Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Of Cultural Marxism, Blue Helmets and the "Pink Army"

A Dutch lobby group for gays in the military, "Pink Army" is livid! An American General has told the US Senate Armed Services Committee, that the sacking of the Bosnian enclave Srebrenica in 1995 occurred as a result of the Dutch policy that allowed gays in the military. At least, that is what the MSM, and fuming liberal politicians after them have been paroting for days. The chaps in the Pink Army are pondering a law suit.

But what General Sheehan has actually said was that European armies deteriorated after the collapse of the Soviet Union and focused on peacekeeping because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back.

Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and other nations believed there was no longer a need for an active combat capability in the militaries. They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military — that includes the unionization of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality. 

- Caption: Serb General Mladic and the Dutch Commander Karremans -  
Dutch troops serving as U.N. peacekeepers and tasked with defending the town of Srebrenica in 1995 were an example of a force that became ill-equipped for war. The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them.

Truth is, that the haphazardly declared enclaves were impossible to defend. The Bosnian Muslim army continued to conduct raids into Serb territory from this 'neutral zone'; one day the Serbs decided to act. But worst of all it was the UN that had the lead in the war. They provided the peace keeping forces with light arms, throwing in 1 (one) tank between them for good measure, so as not be 'provocative'!

General Sheen is right, but he is missing the full picture. The 'socialization' of the military to which he's refering happened during the Den Uyl government, who - like Obama today - was conducting a program of "fundamental transformation" (code for a bloodless revolution).

This government vowed to reform society based on the "democratization" of private corporations and governmental institutions - higher education, police and the army amongst others - and 'nivellation', the redistribution of wealth with a view to an equality of outcome. The military and civil servants were allowed to unionize and obtained the right to strike.

Ideally corporations and institutions "mirrored" minorities in society - the early form of what is now termed 'diversity'. Reverse sexism and racism was the result. The last remaining vestiges of that era are the military unions and now, the "Pink Army".
- Caption: the case of the long haired Rinus Wehrman - 

But the scope of the New Left's bloodless revolution was much wider and took place all over the Western world. Only now, years after the events do we know that some years prior, McCarthy wasn't that far off the mark as is often claimed. The West was riddled with Soviet moles, fellow travelers and useful idiots. The Frankfort School was the incubator and director of this onslaught of cultural Marxism.

The peace movement was infested with agitators and agents provocateurs. They were protesting against the same cruise missiles that eventually necessitated the Soviet Union to drop out of the arms race. It was however a fatal mistake to think that after the collapse of the USSR, the Left had conceded defeat. Now they're back with a vengeance.

Looking back on history from satellite height one can discern the pattern of the postmodern dialectic. This narrative builds on the Marx dialectic, that created the dichotomy of oppressors versus oppressed. This narrative  goes as follows: "the" truth does not exist; all oppressed minorities - genders, races, ideas, religions and cultures - are equal in value and validity ... except the West's which are uniquely evil. The group oppressors consists in affluent, white, heterosexual males. (Read or watch Isabel Allende's "The House Spirits" which embodies this drama like no other.)

Gays in the military are a part of this dialectic. Also peruse our dossier "Socialist Causes Explained". Despite all this talk of equality there is a certain hierarchy of victimhood: some are definitely more equal than others. But whoever has the audacity to outgrow one's victimgroup, is inviting the fulll wrath of socialist curse. More on this subject in part II of our series on progressive cosmology.

- Caption: Condoleezza Rice lost her black victimhood status because she is a Republican i.e. political color trumps race - 

If you fail to see the logic or common sense in a certain position the Left is taking, just ask yourself the question, what course of action would hurt the West most, and you've got your answer. That is the ultimate goal, also of gays in the military. The sacking of Srebrenica wasn't because of gays in the military, but it happened as a result of the demoralization program, of which they are part and parcel..


- "Socialist Causes Explained"
- "The Dialectics"
- "The Cosmology of the Progressive Narrative"
- A Soviet defector tells about how he was just doing his job
- "Postmodern Ravages"
- "Pomo Lingo"
- "The Case of Neo Communism"

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, March 22, 2010


- Caption: by "
The People's Cube"-


Start Thinking Right: "Why ObamaCare Passage Marks A Day That Shall Live In Infamy", by Michael Eden

The pundits have rightly compared the gigantic ObamaCare bill with the Roosevelt administration – if nothing else than because we haven’t seen any government program so gigantic since then.

