversions that someone will dream up that by inference have to be respected as equal to all other sexual orientations however crackers they are.
But there  is a more intelligent approach. That is to say that sexual preferences are not all the same, but instead that people have a right to be treated with equal respect wherever that is possible irrespective of their sexual preferences.
So, all sexual deviancies** should as far as is reasonable be tolerated within the law and that, so long as those of any sexual deviancy does not break any other law or infringe on the rights of others, and that they are not otherwise a risk to society in general, that they should be treated equally.
In more general terms, so long as you don’t infringe other people’s rights, particularly the rights of children, or the right not to have it thrust in your face by the TV, then consenting adults should be free to participate in whatever sexual deviancy they like. That’s a common sense approach to the subject.

What to do with Paedophiles

As for what to do with paedophiles – I’ve really no idea. But there’s clearly a need for a mature public debate – but given the immature behaviour of the Scottish press++ I’ve seen, I severely doubt they can get above the level of playground name calling.

*We have a right to free speech and it’s questionable whether even such appalling comments should be restricted. (There’s no actual incitement)
**(who’s to say what is “normal” in light of “group-marriages” in iron-age Britain – perhaps even monogamy is also a form of deviancy from some “natural” form of human sexual orientation?)
++I was frankly disgusted by the behaviour of the Scottish press and media one homo-sexual marriage where anyone who dared to discuss the subject was attacked by bigoted journalists. It was clear that a certain section of the media were intent on preventing any real discussion on that subject, just as very much the same section have prevented discussion on issues like climate. Totally immature and bullyboy journalism leading to real damage to society.

You’ve got to hand it to NASA’s Gavin Schmidt – he is so frigging arrogant! – but if you’re going to go down, why not go down in screeching squealing flames?
Who else knowing their job was on the line and that the new president is trying to work out when not if he goes, far from keeping their heads down and avoiding attention – would come out all guns blazing to attack the most powerful man in the world?
Gavin! It might work in the movies, but in real life? Haven’t you realised that

you were just a useful stooge for the Democrats

they never cared about the climate any more than the Republicans. And now they’ve gone and no one in power wants your fake data, no sane president is going to allow you anywhere near climate or energy policy.
For fun see: Gavin Schmidt Warns Donald Trump Not to Interfere with the NASA Climate Division

Thinking about the priorities in Climate this morning, the very first was not only to enforce the subpoena against NOAA compelling them to release the emails that no doubt show the Whitehouse forcing them to change the way global temperature was compiled, but to bring criminal charges against them for not immediately complying with it (they were led to believe that they’d never be charged on the assumption that a Democrat would never enforce the law).
Someone needs to go to jail for blocking that investigation!
That will then open the investigation up, but like all investigations it will take time and five years is hardly enough to go through the process of investigating why we got into the mess we are in on climate, working out what needs doing and finally implementing the solutions.
That is why I’d like to see Trump order the FBI (or however it is done) to begin criminal investigations against NOAA and their blank refusal to comply with the lawful subpoena as soon as his feet hit the whitehouse carpet. Because we can’t wait the time to individually investigate everyone in such a massive fraud.
So, what we really need to see, is someone in NOAA being led away with handcuffs within days of Trump getting in. That would send a very clear message to all the fraudsters and con artists in climate that they will not get away with their crimes. That will cause them to want to find a compromise.
Indeed, given how much fraud goes on in academia – we also need to see some prominent academics likewise in handcuffs. This will be the biggest shock imaginable: the idea that they are criminally liable for fraudulent behaviour will be a huge shock to most academics.
For most academics, seeing one of their number being led away in handcuffs simply for making up data will be such a sobering thought ….

Trump is coming

Trump only needs to pick off around a half dozen key people and very quickly the rest of those involved will get the message. This will immediately raise standards – the thought of having to justify how they obtained the “convenient” data in court will cause most researchers to spend a little more time to obtain actual data (or just as importantly, admit they don’t have the data).
However, what we really need to do, is to remove from the literature, all the rubbish that has been printed in the name of climate alarmism in the last two decades.

Climate Truth and Reconciliation

For that, I think we’re going to need something akin to a “truth and reconciliation committee”. In other words, we need to create an atmosphere that both permits academics to admit where they have made up data, but also in the sure knowledge, that if they do not, they likely face jail.

