For years, the press have been more or less able to determine which politicians got elected and what their policies would be. As such the felt they could attack anyone they didn’t like with impunity as they would never get power and never be able to seek retribution.
Then along came the internet … and with an alternative avenue to hear what was really being said … the public stopped being so gullible and started questioning what the “experts” in the press told us.
However, when you’re a politician who is almost universally hated by the media for not bowing down to their PC dogma (Press conformist??) how do you get publicity?
The answer appears simple – you just do and say anything that outrages the indignant PC crowd – who then go nuts in the media and blogosphere – allowing us all to know what has been said. Not because we ourselves heard the original comments, but because the PC-nutter bloggers and journalists go on endlessly about how much they are offended – and the rest of us think: GOOD!
Indeed, it is now getting to the stage, that the more you can offend the idiot arrogant PC-nutter journalists and bloggers – the more chance you have of being elected!

The rise of the internet

Before the internet, not only did I have less “flow” of novel “(PC) non-conformist” ideas, but when I did develop such ideas, because the press largely controlled what we heard, people like me (and that means everyone)  inevitably felt we were the only person whose ideas did not conform and therefore accepted the rejection of our ideas by the press as not being accepted by wider “society”.
But after the internet, my views of what “wider society thought” was no longer constrained to what the press wanted us to hear. Not only was I exposed to ideas that the press hate, but I began to realise that those ideas I adopted were also held by many other sane sensible people (and we ordinary people  are clearly not the bigots, xenophobes or whatever other vile stereotype the press uses to repress any ideas the plebs have which they dislike).
So, through the internet, I realised that the reason my views weren’t being heard in the media, was not because I was a “lone wolf” (for over half the country appears to be a “lone wolf” on Brexit) but instead it was because of the vile anti-free speech actions of the press relentlessly attacking and repressing any who didn’t accept the “Press Conformist” dogma.
And that is why I just so love to see those journalists who attack everyone else huffing and puffing when someone like Trump, or Boris or Farage or indeed a growing number of politicians – say and do things that make them boil with rage – the more I see the vile journalists boiling with rage – the more I want to vote for those who showed up the vile journalists for the anti-freedom anti-freespeech anti-everyone-who-does-not-bow-down-and-accept-everything-they-say journalists what what they really are.
But the biggest irony – is that people like Trump have realised, that now the press are largely powerless to stop us hearing about people like Trump – the press are forced to report about them – and thus the more Trump outrages the press, the more publicity and support he gets. So ironically the huffing and puffing press are now one of the best ways for Trump to get his message across and to get support.

Deconstructionalism is the fundamental philosophy found in academia and has found favour largely due to the success of following this approach in understanding evolution, chemical composition and even much physics.
The philosophy is simple: that all things can be deconstructed into parts, and that by understanding these parts, one can understand the whole.
In evolutionary biology, this philosophy worked well with an approach of comparing individual features of animals and then grouping them into like animals based on the type of feet (hoof, claw, gripping hand) and along with other features, creating a family tree of animals. Without deconstructionalism, the “family tree” would have been viewed as just a way of categorising animals. But deconstructionalism, says the whole is the sum of its parts – parts that can be viewed separately as having their own properties and behaviour. As such when we see the “same part” in two animals, we can see that the two parts must be related some how – even if the whole animals are clearly very different and not (obviously) related.
Likewise, a similar approach has worked fantastically in chemistry: first grouping chemicals into similar types and then by using various techniques, demonstrating that they are composed of the same basic parts (e.g. Oxides – contain oxide, Carbonates have similar chemistry, that group X, elements have similar properties. Again, the great step forward was to understand that chemical were composed of constituent parts, and that these could be the same in apparently very different compounds.
In Physics, the behaviour of objects that appear chaotic, was seen to be the sum of individual facets: mass, volume/density for gases, temperature, etc. The behaviour of the whole, could (in large part) be predicted from the behaviour of one facet. A man dropped from 100m, whilst they move and shout differently from a lead weight, they will reach the ground at a time almost entirely based on the laws of gravity. Their behaviour is determined from only one facet and not from the whole.
Likewise, a similar approach has worked wonderfully in archaeology. Small pot sherds have been found, classified into “types” and by working out the context (i.e. layer in the ground) from which they come, they can be linked in date to other things and from this – and because humans are constantly changing fashion, it has been possible to date many sites just by small bits of pottery.
The method of comparing features or looking at individual facets, then classifying, identifying “parts”, modelling the behaviour of parts or facets and then  recreating the characteristics of the whole has been hugely successful to such a degree it is now ingrained as very much “THE WAY TO WORK” in much of academia.
And yes, simply knowing & understanding the behaviour of the parts, has been tremendously successful in so many areas of academia, because in many many areas, the behaviour of the whole can be determined from the behaviour of the parts. Continue reading →

