I did an interesting search today comparing public searches for “Global warming” with that of “Mars”. There is a strange co-incidence of changes that occur in 2009 (the year of Climategate).
It seems that the year Global Warming (blue) died as a major interest by the public, was the year Mars (Red) took off. Venus provides a control by showing no real trend at all during this period. It therefore seems likely that whilst interest in Venus is not related to Global warming, that interest in Mars is – and that the increased interest in Mars had a related cause to the sharp decline in interest in “Global Warming”.
Let me show you a blow up of metrics for Mars, Venus, Global warming around Climategate:
Climategate occurs at the end of 2009 and it results in a relatively small peak in interest in global warming. A few months later (late June 2010) interest in global warming drops and it never recovers.
That same month we start seeing headlines like: “Record 520-Day Mock Mars Mission Begins in Russia“. Then late June 2010, we see a dramatic and sustained increase in the interest in Mars.
Of course, the US Democrats will now believe that Global Warming died due to Russian interference (so they also promoted interest in Mars? What to send the US economy of a long and pointless wild goose chase?)
However, if you want real conspiracies:
Students Discover Cave on Mars
Realistically, I think that what this shows is that after Climategate, those that were pushing global warming decided to swap to pushing Mars. The obvious candidates with an interest in both fields are:
NASA – who perhaps thought Climategate had killed environ-mentalism as a long term source of funding NASA and so sought other “reasons” for the US public to pay
US government – see Mars as a way to get the public off the stupid Global Warming alarmism cult
The Russians (or Chinese) realising that the US is not going to commit economic suicide after Climategate – decide to encourage it to commit economic suicide by attempting to go to Mars.
News corp “science” reports got fed up of “Global Boring” and so starting covering Space instead.
There really was a cave on Mars filled by aliens and that in order to save humanity some film star has to spend most of the US’s economic output to go and talk to them (why does no one ever phones aliens?)
For years, the only evidence of “global warming” except bogus faked NASA temperatures was an apparent melting of glaciers. I say “apparent”, because once people like NASA have been caught fiddling one lot of figures on global temperature, there’s no knowing what else they will fiddle.
NASA of cause asserted that it was beyond doubt that glaciers were melting because of their “warming” of the global temperature. However, sceptics like me thought it very possible that from 2000-2020 we are experiencing the warmest phase of the North Atlantic oscillation. This oscillation is due to changes in ocean currents.
The one thing that started to put me off this idea was that we couldn’t see any signs of the recooling. Ironically, who should give us the first evidence of the necessary changes that lead to cooling temperatures? Nasa!
In my last post A Unified Theory of Recent Political Strife I outlined how the rise of the internet empowered new groups and had a similar effect to the rise of printing that both led to witch trials as well as political, religious and scientific progress.
In this article I want to explore the mechanisms by which this works. The basic theory is that by giving a group a “voice” to express their views and to hear others – whether a printed books, or an internet blog, you empower this group. There is obviously a big assumption here – that a voice gives power – which I’m not entirely confident is easily argued. Indeed, the inference is the other way around. Certain groups were empowered – whether it was those obsessed with witches in the past, or e.g. those obsessed with climate today – and it seems that the change in information technology was what gave them the power.
It seems that people with a voice and a means to communicate have power merely through that communication. Which in terms appears to me to mean that “society” cannot help but listen and treat their opinions seriously – even if there is no compulsion to do so. For I cannot see any other way that the simple act of giving people a voice ends up in power. How else do we explain how the disenfranchised men and women got the vote? Why would those with power give it away – unless some human nature forced them to give it away to those without power, but with the means to have their views heard?
The next assumption, is that those who previously did not have a voice, may gain power to do things which can both be “good” and also “evil”.
The next assumption – given that the problems of the printing revolution did eventually sort themselves out with an end to witch trials and a new structure for the Christian church, that in some ways society must adapt in order to tackle the “evil” that comes with these changes. One way this may happen, is simply improving education. So, the very books that encourage witch trials, may eventually be the means by which the population are educated that witch trials are bogus. Likewise, the very internet that created the global warming scare, is now the means by which the scare is being exposed for the scam it is.