In a way that is very fitting. Because we can bookend December 7, 1941 and March 21, 2010 with the same prediction: a day that shall live in infamy.

December 7th was a disaster because FDR utterly failed to see a clear and present danger building on opposite sides of both oceans. We failed to take precautions. We failed to arm ourselves. We even failed to protect ourselves. What made it so criminal was that we had years of ample warning, but simply chose to ignore it.

March 21 was hardly a surprise, either. Just as with December 7, a lot of Americans saw it coming, but lacked the power to do anything but point and shout about the coming disaster. The major difference is that on December 7, 1941, our government failed to protect our way of life, whereas on March 21, 2010, our government actively attacked our way of life. (...) >>>
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Live Tweets From Code Red Washington DC #KillTheBill

Update: protests continue unabaited


And while the Health Care Reform Bill is a direct assault on the soul of America, it could have been a wonderful day of purpose, united for liberty.

But the warped mind of the opponents, being racists, couldn't let so much democracy stand in the way of a good, racial slur. Gateway Pundit has the story. Herebelow is the video disproving the "manufactured offense".

You have to ask yourself, whatever were the people of the Black Caucus thinking to expose themselves to such an "angry mob"? Doesn't the Capitol have a back door or some other means to leave the building? It's almost a provocation. Couldn't it be that since nothing untoward happened, the required results were simply imagined (thought creates reality)?

Update: some commentators (BarbaraS, el Polacko) on the Gateway Pundit posting are making the same point. And there's an eye witness: it never happened.

More footage on Dana Loesch.

Charlie Martin on PJM is covering the numbers game and the media coverage (or lack there of):
(...) It would appear that a decent estimate for the size of the rally by the end was at least 30,000 people; tweeted estimates in excess of 40,000 seem a bit high.
But credit where credit is due: this time, the media estimates are only off by a factor of between 10 and 100.
Larrey Anderson looks ahead on probable constitutional challenges.

Gateway pundit video


- Anne's Power Surge Blog: "More Proof That There Was NO Racial Slur"

- Washington Times: "EDITORIAL: The race card canard - Democrats play dirty pool to pass Obamacare"


Andrew Breitbart is putting up $10,000 of his own money for one instance of the N word!

- Big Hollywood: "Lonewolf Diaries: Hollywood Liberals Say “Proof is For Fruitcakes!”", by Steven Crowder

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Also Sprach Zarathustra. And What Say You, Khamenei?

Afshin Ellian is blogging today on the rich pre Islamic cultures and religions of Iran. This Wednesday marks an important day in the tradition of Zoroastrianism. But it's caught up in the crack down of the regime on dissenters.

Rather than translating the entire post, due to time constraints have chosen in part for the descriptive style.

Iran is the only Muslim country with a strong pre Islamic consciousness. For centuries people have been trying to keep the traditions alive, none to the pleasure of the Ayatollahs.

In the Middle Ages the Islamic authorities declared the people of Zarathustra dhimmis, on par with Jews and Christians. This saved their lives.

- Capture: Chehel Sotoun's Wall painting, that dates back to the Safavid era, depicts a Chaharshanbe Suri celebration - 

Festivities begin on the eve of the last Wednesday of the year: Chaharshanbe Suri. Bonfires are lit. Jumping the flames cleanses the soul. It is followed by the green celebrations, the feast of the resurrection of nature. Not death, matyrdom, not paradise, but life in the here and now is celebrated.

Last night millions of people in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kurdistan celebrated victory of light over darkness. The Ayatollahs have been trying for centuries to declare the festivities unislamic. This year Ayatollah Khamenei pronounced a fatwa, denouncing the celebrations as irrational perfidy.
"Irrational? Is Islamic prayer rational? Is chopping off hands in the 21st century rational? Is the adoration of a building in Mekka rational? Perfidy? Is the rape of protesters not perfidy? What is perfidy? Having sex with a nine year old girl, or the celebration of the eternal light?
Will Khamenei's fatwa be respected? Will there be no celebrations this year? What's quite rational are the security measures taken in Tehran. The leaders of the green movement, Mousavi and Karoubi have been calling for the celebrations to proceed as usual. As a matter of intimidation the Revolutionary Court convicted six protesters to death. To no avail."
It started after sunset. Violent confrontations between security forces and protesters have been reported in Tehran, Isfaham, Mashhad, Ardebiel, Rasht, Boroujerd and other cities. The green movement isn't against Islam, but against the tyranny of the Islamists. Most greens want a secular state.