Well done Trump and everyone who worked to get him elected.

I think we can safely say the nerve impulse, that hit the system with climategate, has finally made its way to the top of US politics – and what a squeal they are making!

An overview of the political process from Climategate to present. (Originally published 14th January 2014)

Not long ago the press was full of headlines such as:

• Donald Trump is snubbed by ALL the Scottish Parliament leaders
• Trump’s boasts draw laughs in Scottish parliament
• Donald Trump stripped of business ambassador for Scotland role by Nicola Sturgeon

So, when it looked inevitable that Trump would win, I sent a freedom of information request to ask:

“Please can the Scottish government provide all details, discussions, emails, telephone calls relating to any plans to ban President Trump from Scotland or to otherwise fail to treat him with the dignity of that office”.

I received this response on the 7th Nov:

For years, people like me have sat helplessly watching the evil self-enriching elites of climate and science manipulate the evidence in order to attack US and UK industry, lining their own pockets at the expense of the ordinary working people.
To do that, they have fraudulently manipulated the temperature data in order to show warming that wasn’t there and to further promote the climate scam: the biggest racket in world history.
As the result of this fraudulent behaviour by people at NOAA, NASA and others, Billions if not trillions of dollars of public money, not just in the US but worldwide, has been poured into the pockets of these lying cheating climate elites who have no real interest in climate but instead use “climate terrorism” to force world government to send our money their way.

There has been no bigger racket!

This change is going to be profound. To start, there is no way on earth that President Trump will sign the US up to any pathetic “COP” targets. So, that COP meeting just about to happen is going to be gravy planefuls of “greens” flying yet again to to some exotic location, but this time to do nothing except  shred oil-tankers full of crocodile tears as they they hypocritically tell the rest of us to stop burning fossil fuels. Nothing will be so delightful as the pathetic squeals of the greenblob as it decays into a vile slime from whence it came.
Next, the fraudsters and NOAA, NASA and elsewhere. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes today! They will now be waiting the proverbial knock at the door. Let them wait! They now know they’ve got their comeuppance coming. Over the next few days, weeks, months and then years we’ll hear them squealing as they find themselves being dragged to the block.
Then we have the money-making bird-mincer scamsters. No one is going to want to buy their stock now. What a shame!
Then we have the “scientific elite” and all their moronic mouthpieces in the press & the BBC. That the “scientific elite” who ignored actual science and so completely failed to predict the pause. The scientific elite who weren’t themselves qualified to speak on climate but who viciously attacked those who were qualified and silenced their critics via the power of the Democratic “swamp” and their press mouthpieces.

The public will have an administration that will tell the truth: there has been no significant warming for almost two decades. The climate models are wrong!

And just on a personal note to these moronic mouthpieces in the press. Those who have delighted so much in attacking their critics as so called climate change “deniers” (only a moron denies the climate doesn’t change – it’s been doing it for 4.5billion years!). The US public have today given you a double slap in your face. For not only have the they voted against your expressed commands and elected the person you most despise in the world as the most powerful man on this planet, but he’s just been elected to drain the climate swamp!

Your climate scam is going down!

I started the night trying to find any channel on the internet which wasn’t obsessively pro-Clinton. I didn’t find any, but eventually stuck with Sky as the least sycophantic.
And for the first hour or so it was endless “Clinton this, Clinton that” and repeatedly the words “victory” and “Clinton” were being put into the same sentence. And smiles whenever they discussed the likelihood of a Trump loss.
Then something happened … they all got grumpy. I went to look and Trump was leading 129 to something like 90. So, I thought I’d turn onto the BBC … and with stern faces they were discussing what would happen if Trump wins.
This proves beyond doubt that the media are totally and overwhelmingly pro-Clinton to the point none of them can report impartially. And it also shows that the Exit polls are yet again wrong with another swing to the non-estabishment politics.
If the election were in the UK, I’d be certain Trump will win. However as I’m not that familiar with US politics and voting … I’ll have to wait.