Perhaps a model for this kind of process is as follows: that prior to the information revolution, destructive ideas such as the idea that Witches exist and can harm people do exist, but they exist within groups who have no power to do anything. So, these ideas are effectively harmless. Similarly, there have always been anti-capitalists, anti-fossil-fuel idiots, but in the pas they had no power to influence public policy.
Then along comes the information revolution, these enable ideas to cob communicated, to have bells and whistles added and the means to communicate them gives those who formerly had not power, power. The result is that crazy ideas burst out of the insane box and for a while wreck havoc. But it also appears that eventually society adapts. Perhaps in the case of Climate, that will be a new social norm where sceptics have power – or perhaps there will be a push back against the politicisation of schools and universities which have been so much involved with the climate craziness. So, a change in information technology, could have fairly dramatic changes in society. Those already in power, may be compelled to bring into government groups who formerly were ignored in order to restabilise society. Or as happened in England – society may take the change into its own hands and literally chop off the king’s head. Continue reading →
Posted inClimate|Comments Off on A Unified Theory of Recent Political Strife II
Today is St.Patrick’s day. Whilst Patrick is well known as the patron Saint of Ireland, his birthplace in Scotland is less well known and this is not helped by several variants of fake history that have grown up suggesting other locations.
Patrick was a descendent of a Roman citizen, so presumably at one time his ancestors came from Rome or another location in the Roman empire, but his grandfather was a Roman citizen & a priest with property which many think must have been in Roman Britain. But the early lives of the Saint tell us he was born in Nemthur near Alt Cluid (Dumbarton Rock), so, at some point his family moved to Strathclyde, possibly as a result of one of the persecutions of Christians. Unfortunately we are not told whether his Grandfather inherited the estate after he moved to Strathclyde, or perhaps never moved, or indeed his grandfather’s estate may have been outside the empire.
But why did they move to Strathclyde? To understand this we must go back several hundred years before Patrick was born a Roman named Antonine decided to build a wall across Scotland from the Forth to Clyde in 142AD. This finished at the ford across the Clyde at the fort of Old Kilpatrick. We know that these forts would have had civilian “vicus” attached to them so undoubtedly there was also a large civilian settlement attached to the fort. And being on the Clyde near an important iron-age fort at Dumbarton, there is no doubt that this settlement would have seen a lot of trading ships coming up and down the west coast between Scotland and the Roman empire.
The Roman occupation of Scotland was not long lived as the wall was abandoned about 162AD. But clearly Strathclyde did not end it links with the Roman empire. The evidence for this comes from the numerous Roman coins found through the area of Strathclyde which continues and even increases toward the end of the Roman occupation of Britain. It seems Strathclyde continued to have close connections with Rome long after they formally left. Indeed, this was a typical pattern for the Romans that used to maintain pro-Roman “client kingdoms” on their borders. These were Kingdoms that the Romans kept sweet by limited train and even bribes, which acted as a “buffer” to more hostile states. If these client Kingdoms were attacked, Rome may offer support t them, but it often demanded that they in return furnish them with soldiers. This was likely the relationship between Rome and the Kingdom of Strathclyde or Alt Clud.
So, why would a Roman like Patrick’s family come to Strathclyde? The answer appears to be that there was a “little Rome” in Strathclyde very much like we might get “little China” – an area where immigrants tend to come because there are already immigrants. This may have started with the wall, but it kept going because of a regular influx of news immigrants in the form of runaway slaves. They could have come from anywhere in and around the Roman empire, so far from the idea that people have had of a barbaric mono-cultural Scotland Strathclyde was probably a very multi-cultural place!
But why did it become a Christian centre? We know that Christianity was particularly strong amongst the slaves of Rome, it is likely that increasingly amongst the runaway slaves would be Christians. This gives us a reason why Patrick’s grandfather priest may have come to Strathclyde. The slaves may have been Christians – the congregation of Christians were there, but they may have lacked priests and Patrick’s Grandfather may have moved simply to fulfil this role.
However, a less benign cause was the numerous persecutions of Christians. We know that St.Albans was beheaded in the late 3rd century for sheltering a priest. We are not told what happened to the priest – but it’s a fair bet they got out the Roman empire ASAP. And where would they go? Strathclyde – which was conveniently outside the empire, and because of the Roman Wall a hundred years early already had a sizeable population of Christians.