Watch the videos in the original post.


Der Spiegel sits down with Neda Agha Soltan's fiance, the 38 year old journalist Caspian Makan, who fled the country and now lives in Canada.

Related dossiers

- "Ellian Blogs"
- "Persian Power Play"
- "Nuclear Proliferation"
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Thought Creates Reality, or The Slaughter House Rules

The critique of postmodern thought is the centerpiece of present blog. We've been doing it since 2006 when I left my native country, the Netherlands for Greece, to embark upon a quest to find out, what TF had happened to my country.

It soon transpired - the Pope pointed the way - the problem was relativist thought. Further investigation disclosed there's a container expression for it and a host of other fallacies as its result: it's called postmodernism. For those unfamiliar with the subject, let me explain it as succinct as possible.

The core of postmodernism holds that "the truth" (or more precise, concepts) do not exist. Every school of thought, culture, race, religion, ideology is equally valid (except the West's, which are uniquely evil). We know this as multiculturalism.

They hold that language consists in arbitrary labels, and isn't an expression of a concept rooted in reality. As a consequence they believe that if you give something another name, the "essence" of the object itself has changed (I place essence in quotation marks (or postmodern irony marks), because they deny that as well).

A train of further fallacies ends in the notion that thought creates reality, instead of the other way around, and that thus, an object in "the real world" depends upon our consciousness for its existance. A postmodernist might well ask, will the sun rise tomorrow if I die overnight?

Once disconnected from the reality, literally anything goes.

This utter nonsense is all around us, but it is unique in history that we can observe the disastrous consequences from up close, in the US Democratic party in general and the Obama administration in particular. In this instant I am refering to the "Slaughter House Rules".

I give you the Wall Street Journal of this morning:
WSJ: "Slaughter House Rules"
We're not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely "deem" that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway. (...) 
We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are. (...) Democrats are, literally, consuming their own majority for the sake of imposing new taxes, regulations and entitlements that the public has roundly rejected but that they believe will be the crowning achievement of the welfare state. (...) >>>
Staunch objectivists might call it a coup, yet others might question their sanity. But postmodernists aren't insane, or even psychotic in any physical sort of way - they are the victims of a very vicious anti-ideology that is essentially a philosophical war crime: it's a war on reason. They have a completely warped sense of reality.

Mind you, we're talking here about the core piece of the Obama's "fundamental transformation" of the United States, a Bill that will change the relationship between the citizen and the state, in a reversal of the philosophy that is at the heart of what is America: Liberty. It is also a government take-over of 1/6 of the US economy. (...)

And it is constructed under the notion that ... thought creates reality. Be afraid ... be very afraid.


- "Postmodern Ravages"
- "Pomo Lingo"
- "The O Team: Mental Babies With Razors"
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, March 15, 2010

Founders Quotes

"On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already?" --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Query 12, 1782

Find one in your Inbox every day and subscribe at Patriot Post

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Are You Ready for the Third Hockey Team?

Despite fierce ciriticism UN SG Ban Ki-moon and IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, are maintaining that their hypothesis about man-made climate change is entirely valid.

Yet they've requested Dutch scientist Robbert Dijkgraaf, chairman of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW), to conduct an independent investigation into the work processes at the IPCC.

He's not going to redo or score the IPCC's 2007 5th Assesment, which is essentially a propaganda pamphlet meant to bring politicians on the climate bandwaggon. But he will investigate the scientific validity of the IPCC method, so that's a good thing.

In the Netherlands this was big news! Not because it involves a compatriot, but because it aims at putting tax payers' minds at rest: that all is well in the climate narrative and that their hard earned savings aren't misspend on hoaxes. See, how seriously we're taking the allegations?! We're doing all we can to make the charges go way. It says everything about the part the MSM is playing in the 'consensus' conspiracy.

