The Stupidity Of The Intellectual

We know universities hand out bits of paper instead of earned certificates of learning. The endeavour now being to turn up. However, despite the political failings, some people still have intelligence and leave university having learnt something.

Some go on to use it usefully. Some become intellectuals, which all too often means left wing ideologues, with no idea. And like Global Warming, even their education doesn't stop them believing truly unbelievable things. Their ideology trumps all and any hint of science (in this case) is roundly forgotten.

Now, Christopher Booker, James Delingpole and others have been honoured by a particularly stupid bunch of intelligent people at a Polytechnic in Cambridge. They have been labelled 'deniers' because they point out the scientific flaws in the claims of the political groups pushing the Global Warming scam.

Of course, the idiots get to use the prejudicial term denier because they seek always to set the agenda (and use political correctness to close any debate that accidentally starts). They always do this.

So these morons are hoping that history will see Booker et al as idiots for opposing Global Warming. Here is a comment from real history that reflects where those claiming there must be no debate, may themselves be judged.

In the late 1800's an Italian by the name of Lombrosso developed a theory that people were 'born criminals' and that you could identify this class merely by looking at them, from their physical features. I'm guessing this is not a view currently held even by Global Warming fanatics.

When scientific views were put forward to show how wrong Lombrosso's theory was an outraged colleague said, reflecting the high esteem in which Lombrosso was otherwise generally held; "The criminal type is a definite fact, acquired by science, on this point no further discussion is admissible".

Is that right? Was it based on science? Is denial or disagreeing as it is usually called, of the theory that people are born as criminals, not allowed?



*Quoting Giulio Fioretti.

Sport In Schools

Obviously the Olympics is causing people to think about sport in general in Britain, not least at school. The news comes out that Cameron is to remove the compulsory element from PE in schools, which cues outrage. But if the schools are also removed from other forms of state interference, e.g not under local authority control, then parents will ensure that schools provide proper sports education.

This is the important point; Cameron didn't tell schools not to do sports, he was not telling them anything. Failure would be entirely their fault, success would reflect their talent. Parents would judge. It is so long since the people of Britain have been required to think and act like adults, that the initial reaction was that Cameron was cancelling sport. We have denuded ourselves of talent at every level.

And it is all due to the left undermining every aspect of the successful, resourceful Britain that existed after WW2. The educational establishment in the Sixties was only related to 'education' by this being its target. The actual education of anyone was of no interest to them at all. The left wanted the state, under their control, to run everything and nobody should have the ability to challenge.

Typically in left dominated nations, people of intelligence and the teaching establishment is regarded with suspicion or got rid off, one way or another. So in Britain, the left worked assiduously to ensure that the education of children was oriented towards the left and of as poor quality as possible. An intelligent populace thinks for itself, spots what the 'leaders' are up to  and all to often stops them. So they tread carefully (or use force).

Think about it (no pun intended), how often do you think, or hear others say the government should 'do something'? It is a reflection of how completely we have handed even our thoughts to the left. I wonder if David Cameron even realises he isn't a Conservative, having been brought up so far into the left's project of domination.

We have freedom of speech you might say, so how can the left dominate? Well think about it. How do the left trolls react when their religion of Global Warming is challenged? Do they produce impeccable research and proof? No, they attack the person commenting. They threaten and vilify. So people, scientists don't speak out. Fear is always the weapon of the left.

You can find any number of books from the left bending the shelves in bookshops, but who do you think struggle to even find a publisher? Peter Hitchens (even though his 'A Brief History Of Crime' is an important and well observed view of Britain), James Delingpole, Melanie Phillips (whose 'All Must Have Prizes' is particularly apposite today), Christopher Booker and Richard North. And what do these people all have in common? They oppose the left and believe in freedom and liberty.