In the last article “The Internet Revolution for Numpties” I explained how the king-makers of the old establishment in the form of the “mainstream” press had lost their power due to the internet and how this had enabled the development of “non-establishment” politics: UKIP, SNP in Scotland, Brexit, Trump & even the Arab Spring. But I chickened out of suggesting where it would lead.
The problem is that the “Internet revolution” or perhaps more accurately “people’s revolution” may have a common technological cause and may be similar in terms of who is losing power (establishments) and who is gaining power (people), but it is not common in old-fashioned “left-right” type descriptions of politics – because these are inherently a description of the differences between establishment parties: what we are trying to describe is a different between establishment politics and people’s politics which is undoubtedly there, but which the establishment press, broadcasters and politicians try to deny exists.
Following the discussion about whether (the establishment in) Parliament or the people should have the last say on whether we Brexit, the old (establishment) chestnut of “we live in a parliamentary democracy” has surfaced. And that is something that will clearly change.
Of course, no one ever had a referendum in which we the people gave sovereignty to parliament. Instead (the establishment in) parliament through (the establishment in) the press & broadcasters told the people (and try to endlessly repeat it) that the establishment are in charge over the people (they’re not!)
In the last article, I explained how the development of printing and the reduction in cost, which meant that ordinary people started to hear about the day to day politics and naturally felt that they ought to have some say. Over many years this eventually developed from the idea that the establishment were in charge (through the king) and the people were ignored, into the the concept that the people had a small say through a beauty contest for which part of the establishment they wanted to run the country – and then the establishment treated the people like children deciding what is best for us.
The Internet Revolution
In days gone by – in order to make a point to your elected representative, you had to travel to London (costing several hundred pounds), be treated like a child and asked to wait outside the area where MPs did the “adult stuff”, and then your MP might eventually deign to meet with you for a few minutes, in which time they would basically either nod as if they agreed (to avoid a long conversation) and then ignore what you said, or if they were young and idealistic, they’d lecture you about how wrong you were and treat you as if “you must just accept that we betters know better”.
The MPs had all the power, and unless you could get a local paper on your side against the MP, or you had the time and money to personally deliver leaflets and try to get a campaign going, there was nothing you could do about it – you just had to go home several hundred pounds poorer and even if you were an expert in your area, if you were not part of the establishment, you just had to accept that your MP had all the power.
Then along came the internet, and because you could contact people without going through the press and without involving your MP or other politicians,  people started campaigning on all types of issues, some small some big. Almost as importantly, people started becoming experts in their own right through the internet without ever being lectured by the establishment on what to believe. However, the political establishment, and the way the press and broadcasters treated the people did not change.
The result, is that we now have two types of politics: “Establishment politics” in which the people are treated like children unable to take any decision except the hard fought for right to have a “beauty contest” once every five years as to which establishment party gets in … and the “people’s politics” which largely exists under the radar of the press and establishment, but which like a volcano, can lie “dormant” under the establishment radar, slowly gathering support, until something causes it to explosively erupt into the view-field of “establishment” parties” when they panic at the sight of this hitherto unknown force.
The Future
This leads to one simple conclusion about what will happen in the future. Just as the printing press started to include relatively ordinary people, so that eventually they pressed home the demands to have some say in politics, now with the internet, people are going to press home the demand to have even more say over politics.
In simple terms, that means we are going to move away from the (establishment) concept of parliamentary democracy (aka the people have a minimal say over which establishment party lords it over us) and we are going to see increasing demands for real democracy – that is rule by the ordinary people, particularly over large issues like membership of the EU. People are no longer going to accept the establishment taking all the decisions for us.
Government Consultations
And just to delve into one of the more corrupt areas of government, I’d like to quickly mention the development of government “consultations”. These are a development (or more likely an established practice) in which the government asks people to comment – and then to be quite frank, they ignore all that has been said by anyone who isn’t part of the “establishment”.
Indeed, there is now a whole art form in government, of finding ways to appear to have a consultation but which is nothing of the form. So, they ask a series of questions about meaningless aspects of a project: but never ask whether the project should go ahead. Many people are taken in. They believe they have been listened to, and so feel they can’t complain at the result, but in fact their submissions were totally ignored.
So, they allow the people to vote on the form of the Scottish parliament – but never reveal the result and only by accident reveal that the architect had been chosen before consultation. They consult on “Lords reform” – and when 10% of the responses are for a citizen’s jury to select the members: it is not mentioned by one establishment broadcaster or in the establishment report (despite the rules clearly stating otherwise). They consult on “renewable energy” – but never once consult the public on the real issue: whether the academic (establishment) obsession with global warming has an credence – or even if it were warming, whether the cost of stopping (largely beneficial) warming is worth the absolutely massive economic cost.
Consultations are a sham – open to everyone – but they only ever listen to “the establishment” contributions and ignore everyone else. This is the way everything is run in the UK from the BBC to the British museum . The establishment decides – and we the people have to accept what they decide for us – and then they have the gall to lecture us about it being a “democracy”!
But as people become increasingly aware of what other people are saying and thinking on a whole host of subjects, and as we learn that this is very different from what the few in the establishment think and do, there will become overwhelming demands that the establishment stop ignoring the wishes of the and start acting like our servants and not our masters.
However, whilst I can predict the mechanism of change, more and more demands for a direct say over important decisions affecting our lives, what I am incapable of doing is predicting what the consensus view of the people will be on specific issues (except in those areas where I have had a long interest). So, whilst the people’s revolution is inevitable, and whilst it will involve a change in balance so that there is far more real democracy and far less “establishment deciding for us”, I still have little idea what ideas and views will prevail in this new era. I may love it, I may hate it.