A similar enquiry was launched just a few weeks ago at the behest of the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee that aims at investigating the unethical and criminal conduct by researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, the original "hockey team". It stranded days later when it transpired that most members of the Russell enquiry were in some capacity or other involved in waming theory (see Greenism dossier, entries dated Feb. 12, 2010): the Russell enquiry turned out just to be another "hockey team".

This is why the community of climate skeptics is keenly eyeing Dijkgraaf's scientific credentials. Well, he makes the noises of a unadulterated greeny, speaking in a radio interview of 'biodiversity' (this is not a normal Dutch word, but a favorite in the ecological lexicon). On the positive side, he's lauding the good, scientific process of the peer review, but doesn't seem to notice that lack thereof is at the heart of the CRU Climategate scandal.

- Caption: brillant sarcasm and witty cynism at "The People's Cube" - 

There's more bad news. Dijkgraaf is a mathematical physicist. That would be the class of scientists whose calculations yield a world view consisting of no less than thirteen parallel universes resting on a single membrane. They truly think there's nothing remarkable about such a contention. Because their claims can't be falsified by empirical means, they've developed a mentality which is more consistent with a belief system than with science.

Marcel Crok, a skeptic blogging on the Dutch Climategate blog, has caught Dijkgraaf largely ignorant of climate science, but entirely willing to comply with the 'consensus' - that arbiter of the postmodern version of 'truth'.

A few commentators are pointing to an open letter Dijkgraaf sent last year to President Obama, which ends with this piece of tear-triggering prose:

You are an intellectual, who graduated with honors at prime institutions.  You are aware of the power of words, thought and ideas and you show that the use of reason is not to a person's disadvantage. Unlike your predecessor, who went for his gun at the drop of the word science, you will be able to let the world once again hear the pure voice of reason. The world will be grateful. 

This shows Dijkgraaf's keen political involvement. He's not just a Bush basher, obviously suffering from BDR (Bush Derangement Syndroom), he's also a true believer in the Obama adulation cult. Does this mean he's sharing Obama's Marxist principles? Or is he just another sheeple, who thought an enquiry into the Obama background would be grossly overdoing it?

Commentators are also remarking that in addition, Dijkgraaf in the same letter lauds Obama's pick for Energy, warming advocate Steve Chu, which he typified as a "brilliant move".

Dijkgraaf's field (string theory) shows worrisome similarities with climate science: a young discipline in which  little experimental verification is possible; peers dare come up with completely absurd hypotheses, like "the theory of everything".

"Just how warmist is Dijkgraaf?", asks Crok. In a TV interview the physicist signals approval of two climate science colleagues, who're claiming to be one hundred percent behind claims of ocean acidification; another was claiming that Greenland's icecap is melting on account of CO2 emissions. The article concludes with little optimism about Dijkgraaf's impartiality.

Hans Labohm is a renowned critic of warmism and sums it up in a post on De Dagelijkse Standaard as follows:

"A sick branch of science like climatology that is politicized through and through, can't be fixed with an enquiry and a change of policy. What's needed is a traditional, open and free scientific discussion, not tightly directed Lysenkoism by climate alarmists. But don't expect the UN to a advance such a cause. In diplomatic life I've dealt with such organizations. While they may do great job in other fields, the manipulation of information, which may be subtle or not, is on the order of the day, all for our own good of course! UN bureaucrats know better what's good for humanity than the people themselves. (...) >>> 
De Groene Rekenkamer (the Green Audit) is concluding the following:

"Why does a man like Dijkgraaf accept such an assignment, which is obviously meant to clear the IPCC, or better perhaps, meant to divert attention. While "looking into possible improvement" implies that something is indeed wrong right now and is an admission of sorts, it's not enough. What's needed is a complete overhaul of what's known as "overwhelming evidence", whether there exists a climate problem or not (...) >>>
As said before, climate loyalists are deeply entrenched in their hypothesis. It will take some doing to collapse this house of cards. Truly staggering amounts of tax payers' money is involved. Persons, institutions, corporations and foundations (like the BBC pension fund) have invested heavily in the carbon offset business.

Increasingly,  for image-technical reasons corporations have adopted a green aura. Not to speak of the climate industrial complex for the new, green economy, like the Apollo Alliance and the Lisbon Council. Psychologically they need to make a 180 degrees pivot. This will hurt and people will inevitably end up with egg on their faces.