Is there any proof that Strathclyde was a Christian centre? Yes!
First we have Patrick’s own writings telling us his grandfather was a priest and his father a deacon. So at least Old Kilpatrick had some Christians of Patrick’s own family.
Then we have the earliest Christian graves in Scotland dating from the 5th or 6th century (the time of Patrick) just across the Clyde from Old Kilpatrick in Govan.
Then we have the foundation of Govan by “St. Constantine” who is said to be of the Strathclyde Royal family. This shows that even royalty were Christianised, presumably at the date of the earliest Graves in Govan in the 5th and 6th century.
Finally we are told that Gildas (the first Church historian of Britain born ~500AD) came from Strathclyde. It seems highly unlikely people in Strathclyde would be sending their sons to become monks, unless they were already Christian.
But the final clincher for me that proves beyond doubt that Patrick came from Old Kilpatrick (known as Nemthur) is that we have a record of this place in the early list of British places known as the Ravenna Cosmography. This gives us a list of places “where Britain is thinnest”, that is where the Antonine wall is located, but it doesn’t say “on the wall”, so although some were undoubtedly on the wall, not all of them were. This had long confused Roman Scholars who assumed the places were a list of forts solely on the wall. This was wrong! The clue they were not aware of was a note to Nennius which tell s that there were only 7 forts along the wall. If we look on the list we find that (assuming a small copy error combined two place names), the seventh entry for the last fort at Old Kilpatrick is Nemeton which is clearly a Romanised version of Nemthur. The previous one is Medio (Bal-mulidy) and the next is SUB-DOBIADON which is clearly Dumbarton.
Posted inClimate|Comments Off on Saint Patrick born in Roman Nemeton (Old Kilpatrick)
The great thing about my education and experience is that from a very early stage, I could see that the climate scam would end in tears. Yes, I can see that academics in science might have believed they could change the world. Engineers in Energy, could see that they could build devices that captured win and solar. Economists might believe that you could pull an economy up by the bootlaces – so that it doesn’t consume energy. And politicians might easily be fooled that all that was needed was a modest increase in energy costs.
But having a foot in all camps – I could see that it was total delusional madness to believe that we could stop using fossil fuels without returning our society to something closer to the middle ages than the present. Individually, each group thought it could work – but none of them understood the mutual inter-reliance that was involved such that trying to reduce energy usage in one place – just increased it in another. Trying to drop energy usage overall – didn’t just involve an increase in direct energy costs, but it would lead to a vicious cycle of inflation that MASSIVELY increased economic costs to the extend of committing economic suicide.
I tried to warn people – I failed – they either couldn’t or didn’t want to understand. So, ten years on from Climategate we are now getting to the stage where they are trying to implement their delusional ideas big-time. And the tear(ga)s is starting to flow as the continued YellowVest protests (heavily suppressed by press) continue to show. BUT THAT IS JUST THE START. If they keep pushing this climate scam, it will get worse, IT WILL GET FAR FAR WORSE!Continue reading →
Until recently my ideas of the social forces that had brought about the “climate war” (as I call it), was that the internet had enabled outsider scientists and engineers to become interested in and to comment on the subject of climate, and that the internet had also been the means of enforcing a rigid group-think in academia. These ideas I published in the book “the Academic Ape” (ostensibly an “April fool”, but in reality the core ideas were serious and the “April fool” was on anyone who thought it was just an April fool).
This theory suggested that academia was behaving like a group of apes, who having “their territory” invaded by outside “sceptics” were behaving with ape-like instinctive aggression to “repel” outsiders by basically howling and thrashing trees and generally throwing metaphorical shit at us. This seems to explain the appalling behaviour of numbskull scientifically illiterate individuals like Lewandowsky.
However, this clearly wasn’t sufficient. Because I see many similarities in other social changes that have been happening – and they can’t all be blamed on the same idiots in academia – but they all did seem to be connected to the internet:
The Arab spring – was a series of revolutions in which the internet was instrumental.
Brexit – where the evidence shows every single media outlet is either extremely hostile or at best neutral, and every major political party is dominated by remainers, showed that even the remainers almost monopoly of the press and political parties could not change the views of ordinary people formed larger through shared personal experience on social media.