Pasty Update

The Battle of Greggs hots up! Not only did Ed Balls and Ed Minivan go into a Greggs and buy 8 sausage rolls (Balls reluctantly let his 'leader' have one), but now we hear that David Cameron is a fan of the pasty too. I can't really stand them myself; I don't find the filling appetising. Now a good, puff pastry oozing fat sausage roll in the other hand.....

A mention was made by our man of the people PM of a Pasty shop at Leeds station and the sleuths were on to it with vigour. Ha! They said, the last pasty shop at Leeds station closed a month ago. And the one he actually named, in 2007. Impressive is it not how these people can find such information but can't read very well. The article in the Telegraph says that Cameron likes pasties and last had one 'some time' ago in Leeds station 'I think'.

Clearly, he doesn't partake that often of boutiques such as Greggs, but then nor do I. It is irrelevant and beside the point, the tax demands should be going down not up. Government should be cutting spending by not having the Quango's nor anything but a small percentage of the staff the public sector currently employs. It could and should do much less. And we should leave the EU to hasten our recovery immediately. If only to annoy David Aaronovitch, the diametric opposite of James Delingpole. JD is right about everything and DA about nothing.

Pollytical Toynbee

I followed a link on James Delingpole's Twitter to an article written by Pol Toynbee that was so ridiculous I couldn't even finish reading it. She spouted on about how the Tea Party are directly responsible for the wonderful Obama not being able to save America (his plan, keep borrowing) and that they only exist because of Murdoch and his Fox News. Now you could say that the people in the US are seeing two sides to the story (we can't in Britain as our broadcasters are all left wing) and are making their own minds up. This would still offend Polly as she is stridently of the opinion that only noble, well-meaning souls such as herself should be allowed to organise the world. In fact, she seemed to be suggesting that Obama did not have enough power personally, so that as a latter day Sun King he could order people at a whim and then all in the garden (that he and Toynbee would inhabit, naturally) would be rosy.

Her beef continued with the outrageous suggestion that a smaller state (thus needing less money) was in any way useful. To her the state and all it's works are a manifest good. She then started wittering on about climate change deniers and people who cherry pick which bits of science they will adhere to and quote to support their case. Of course there are very few climate change deniers, but many who adopt a scientific approach and question the theories of others. In fact, it is (as was proven by the Climategate emails) those insisting on AGW who cherry pick, for the very simple reason that they know they are wrong. Toynbee realises this which is why she is also an advocate of allowing no debate on such subjects. But the funding dries up when the phrase 'no AGW, nothing to see here, move along' is the result of your research. It would be like Oxfam curing hunger.

I did see she included the AGW shibboleth that the 'deniers' are funded by big oil (the inference being I suppose that small oil are an altogether different, more collegiate bunch). There is no and never has been any evidence for this, but plenty that the AGW promoters are extremely well funded. If she wants to attack 'big oil' she should ask why we are struggling to replace the internal combustion engine, or at least one running on fossil fuel. Now that may well be because anyone coming up with a replacement would overnight destroy a massive, worldwide infrastructure for the extraction, transporting and refinement of oil based products. A bit like when Dyson couldn't get anyone interested in his amazing bagless cleaner, that he was trying to sell to companies who make most of their money from selling bags for their cleaners. Think about it. Electric cars that are as useful as a concrete bookmark have actually made it into production. They cost much more than a useful car, they have a theoretical range of 100 miles (as long as you don't accelerate quickly, or use the aircon or lights), take a very long time to recharge (using electricity generated how?) and the batteries in which cost several thousand pounds and may last only 5 years. How has something so clearly impractical made it into production? Simple. The EU insists car manufacturers reduce the 'emissions' of the fleet of cars they produce and it distracts you from the fact that they haven't come up with a proper replacement technology yet. Or perhaps to convince you that to do so may be beyond the wit of Man.

Toynbee often gets accused of hypocrisy for the robust reason that it is true, but she is also so wrong-headed on so many things. I don't mind a differing political perspective, but when something is wrong, it is wrong. (Please don't now introduce the left's favourite 'narrative'. No there aren't differing truths).