The process of the global redistribution of wealth under the auspices of the UN - actually a covert direct tax base for the UN - from the wealthy West to the poor Southeast, involves some 100 to 350 billion dollars ... a year! These are truly astronomical figures and great interests! So, don't hold your breath just yet.


Larrey Anderson on American Thinker draws an interesting parallel between the current crisis of science behind man-made glowbull warming and Logical Positivism. Read at all in "The Best-Laid Schemes..."

There has never been a scientific scam in the history of mankind as big as the science swindle of "climate change." Nothing comes close. Modern scientific hustles like mesmerism, phrenology, eugenics, the Piltdown man, and even Lysenkoism, pale in comparison to the flimflam of anthropomorphic global warming (AGW). (...) >>>
Related dossiers

- "Greenism"
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, March 8, 2010

Of Elites, Liberty and the Manipulation of Perception

Word is getting out, and it is explained better and better. I first heard about the false Left and Right dichotomy, reading Stephen Hicks' "Explaining Postmodernism", now entirely available online.

With Communism and Socialism on the far Left, and Nazis and fascists on the extreme Right hand side of this political scale - capitalism and liberty is positioned smack in the middle? It just doesn't make sense.

Ayn Rand had this to say about Nazism and Mussolini's Italian Social Republic:
The political origin of that notion is more shameful than the “moderates” would care publicly to admit. Mussolini came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Italy. Hitler came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Germany. It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis—with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.
It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism). (...) Read the lexicon
Oh, and let's not forget the secret Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Non Aggression Treaty, which was not as outrageous as it may seem. Word has it that even before 1939 Nazis were holding military exercises on Soviet territory.

Andie Brownlow on Pajamas today has the following overview on the subject, and throws in a shortlist of recent history, of the Leftist press dealing with the enemy, i.e. liberty. As a now deeply middle aged, Leftist stand-up even last night had it: everything bad that befalls us is America's fault (but then, he also thinks reactionary is the opposite of proactive, so perhaps never mind him).

As we conclude in "Socialist Causes Explained", in case Leftist actions defy all sense and logic, ask yourself this and you've got your answer: what course of action would hurt the West or the cause of liberty (read capitalism) most?

Pajamas: "American Media, Blaming the ‘Right’: From Duranty and the KGB to Reuters", by Andie Brownlow
A Reuters article last month titled “German protesters stop neo-Nazi march in Dresden” takes a hyper-partisan stab at what would otherwise have been a dull story. The article is short, 474 words, and describes a neo-Nazi funeral march in the German city to remember Nazi deaths by the Allied air raid in WWII. This event was thwarted by anti-Nazi protesters.
In this brief article about clear-cut good and evil, the political “right-wing” was awkwardly invoked six times, including under the caption. Such a ham-handed approach to finger-pointing can hardly go unnoticed. It is a sloppy attempt to paint the right-wing as sharing the ideology of one of the most evil men in history, Adolf Hitler.
As many people are beginning to understand, Nazism has nothing to do with modern conservatism or the clichéd “extreme right-wing” canard favored by the political left. In fact, all totalitarian regimes are on the extreme political left; nothing but anarchy exists on the extreme political right.
The modern left has its roots in the political phenomenon of the 1930s when progressivism, communism, fascism, socialism, and Nazism coalesced under the common flag of centralized governments and an ideology of collectivism. This worldwide movement went largely unchallenged ideologically until the reassertion of classical liberalism through the American conservative movement in the 1950s. (...) >>>
Read here about the moral equivalent of war, which explains the need for unity in the face of a common enemy, global warming. The moral equivalent of war turns out to be nothing less than an exalted means to mobilization for what's deemed an ethically superior cause: that's fascism, thought up by the groundlayer of "progressive" collectivist Pragmatism, William James.

Read here how politically demoralized commentator Andrew Sullivan is wriggling out of Orwell's correct analysis that pacifism is objectively pro fascist. This RINO is juggling objectivity and subjectivity as it were a cup game, and plays the card that any old Leftist habitually does, the ethics of good intentions (or deontology), in other words, the-perpetual-get-out-of-jail-card.

The more you learn, the more you feel liberated from INGSOC.


- "The Dystopia of Paradise"
- "Just Doing his Job", interview with Soviet defector, Juri Bezmenov
- "Socialist Causes Explained"
- "The Press from Hell"
- "Under the Bus"
- "In Defense of Liberty"
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Saturday, March 6, 2010

The Answer to Nazis! is More Nazis!