The SNP are constantly telling everyone in Scotland two things:

1. The SNP can pay for Scottish separation from England by using all the money they will get from oil
2. The SNP want an end to fossil fuels like oil.

Do you spot the problem?
Quite clearly, if the SNP end fossil fuels, then they won’t have the money to pay for all the public services in Scotland. Total madness! So, how do they get away with it?
There was a comment by Josh the other day: “Can you imagine how a chicken thinks”. And likewise, it is very hard to imagine how the totally gullible scientifically and engineering illiterate politicians and journalists think (if “think” is the right verb).
I can only imagine they “think” that because wind is “free” (the same as coal and oil is free – you just pay to extract it) … that because it is “free”, they can replace oil by wind. Of course, the actual economics is that wind costs money and that the only possible way to make money from wind is to sell it to some other gullible stupid pathetic government committed to an equally stupid “fossil fuel free” economy.
And so long as the rest of the UK was in the EU – where they were being forced by their insane energy policy to spend more and more of the economy buying expensive “wind” (and thereby closing down all energy intensive industries like steel which can no longer afford to operate in the EU) … so long as the UK was under the jack boot of Brussels, the SNP might have been able to fool the extremely gullible.
But not now … now the SNP have a certifiably insane policy: separation from the United Kingdom (there is no independence in the Euro Union … ) and no oil, no money from oil, bird-mincers destroying the wilderness that tourists visit, fishing given to the EU, and the rest of the UK free of the insane EU and not willing to give a penny for the crazy bird-mincer electricity.

Fracking

There is of course, one way out of the hole they dug themselves – and that is fracking. But having also dug a hole for themselves on fracking by saying they are against it … I’m not going to go out of my way to encourage our idiot politicians to change … when it will be easier to change our idiot politicians.

As it looks more and more likely, that Trump is going to win the presidential race in the US, the whining of climate alarmists is increasing to a shrill cry of real alarm.
And at the same time, there is very much a dearth of anything being written about the recent El Nino – something I’m waiting for in order to make further progress understanding the ice-age cycle.
There are two simple explanations:
1. The academics are just upset that global temperatures came down again after the El Nino – and so they can’t bring themselves to write anything admitting there’s been global cooling this year.
2. They are all heavily otherwise occupied working for the democrats.
Either way, it’s more proof that these academics aren’t interested in real science, but instead just cherry pick the data until they find something that helps the (Democrat) cause.

Sci fi movies like star wars involve the creation of heroes fighting a dramatic war against some evil foe.
I’ve already expressed my sympathies with the auks of middle earth – who are supposed to be an evil underclass living in some dark continent who can be killed mercilessly by the “white” men of middle earth such as the “white” did to Aborigenies in Australia, Africa, S.America. Of course, the “whites” live in green gardens with houses stacked with goods – much like the tobacco/slave traders used to. And the “auks” toil and sweat in the hell holes of manufacturing industry – which is clearly where the whites get all their finery from as I never saw a Hobbit doing a days work in any film.
And I’ve said that much of the reason academic hate industry, engineering and therefore climate sceptics, is because they are still tied up in the “clerical culture” that created the Universities and Academia we see today, and that this culture sees themselves as being the “elite” … whilst everyone else are the “Auks” who have to be kept in their place and not “defile” the “elvinish” realms of academia.

