WHO?

Well, I suppose if someone was going to tell the truth about the emperor and his unclothed state, it was going to be Trump

The World Health Organisation is a United Nations body and like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations itself, it is simply a corrupt non-entity.

In the current Covid 19 crisis they are merely talking and trying to tell you just how important they are. But actually, the boss owes his position to the backing of China, who insisted he be given the role and boy, is he happy to do whatever is necessary to repay the debt.

This pompous carbuncle Ghebreyesus, has colluded with the Chinese authorities to hide and lie about the coronavirus, despite any worldwide consequences. Just as the UN is basically a talking shop of no importance for First World countries, but an excellent cover for despots and dictators.

Again, the IPCC is another make-work project to energise anti-capitalist agendas. Interestingly, the whole Climate Change scam is based entirely on computer modelling (which to be on the safe side, is predicated to find climate change), just like the modelling that terrorised our government into closing down our economy.

In this instance, with no substantive information about the virus being available, a model by Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, said 500,000 would die unless the government did what he said. He was also part of the team that decided in 2001, we should slaughter 6 million animals to end a foot and mouth outbreak, against the prevailing worldwide advice on dealing with outbreaks.

This led to the British Prime Minister and those acting on his behalf, including the police to break the law of the time. (Tony Blair subsequently introduced a new law, making his actions legal and that was also retrospective!)

The needless slaughter of healthy animals, not only showed no understanding of animal disease, but additionally led to huge financial loss and upheaval in UK farming. This kind of disruption seems to be a desired dramatic outcome of a Ferguson projection, as if it is a goal.

Tony Blair gave him an OBE.

A lockdown, such as that which this strange individual insisted was the required action, does absolutely nothing in relation to the disease, except hide from it. This protects the NHS from being swamped of course, which makes sense to buy time to increase capacity. But what did Ferguson suggest from there? It seems, stay in lockdown forever. Pray. And, oh yeah, keep paying his salary.

Naturally, the Western media has gone into overdrive about how ridiculous it is to turn your back on the leading international health organisation leading the way on coronavirus. There is no evidence to support this assertion, but it's what WHO is supposed to do so, well it must be doing it (big government never does anything wrong in the minds of the Left media - look at Soviet Russia and China, Venezuela and North Korea).

But then PHE, a kind of mini-me WHO is supposed to protect the UK from things exactly like coronavirus, but working for a living doesn't seem to have occurred to them. Have you ever seen Yvonne Doyle actually answer a question?

Wouldn't it be lovely if our leaders acted decisively and cut all funding to the WHO, sacked the leadership at PHE and told Neil Ferguson to go and clean toilets.

Fear And Loathing

Difficult times, with absolutely no reason to be. But when you fail to recognise an enemy, when you are faced with war and you either don't mobilise, or use insufficient forces, what do you suppose happens?

This country (and the US with most other Western style democracies following along) have been faced with an implacable enemy engaging in an ideological war. Marx attempted to start that war, using 'conventional' forces. He came to the conclusion that 'the people' were oppressed. As with most things there was a kernel of truth to this assertion.

But he then got carried away, coming to believe it was a fundamental truth that would cause this trampled mass of people to rise up and violently overthrow their 'masters'. The trampled didn't quite see it like that though. So unreliable (Corbyn would sympathise).

So, after decades of trying and seeing sensible, grown up people turning their backs on nihilism the Marxists went for the long game. Join all the key institutions and stay resolutely against capitalism (common sense, best outcomes, friends, family, country...) and capitalism could be destroyed from within.

Marxism of course, needs proles, uneducated idiots who don't question them, accept their hard lives and do all the real work, so the education system had to be destroyed. How would you say that was doing? Try asking a youngster today a fairly straightforward question about anything detailed (i.e. not TV, social media or celebrity related). They won't have a clue. Capital of Peru? No chance ("What's Paroo?")

The Civil Service? Well, seemed very unhappy to be leaving a leftie dictatorship. The police? That would be the no longer crime focussed police. The courts? I don't need to go on do I?

But Climate Change is their real push. This is the global anti-capitalist play, to get countries to destroy their own economies. They are the girlfriend who chips away and bullies the 'boyfriend' into killing himself.

The climate is changing, it has been getting warmer. You would be pleased surely that the Thames doesn't freeze over any more? Crops grow more readily, we don't die of the cold so regularly. What would you rather have, the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age?

But science tells us that increased concentrations of CO2 causes the temperature to go up and we are churning out loads of CO2. The Greenhouse Gas theory is sound, too much of certain gases and the planet absorbs heat from the sun, but won't let it escape. We're done for.