Thanks to the feigned outrage today in the British Uberlefty newspaper The Guardian, another proud Conservative initiative is producing a flurry of activity on Twitter and the blogosphere: the Young Britons Foundation (YBF), presided over the EuroMP Daniel Hannan of last Saturday's Tea Party UK's fame.

The way the Left is dealing with this activism on the Right is wearing increasingly thin. It starts with moral outrage and condemnation, firmly placing the causes of these groups ethically beyond the pale, you know - as in "swastika toting astroturf" and "climate change deniers".

The article purportedly dug up the YBF's Chief Executive, Donal Blaney idenfying the foundation as "a Conservative Madrasa" that radicalises young Tories. If he did so, that was ill advised at worst, but we don't know if the article's claim is actually true. Stop Press: statement is traced back to Conservative commentator, Iain Dale, who's pretending to be angry he's not properly credited by The Guardian (already tweeted him that it was pretty stupid handing the ammo to the angry and smug).

Apparently it's next to criminal to ... describe the NHS as "the biggest waste of money in the UK", claim that global warming is "a scam" and to suggest that the waterboarding of prisoners can be justified. Life is hard among the terminally selfrighteous Left!

While Blaney also stands accused of having said that protesters who trespass ought to be shot down by the police, this statement is later modified to Blaney having said: "start with water cannon and if that doesn't work, maybe crank it up a level or two". Perhaps it's no coincidence this is right on par with Wilders' fanthom declaration that "soccer hooligans ought to be shot in the knees", which also can't be traced back to an event in real life.

Anyway, these days the Left, experiencing intense fear, panic and deranged hatred is considered a sign of real progress. Their existential angst and disproportionate hatred of Conservative women has completely given the game away. The Left's squeals and contortions like vampires to garlic are in equal measure to the Right's success. So keep it up, guys!

I see my fellow "immediate past" packmember, Bloghound  Charon QC is also on the case. He beat me to it, but that's just because I hit the pillow at 3.15 this morning. In "The Next Stunt – A Tory ‘ Madrasa’… a Madrasa? Mon Dieu!" he lays a bridge to that wonderful Mel Brooks comedy "The Producers" (1968 version, 2005 version), that spawned the hilarious act "Springtime for Hitler".

We need to deal with the Left's Nazis, Hitler, fascist, racist, extremist, radical, angry mob tags and Charon QC may have hit on the right answer. We'll work on that one. Every so often the solution turns out to be humor.

The reason The Guardian can spin their diatribe at length is because Tory leader David Cameron stubbornly refuses to pivot on his copying of, first Blair's Labour, and now the Obama campaign. You could have knocked me down with a feather when it transpired last night that Cameron actually hired the Obama PR Czars, Anita "Mao Tse" Dunn and Bill Knapp for TV debates with Brown. What's next? Plouffe Axelrod and Rhambo Deadfish for fake charismatic Tory postmodernism? (don't be surprised if it actually happened!)

Despite the Brown Labour Government being wildly unpopular, Cameron still stands a good chance of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, e.g. still losing the upcoming general elections by a narrow margin. As we have seen in America, the winning ticket is the Party of No, No to Big Government, and not promises of more of it, as Cameron's campaign implies. The Guardian makes the aim of the article crystal clear:
The links are likely to be deeply embarrassing for the Tory leader, David Cameron, who has pledged to make the NHS his top priority if he becomes prime minister and has attempted to present his party as the choice for green voters. The Conservatives have also talked tough on torture, with the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, saying torture "helps terrorists justify their hostility to us".
With May 6 as election day looming, the UK is on a disaster course. In the face of so much ill aimed energy we can do with the likes of the Young Britons Foundation. At least we'll have the consolation to know that a firm cohort is on the horizon of real, 'radical' Tories who'll cling to Liberty, with God and guns to back it up.

- Young Britons Foundation Website
- On Twitter
YouTube Channel
Facebook Group


USA Today: "Brits' campaign backfires in Ohio

Here's more on the Left's tactic of move-the-Left-to-the-center-by-pushing-the-Right-to-the-extreme-right. They've lied and manipulated so often, they've completely lost sight of what is objectively true and what is manufactured perception:

NPR: "Top Republicans: Yeah, We're Calling Obama Socialist"

"(...) You have to identify something and label it so you can talk about it," she says, "and 'socialism' is a good scare word. I'm so tired of this politically correct crap," Gosney says. "If it's socialism, let's call it that. If not, let's call it something else (...)"