But, I’ve now been searching for what real soldiers say to each other in battle and particularly at how humour was used to steady the nerves of troops …
Except, what I see on videos of real soldiers which is full of the language of real people: “fucks”, “bastards” and “shits” and I assume filled by sexual humour (if the accounts of some soldiers are to be believed) … but it’s too crude for Youtube and can I find anything like this “recorded by any academic”? No!
Here’s what one officer speaking to real troops sounds like:

It’s as if the academics were living in a totally different universe and had never been to war (which is obviously true about most). But one quote did stand out:

Among rural people, the presence of women incites indecent jokes, as can be seen with the entry of the barmaid. But in refined society, the presence of a woman inhibits indecent talk which men reserve for the occasion when they are alone by themselves. In such society, where there is a wide social gap all references to the sexual act would be inhibited, and because this, would be amusing if made.

By “rural” they mean people who “don’t speak like us at public school” – who don’t speak “like we’ve got a silver spoon shoved up our arse”.
But another instance proves academics just lie to us:

At Waterloo, Pierre Cambronne commanded Napoleon’s Imperial Guard. When all was lost, a British officer asked him to lay down his arms. Generations of schoolboys have been taught that he replied, “The Guard dies, but never surrenders.” Actually he said “Merde!” (Shit). The French know this. Their euphemism for “merde” is “the word of Cambronne”.

So here we have a clear case of an original being totally completely fabricated by academia and then liberally (silver) spoon fed to ignorant naive schoolkids (sounds much like global warming hysteria – the same people, the same mentality of lying).
Of course – it helps to understand just how pervasive this “norman” v. “British native” battle has become if know that most of the so called “swear” words (words banned in so called “polite” company) tend to be Anglo-Saxon in origin, and that if you want to make something sound “academic” all you need do is to replace the words stemming from an Old-English root to one based on a Norman root (or better still Greek or Latin). You can say exactly the same thing: “Man-made” or”Anthropogenic” … but “Man” is good old English and is akin to swearing whereas  “Anthro” means exactly the same “man” but comes from Greek. Like all the “man” haters who claim it is sexist, they are quite happy to use the same meaning in another language, and that is because you sound “academic”, aka “polite” aka “PC” and by using any words that are not native British, you pretend to know something (you don’t). That’s why phrases like  “Anthropogenic” are so popular in academia.
What has actually happened, is that quite proper words and phrases in Old English have been rebadged and rebranded as crude swearing by teachers & academics brought up in a Norman-French culture that hates the Native Britons, their language, their culture and the people.
Ok, perhaps I’m just feeling pissed off. First, because academics write a lot of waffle – and I’m sick to death reading accounts that look down their noses at everyone else – which replace the noble words of real people with PC crap. But also it;’s because everything I’m reading is the words of Eton or “St.Pauls” public schoolboys writing home to their ma and pa … at the end of the quote it usually says “and he was killed 8 weeks later”.
You’ve got to have some sympathy even if they are upper class twits who volunteered to lead their troops into battle wearing special uniforms that marked them out as the ones whom everyone aimed their guns at (possibly not all from the front).
But of course – this “public school” versus the “tommys” is the remnants of a ethnic divide that came about at the Norman invasion (although the origins are even older, perhaps as much as a thousand years earlier).
Yes, William the Bastard was a very nasty thug – who only has any kind of reputation because a 1000 years of sychophantic texts from historians brought up in the Norman-French culture of academia need to maintain him as a hero rather than the ruthless thug he was.
And to them he really was the hero – one who gave them and their ancestors control over the rest of us …. who allowed them to steal wealth beyond their wildest dreams – who gave the invaders and all their descendants their privileged “public-school boy” culture and all their benefits including for example the “Royal Society” … who still embody many of the Norman-French ideas (such as their language and words being superior in “science” than those horrible native Britons and their “vulgar” engineering and industry).
Then I was reading how the “upper class” officers in WWI, had to stop wearing officer uniforms because the obliging Germans would pick out these “upper class” twits who William the Bastard put in charge and kill them first.
Just as all the Norman-French rich CHAVS (CHeltenham boys college AVerage)  these days are toning down their language to make themselves sound like natives (it’s hard to be elected – even with all the money behind you – if you sound like a CHAV), so in WWI, they had to dress like the British natives.
And I was thinking in the midst of this: “who are the Tommy’s (Native British) real enemy …. the Germans or the silver-spoon up their arse Norman-French officers and Oxbridge academics” …
… when it occurred to me, that I would love to see a movie based on the same dilemma … and how easy it would be ….
We star with a standard star trek video … and then it suddenly cuts to a standard star wars video. Each has all the usual characters, all the normal themes that they are heroes …. but this time we have them meeting each other and … we see in each camp that to them they are thrashing the hell out of some evil empire attempting to destroy them  … but we as outsiders see two groups of favourite characters, both of whom are always portrayed as heroes and always in the right …. but trying to kill each other.
It would literally be a horror film – and to be honest, whist the present generation are quite capable of eating their dinner whilst watching scenes of people’s legs being blown off and blood gushing realistically over the floor … what they cannot cope with is moral ambiguity.
When do we ever see a film, where there is not a very clear and unambiguous hero. Indeed, whilst I propose the idea, I’m not convinced I would like the film … and it might be necessary to create two films – one ending in a victory for Star wars and another for Star Trek.
For more examples of “battle speeches” see:
http://mons-graupius.co.uk/index.php/battle-speeches