Having investigated the email scandal, one thing is very clear: the investigations have been blocked at every turn. There is no doubt that Clinton broke the law, there is no way that she shouldn’t have been charged as others who broke the law. Trump makes the case well in this short video:

Like NOAA and NASA who knowingly change the “global temperature” by adjustments it is clear that so long as they have presidential protection they can get away with anything. So those who have the support of the ruling elite in the US can break the law with impunity. The US is corrupt.
That’s clearly what “drain the swamp means”. Washington is now a cesspit of corruption and it is clear that the so called “Department of Justice” is part of that corruption.
This explains the pre-emptive timing of the announcement of the FBI investigation plus the re-emergence of a twitter account that gave details of an investigation into Clinton’s husband’s corruption. It also explains why the DOJ is doing all it can to stop the FBI investigation and why the US administration is leaking like a sieve with emails pouring out onto the internet. The FBI workers do not want to work for a president who is more corrupt, more dishonest AND more reckless than the people they investigate.
From The Daily Caller:
Agents within the Federal Bureau of Investigation want to take down the personnel at the top of the Justice Department, according to a former D.C. based U.S. Justice attorney.
“Just think of the FBI as the Vietcong. That’s what they are. They are digging tunnels under the Justice Department. They are going to sink that place,” Washington attorney Joe DiGenova told The Daily Caller Thursday.
DiGenova, who has bureau sources close to the FBI investigation, named Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kaznick, Assistant Attorney General John P. Carlin, and Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell as senior level staff at DOJ have who have “done something that they are going to regret.”
FBI agents pushed forward, against the wishes of the Justice Department and without the support of bureau leadership, to investigate the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal report.
The FBI has gone somewhat rogue here. They did not destroy the laptops from Clinton they agreed to destroy. Now, they are discoverable evidence. They did not stop investigating the Clinton Foundation either according to the Wall Street Journal. For a long time, I’ve heard whispers of a revolt within the intelligence agencies and sure enough, here it is. Agents even went ahead without the support of the bureau’s leadership.
And that laptop of Weiner’s? Well, they say these agents have already reviewed it and know the contents of it. DiGenova had this to say: “I’m sure they’ve opened them up for god sake’s. You don’t think anybody is going to do that when they have access to it? Of course they’ve done that.” He believes that Comey reopened the investigation because he knows the contents of those emails. “He would’ve never sent that letter unless he had been told there was devastating information that showed that she had committed perjury — she Hillary Clinton had committed perjury on Capitol Hill. She had lied to the FBI during her interview on the July 4 weekend. And that in fact the 33,000 emails are probably on the laptop that she deleted.” Damning if true and again… sucks to be Hillary.
DiGenova claims everything is on that laptop… pay-to-play, classified information, plans to destroy information, etc. If so, Hillary’s goose is truly