- "Rules for the Right
- "London Calling

Related articles by Zemanta

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, March 5, 2010

Climategate: Despite 'Consensus", Far From Over

Normally news related to the Climategate issue - as far as I'm concerned an umbrella term for the entire global warming hypothesis - goes straight into the "Greenism" dossier. For technical reasons this item does not. The latest entry is positing evidence that the SoroS spiderweb of radical leftist organizations is for legal purposes an extension of the Obama administration. They're cooking the climate books in favor of "Big Wind" as they go along ("think numerous European companies, not merely a few utilities and GE").

In Britain, the Institute of Physics (IOP) has been testifying for the Parliamentary Select Committee for Science and Technology, and attacked the scientific process as it is conducted at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. The IOP accused these scientists of "apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements".

Today the lefty newspaper The Guardian, itself wholly aboard the 'climate change consensus', plays a game of 'gotcha' journalism on the worn out basis of "bias" and "working for dirty oil".

It has 'unmasked' one of the institute's witnesses as "an energy industry consultant who argues that global warming is a religion". In it's mind, this renders all evidence submitted to the committee suspicious, if not invalid. The article doesn't say so, but implies it in an air, heavy with innuendo. What transpires? The IOP invited
"views from Peter Gill, an IOP official who is head of a company in Surrey called Crestport Services. According to Gill, Crestport offers "consultancy and management support services … particularly within the energy and energy intensive industries worldwide", and says that it has worked with "oil and gas production companies including Shell, British Gas, and Petroleum Development Oman".
On top of that Gill is caught being biased as he made note of the culture that made the Crutape scandal possible in the first place: "If you don't 'believe' in anthropogenic climate change, you risk at best ridicule, but more likely vitriolic comments or even character assassination. Unfortunately, for many people the subject has become a religion, so facts and analysis have become largely irrelevant," wrote Gill. This is stating fact, but The Guardian implies it is bias.

The paper suggests more preconception as it 'reveals' that Gill commented in November when Climategate broke that: "Poor old CRU have been seriously hacked. The emails and other files are all over the internet and include how to hide atmospheric cooling."

That's it: Gill is a skeptic and works  with Shell, British Gas, and Petroleum Development Oman. That renders the entire case invalid, unless that is you are a greeny and work with ConocoPhillips, BP, Caterpillar and manage to coopt an entire green industry to the cause at the expense of the tax payer  (the Apollo Alliance and the Lisbon Council).

With barely concealed triumphalism the paper proudly announces: "The IOP has already been forced to issue a clarification that the evidence does not undermine the scientific basis for climate change. Indeed The Guardian writes in another article that the IOP issued a statement that it doesn't question the science itself, but rather the scientific process as conducted by the CRU.

This is how the postmodern mind works. Rejecting objective truth (where the scientific method is supposed to lead), it knows only partisan subjectivity. The idea that Gill might work in the field of 'dirty oil' and still produce truth, isn't on the horizon in any way, shape or form. Postmodernists have a habit of taking the slightest flaw as evidence that renders an opposing claim invalid, while an infinitesimally piece of evidence in their favor is paraded as proof positive of their cause.

The entire climate change hypothesis is based on that mechanism. Their premise that objective reality does not exist rests solely on the phenomenon of optic tricks and sensory anomalies.

While we're on the subject of truth, climate skeptic Antony Watts in a recent post declares to have had it with Phil Jones. "In the Last Straw" he says to have avoided accusations of outright fraud till now, and instead argued a case of noble cause corruption. But now it has become hard to defend him, since on March 1st Jones testified before the Select Committee, positing that it is "standard scientific practice to not share data". A fact that is objectively untrue.

It's a sad conclusion, but the last weeks it has become apparent that the postmodern mindset is not just innate in the humanities, but is now also deeply entrenched in the field of exact science itself. I repeat my hypothesis:
what Immanuel Kant was to philosophy, climate change theorists are to science.

- "Greenism"
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

RatePoint Business Reviews