To put it simply … they want to dump 10,000 tonnes of gravel into a stream to move it a few meters … because that is “natural”?

Friends of Latchmore

If there is one thing I learnt from my own run in with eco-facists on our local area known as “Lenzie Moss”, it is that eco-fascists enjoy destroying nature: chopping down trees (press), showing their “eco-powers”, by flooding areas of sensitive shrubby-moss and converting them to “municipal carpark” style areas of wet grass.
Of course, the real driving force is their own greed. Raw nature – that is the landscape that develops without man – doesn’t create any employment for these vile eco-fascists. So, they need to create a “pseudo-nature” …nature that can’t exist without employing this eco-fascists!
In our area was known as the “Mountain moss” – a RAISED area, which was covered in moss and surrounded by areas of shrubland … mainly because of the large amount of rain it receives and not through poor drainage … they sought to create an area of FENLAND … or sunken bog WITH NO TREES.
And because this whole daft scheme is based on some idiotic academic “research” in some lowland areas of (dry) England – and not in raised areas of moss Scotland … it now requires an army of eco-fascists to force the area to be “restored” into an English Fen.
The problem is that the raised bog was only naturally devoid of trees, Where the deer used to eat the saplings faster than they could grow. In other words in the wet centre. But because the eco-fascists come with their “no trees grow on bog” … “research” … they insist they have to cut down all the trees, which then removes the cover for the deer, and so the deer no longer eat the grass and saplings … so the grass and saplings are now taking over and the natural moss vegetation that anyone with any common sense would be trying to save … is now disappearing.
And an area of superb natural beauty where dozens of people could go and be happy because of the tree screening feel they were alone, now has all the tree screening removed, so rather than feeling like wilderness … this site (a few miles from Scotland’s biggest city) now looks directly out onto a road, a railway, … and over the flats of Glasgow and the trees and moss are now just a flat wasteland of grass (with far less birds!)
So, when I saw this headline on the BBC:

New Forest stream campaigners dubbed ‘climate deniers’

I knew this was extremely likely to be another evil money-grabbing bunch of eco-fascists trying to force their own (bogus) view of “nature” onto nature … for money. And sure enough, it’s industrial eco-fascism, trying to get their greedy hands on shedloads of public money which yet again is trying to destroy nature to make it “natural”.
So please support:

Friends of Latchmore

These headlines today just about say it all:

• Climate Progress : 2 claims that Americans like to make about undocu­mented immigr­ants, debunked
• Climate Progress : In Fox’s ‘Pitch,’ women and sports aren’t mutually exclusive concepts
• Climate Progress : Twitter suspends top Second Amendment advocate who called for violence against Charlotte
• Climate Progress : Police won’t be charged for killing Korryn Gaines and shooting her 5-​year-​old son
• Climate Progress : Hillary Clinton actually broached the topic of poverty
• Climate Progress : Pastor disputes cops’ account of how a protester was shot in Charlotte
• Climate Progress : The GOP committee obsessed with Planned Paren­thood is harassing scientists
• Climate Progress : Teenage Syrian Olympian swimmer reminds world leaders what’s at stake for refugees like her
• Climate Progress : The myth of Gary Johnson
• Climate Progress : Dakota Access pipeline is a long-​haul fight, but tribes have scored a key victory