But we have no idea what the concentration that is too much is. Fundamentally, we don't understand climate. But huge though it is, our output of CO2 etc is insignificant to the planet. It doesn't notice.

You'll notice there is never a debate about Climate Change, just the propaganda from the likes of the BBC. Obviously, when you cannot possibly support your argument, you don't have a debate. Hence for the first time ever in human history, the science is settled. We have a pristine, perfect answer to a scientific conundrum.

Except, we don't. We have a bunch of lies. There are fewer big storms hitting landfall, fewer areas of the planet burned, rain is as it has been for decades, you name it and it isn't what the eco loons claim, with no data (they do present cooked data, or just lies). The Met Office recently claimed that last year was the hottest evah. It wasn't and their own records prove this, but you only heard what they said. Who checks these days? Not dopey kids.

Which brings us on to Greta Thunberg. The poster child. In the Telegraph today, Phillip Johnston has a headline, saying if he had to choose between Greta and Trump, he'd go with Greta. Well, I guess the choice between the President of the United States of America, who is a PR disaster, but has also reduced unemployment, reduced energy prices making US industry more competitive and child puppet of anti-capitalist extremists, I suppose it would be difficult.

Trump In A China Shop

It is sadly true that Donald Trump pretty much resembles a bull in a china shop when he decides to give his view on something. This is a problem, because, quite often, his instinct for what is right is pretty much spot on.

No-one of a reasonable demeanour would find the ridiculous notion that the colour of a person's skin has anything to do with capability or personality. Obama was an idiot because he is lazy and self-absorbed, not because of his skin.

So, clearly white supremacists are barking up a dead tree. This is not opinion, or current fashion such as gay marriage, this is just a fact. Western culture has been the most successful but the fact that Westerners are white natively, is coincidental, related to place not success.

Those with odious views know they are disliked by pretty much everyone else, so are likely, I would hazard, to strike out and be violent people. It's kind of the way people are. The Left however are very keen on political violence. We see this everywhere, in London, Paris, New York anywhere there is publicity likely. G20 summits, Climate Change gatherings etc.

These people are no less scum than the white supremacist, but absolutely set out to create a violent confrontation that can (and will by the moronic, compliant press) be blamed on the 'Far Right'. To be clear though, this is very much a trick, a sleight of hand. The 'Far Right' are in fact identical to and part of the totalitarian creed that encompasses the Left.

So the violence was really two sets of malign, ignorant and dangerous groups, one who wishes just to get their way within society (white supremacists) and the other wishing to get their way by running society as they see fit (Lefties). Both are detested by the actual Right, which to be the opposite end of the spectrum to them, would be normal, freedom-loving, democratic, liberal people, such as the true Conservatives in the UK (e.g. not Theresa May or David Cameron).

Have we seen, or heard testimony about how the violence started at the white supremacist rally? No we haven't, but we are assured that it was entirely the fault of these 'Far Right' people and Trump not repeating this is an abomination. Or confected rage? It is very likely I feel, given the propensity of the Left to seek violent confrontation, that it was mutual.

That would make Trump's statement correct. When he says that the press can't be trusted to report the facts, he is right; they are not to be trusted. Their interest, as we here see endlessly on the BBC, is to blame him for everything. His name comes up in reports where he can't possibly be involved, but if it's negative, up comes the reference.

There is a phrase that I have never liked , but that seems to fit very well in this kind of situation. The Left have put you in a box regarding what you should see as acceptable, how you should think. Well, try thinking outside the box. The Emperor you know, has no clothes really. And the Left is not your friend.

Nuclear Spectator

I like the Spectator magazine, it is a really good read. Generally. Sure much of it conforms to and probably reinforces my own views, but there is other stuff, from the outrageousness (sometimes) of Taki to the small problems of setting up free schools. I can't be bothered with Matthew Parris any more. His inability to grasp the notion of democracy is becoming tedious, as is his certainty that his personal opinion should hold sway over a nation.

He is very unlike a Spectator person I would have thought. I don't mind being convinced by argument and I am not afraid of opposing ideas, but just bleating on about not getting your own way is beyond the pale and makes him unreadable.

But, OMG Jacob Heilbrunn has really ruined the current edition. What editor could allow such patent tripe to be submitted under their cover, as this fatuous drivel on 'Going Nuclear'? I will admit, I had to give up reading it. You don't like Trump Jacob, I got that two paragraphs in, but you persist. And it is not only tedious, it is boring and what is the point of reading your personal opinion if it is not based on facts, but more the screaming of a five year old, stamping their foot as reinforcement?