The election of Trump, where he was universally loathed by the press who used to dictate who got elected again showed the new power of the internet.
Thus my original theory that this was one group “invading another’s territory” didn’t explain these massive changes that we have seen in politics worldwide. Somehow the internet seemed to be key. At first I saw the internet as a triggering mechanism.But I am now more and more drawn to the idea that the internet is almost solely responsible as a controlling mechanism. This graph sums up my view very well:
For what it appears to show, is that the period of Witch trials, church revolutions and event the English civil war, were all part of a common group of phenomenon, during the phase of RAPID CHANGE due to printing. Rather than as I had thought, that printing ENABLED the revolutions & witch trials, instead, it appears to be that these are transitional phenomenon due to unresolved IMBALANCES in society caused by the change in power of various groups as printing changed society. Continue reading →
Posted inClimate|Comments Off on A Unified Theory of Recent Political Strife
This is a long video, but it is very well worth watching because it exposes the way academia works and the nonsense that fills academia. It isn’t on climate, but nether-the-less it exposes very much the same group think, silencing of critics and “unevidenced” rhetoric as we see in the climate. As such it shows the non-sense in climate is part of a much wider problem.
But perhaps most importantly, and optimistically, it finishes by talking about a recent change in academia. This fits in well with the idea I had of “witch trials” during the most rapid phase in the information revolution (link). Perhaps the “witch trial” period of attacks on sceptics is coming to an end and common sense is returning?
Posted inClimate|Comments Off on A Massive Hoax Exposes Social Justice in Academia (Full Interview)
A decade ago in 2009 we got a wealth of substantial proof about how dishonest climate academics were when it came to “hiding the decline” in their “science”. But unfortunately, far from turning around the subject as it ought, 10 years later the subject is far more dishonest than I could have believed even in 2009. For back in 2009, we genuinely thought that if we highlighted the dishonesty of academics when compiling global temperature, that that would force them to mend their ways and the global temperature graph would be more believable. Today, I can honestly say that I see absolutely no point in even attempting to “correct” the current rubbish of most groups which has no credibility at all as it is just figments of their vivid imaginations. They have shown they can and do make the global temperature say whatever they want it to say.
If there is so much MORE to be done than at the time of Climategate, why then, have I largely stopped working on climate? The reason is simple: we are past the “what if” stage of the climate warming scam where it was a question of the scientific predictions. We are past the stage where a bunch of biased academics could scare the world by fraudulent predictions. We are past the stage of only having their predictions of the future, but instead it’s increasingly about tangible things that academics can’t distort: “what has it done” and “what is the cost”.
In terms of the “what has it done” … the answer is nothing and “what is the cost”, the answer is mega huge. Better still, public interest has steadily declined, leaving the politicians with an unwanted hugely costly commitment to something that has proven not to be a problem.
We are now 20% of the way from the 2001 IPPC prediction of 1.4 to 5.8C warming by 2100 and we continue to see no discernable problems of any kind. Indeed the only effects of rising CO2 have been the beneficial increase in crop yields. Something that any numpty can see was entirely predictable … but something the academics omitted to mention to the public or politicians. But worse! We are less than 20% of the way to the the massive costs – and governments are already falling as a result.
This is why the global temperature no longer matters. This is why winning the argument on the “science” doesn’t matter.
Yes they still fraudulently change the global temperature. But they have done themselves no favour by it. Because by falsely exaggerating the recent temperature to get rid of the pause, all the climate scamsters have done is to block the excuse that “the reason we aren’t see any effects is because of the pause”.
The reason I first got involved campaigning to get the science heard on climate, is because I had been in the wind business and saw the “pounds in their eyes” profiteers there, who would stop at no dirty trick to undermine wind groups (including paid saboteurs signing up to undermine them from within). Likewise I had been in the Green party – and seen them for the bunch of science and engineering numpties they are. And I had been in the British Wind Energy Association and seen how it was run by the big oil corps. And I had been in the Scottish Parliamentary Renewable Energy Group, seen the dishonesty of civil servants and the gormless politicians jumping on the bandwagon. And I had tried to get the truth about wind (jobs) heard and had seen the bias of the press.