OK, I occasionally blog about things other than climate – but then again I’m not “Scottish climate sceptic” but “Scottish sceptic”. But when you call yourself “Climate progress” and you have almost nothing to say about climate – something is dire!
The reason is obvious – we’ve had the El Nino temperature peak, and contrary to all their hype, the world showed no untoward effects and is dead set on being cooler for a good more years to come … to put that in simple terms … the return to “19,20,21,22,23…. years no warming”, no increase in extreme weather, no change in snow, droughts, floods, etc. etc. etc. another year without an increase in Hurricane trend, another year, where the trend is global cooling, another year where the politicians have far better things today than pander to idiot climate fanatics.
 

Asking a climate sceptic whether they want to become politically popular is one of the truly bizarre questions – because if we cared at all about being popular we’d have never been climate sceptics (back in the dark days before climategate).
But obviously, we’d love the rest of the world to accept our views – there’s nothing we’d like better than people joining us – it’s just we’re not going to change our views to join them to become popular.
However “being popular” was not something we risk much – at least amongst the “political classes” of media and politicians. Indeed, there’s a lot to be said for being in a minority – because when you are, it’s pretty certain that whatever politician or journalist we annoyed – it was pretty certain they were some brainless alarmist. So, no worry or pussy footing about – we only had to remember the few dozen on our side and could clag off the rest.
But now, with the British conservatives becoming increasingly sceptics, Donald Trump look more and more electable compared to the tired out and email entangled Clinton and now Sarkozy coming out to support real science, real evidence and common sense, there’s now a real chance that we sceptics might become the “political consensus”.
Increasingly as we fire a “pot shot” at the media we risk “friendly fire” – hitting some journalist or politician who is increasingly hostile to climate alarmism.
However all is not lost! At least for us sceptics in Scotland – we still have our delusional politicians (notably the SNP) and there is no immediate prospect of us ever having to praise our politicians for finally adopting evidence based climate policy.

12 days out of hospital and I’m still slowly returning to “normal” – although I’m still on strong drugs which have “interesting” effects and with the diagnosis as to what caused my stay in hospital still unclear I’m trying to avoid any foods, plants, chemicals & medicines, that could just be responsible.
In terms of climate: it’s been odd coming back to the subject. It’s as if it’s stuck in a time warp and I feel as if I need a “remote”  to “fast forward” over the boring bit of time where so many people still believe in “global warming” to the part of time where things start to get interesting again as the subject of climate is debated with intelligence rather than senseless dogma.
And Brexit (and the previous Scottish vote against separation) have given me the confidence, that despite what some in the media constantly try to tell us, and the rantings of our stupid politicians, not only do people who think like me dominate the on-line discussions – but we are the real majority.
 
 

I repeated the story so many times:
On the Thursday I was working in the Garden and noticed a scratch and some spots which I assumed were insect bites.
Friday there were more.
Saturday I went swimming and thought jokingly: “I hope it’s not infectious”.
Monday 2.30am the spots, intense itching and conjunctivitis was so bad I went to A&E and got prescribed anti-biotics.
Mon-Thursday was spent on the sofa almost 24hr a day watching TV because the background noise stopped me thinking about the itching.
Thursday – I started packing a bag knowing my wife would send me to hospital when she saw me, but also arranging cards and presents for her as it was her birthday.
Thursday ended with me only being able to give a urine sample with help.
Fri – not sure where I was. I can’t be sure as I didn’t have a mirror to look, but much of my body must have been covered with a rash.
Sat – Mon – I must have been in the same ward -I guess I took my first steps unaided on Sat but always unable to sleep more than a few hours at night.
Tues – finally escaped – discovered that I can still type (just) although it feels like rubber bands are pulling all my tendons in.
As for treatment – it’s now a lot simpler with only one A4 sheet filled with chemicals I can’t pronounce. The biggest hassle was working out how to apply all the various different creams – finishing at the lips, then wash the hands that applied the cream, gargle the mouth wash and take the pills with water without swallowing the cream on my hands/lips. Also how does one prevent creams that creep along the body – going into the eyes (horror picture of result may follow)
(painfull tendonitice prevents more)