You assert, as a fact that Trump is threatening nuclear war (which he hasn't) and back it up by saying his statement was eerily similar to Truman threatening Japan after the first atomic bomb was dropped (but it isn't). By quoting Truman you give the lie to your own assertion.

You maintain that Trump saying he would unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen" was just like Truman saying "It is harnessing the power of the universe. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen". Clearly, the latter part, referring to conventional forces is the bit that is similar.

That however, wouldn't fit with the pointless point Jacob is making; that he doesn't like Trump and, basically, Jacob is always right. And probably the only people who voted for Trump were unintelligent, unlike Jacob. He then goes on to suggest Trump is actually promoting his golf Clubs not threatening North Korea.

The man's an idiot. And I don't mean Trump this time. Consider too, that Jacob Heilbrunn gets paid to write! In this case by the Spectator - did no-one read the article before publishing it!?

How Did We Get Here?

So Trump has left the meaningless jumble of countries signing that they may or may not reduce their CO2 output, for spurious and unsubstantiated reasons. Cue lots of wailing. Why? Why are we committed to Global Warming/Climate Change? Why mustn't it be debated? Why must the scientific method not be applied to climate change research?

Why don't people challenge these things? Well if you are a selfish idiot, the prerequisites for being a Marxist, then you will have to come up with a plan, a strategy to get your way (no one would vote for it, of course!)

First you need a wealthy, lazy, poorly-educated bloc. That would be the West then, with the poor education taken care of by Marxists infiltrating schools and introducing crackpot ideas of teaching that leaves children functionally illiterate. Tick.

Then, you need to come up with something big, something terrible, with a timescale to give it some immediacy. Something that can be portrayed as fashionable (hence of huge importance to the Rich, Wealthy, Dimwits), but that needs enormous amounts of money to 'cure'.

It is preferable that it is actually not true, in case it does get 'cured', or goes away of its own volition. Once a thing is fashionable, who is going to put down their Quinoa and say "the Emperor has no clothes"?

Man Made Global Warming! The idea that CO2 could cause a warming of the planet is rooted in sound science and if we were to output many hundreds of times what we are currently producing then, plausibly we could affect climate.

Modify the above though and say current levels are dangerous. Say that if we don't destroy our economies and stop driving cars, lorries, flying planes and making stuff, the world will fry. Governments will do what they always do and give some funds for people to find out this is true, which gets them and others, more funding.

And we are off! Now you have a client group who rely on finding a truth that doesn't exist. You don't get funds now, if you say it isn't so. And to protect their racket the funded tell the 'deniers' to go away, with limitless personal abuse and ridicule. You know, strong scientific argument.

This client group of Scientists-Who-Used-To-Have-Principles are the useful idiots who unbelievably keep the Marxist's quest alive for them by being the 'authority consensus'. Is it real? Ask a scientist! And the RWD's swallow it because they are not very bright, not used to discovering things, but they know what is fashionable and that's always more important.

And there you have it; the West is self harming, destroying its wealth and ability to continue by spending all its treasure chasing a chimera. To convince the pixies not to harm us - here be dragons!

Ironically, it is all hot air. If the Marxists and their useful idiots stop breathing there would be a) less plant food (CO2) and b) no one claiming that MMGW is real. Just a real scientific analysis that would say; why don't we try to develop technologies to stop us chucking all these various fumes into the air?

Pollution is an issue, and scant resource is being directed to changing it, mainly because of the mis-direction of Global Warming and partly because of the vested interest in the massive, worldwide infrastructure for obtaining, refining and selling oil based products.

Proper, well thought out technologies, not state subsidised moron fests like wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars. And we need to recognise Marxists for what they are, from the obviously aggressive to the smiling, soft spoken ne'er do wells like Jeremy Corbyn.

Duck! It's Donald

Is Donald Trump the right person to be US President? I have no idea; he comes across as a gimp though. But anyway, it brought tears of delight to me to hear the BBC's very own half-wit, Jeremy Vine squealing in uncontrollable indignation that Trump had won, on Radio 2 this morning. His pain at such an affront to his right-on, I'm-cleverer-than-you, quinoa eating world was sheer delight.

How could you not howl with laughter at the irony of his outrage at the huge swathe of people in the US who voted for Trump. They shouldn't be allowed to vote because they differ from Vine's view and he is a great supporter of democracy.

He had some wondrous assertions; firstly that only old, white people voted for Trump (must be a lot of them then) and secondly that it was as weird as if Piers Morgan was the Prime Minister. No, luvvy, it is as mad as if you were Prime Minister. That would be a nation that had lost its senses.