Back around 2007, there was not a single substantial group even willing to put up a counter arguments to what is undoubtedly the world’s biggest scam. There was absolutely no balance. It was like Hitler’s Germany – you had to accept the official line or you became a non-person. And like Hitler’s Germany, there was a real risk of substantial social, political and economic harm as a result.
Today, even the president of the US is (supposedly) a sceptic and many politicians and even whole governments are increasingly and OPENLY sceptical.
In terms of stopping the rot in climate – Climategate was an appalling failure. Because far from stopping the rot, the establishment coverup in the UK merely emboldened the alarmists to take their dishonesty to the next level. However, in terms of making the public and politicians aware of this dishonesty, it was a huge success. Thus I think those of us who worked to expose climategate are largely responsible for the current change in attitudes which is rapidly moving us toward the balance – with increasingly large and politically powerful groups in opposition – that is halting this scam.
The analogy has repeatedly been made between the way the “establishment” press, academics, politicians have treated sceptics and the the 15th and 16th century witch trials.
However, I think it is less an analogy, than two versions of the same phenomenon: the dramatic shift in culture (aka revolution) that occurs after a significant change in communication technology which empowers a new group of people, who were formally denied the ability to communicate to “the public”.
The graph below illustrates my thinking: The red line is a metric for printing efficiency with the 1470 representing a value of 1 and other years scales accordingly, This shows that printing started having an effect from about 1470 and that most of the changes in “cost of information” had had their effect by the time of the English civil war in 1650.
Note how the peak in witch trials (grey line) occurred during the middle of the first information revolution!
This period of the witch trials was when when both the former power of the Catholic church was destroyed because of one simple change. In this period, the bible and commentary on it, which had formally only been available to very rich people who could afford scribes (i.e. the church and those like Kings), began to be published in a much cheaper form that was available to middle class people. The crux was the printing of bibles like the Kings James V Bible in 1611. The result was that whereas formally study of the bible, and commentary on it, was limited to the hugely wealthy Catholic church, after printing any Tom Dick or Elizabeth with a middle class income and without so much as a Latin education could afford to buy and study the bible AND COMMENT ON IT.
However equally pertinent to those suffering the “witch trials” of Climate sceptics is that King James I of Scotland also wrote and published a book about witchcraft titled Daemonologie in 1597. And it was such books and the ease of commenting on social issues that undoubtedly turned what had been in the 15th century a minor curiosity into a social bandwagon attacking – primarily those who could not afford to get their views into print to answer back.
In terms of the “wars of medicine”: printing empowered the newly educated “doctor” classes, disempowered the “wise woman” classes. Printing thus allowed the “doctor” classes to attack the old medical practitioners in such a vicious way that many who resisted the rise of the “doctor” classes lost their lives. Printing heralded a new type of social order in which the middle classes held far more power than they had before.
Printing was the means by which those who controlled printing came to power and the means by which control over countries changed from being one where countries were controlled by a view individuals (popes/kings) to one where the middle class (not poor) had control.
Printing may be the first revolution (if we don’t count writing itself), but it is not the only one the following are all information revolutions of various types (dates when first commercially available):
Cheap postal service 1840 (GB Penny Black)
Television 1920s (Logie Baird)
It took 125 years between the inventing of printing and the English Civil war. I would argue that the speed at which information changes have an effect is accelerating. The 1830s to 1920s saw a series of major changes in information. What was the result?
In the UK the Representation of the People Act 1832 broadened the franchise’s property qualification in the counties, to include small landowners, tenant farmers, and shopkeepers. This effectively destroyed the UK Whig party bringing in the liberals.
The franchise was broadened further by the 1867 reform act. In 1911 parliament act effectively abolished the power of the House of Lords to veto legislation. And in 1918 the UK parliament enfranchised all men and women over the age of 30 who met minimum property qualifications and in 1928 the vote was given to all women. The effect of these changes was to take power from that of the 1830s where it was controlled by a few Lords and very upper class MPs toward one where the working class labour party won a majority of all MP seats 1945. It was no longer taking a century or more for technology changes to have an impact.
How did people without any formal power through the UK constitution come to power? The answer, is that as communicating views to other people and the public in general, became less and less expensive, that it became impossible to stop those who did not have power from demanding and finally getting it. There was no literal revolution in the sense of guillotines chopping off kings heads as happened at the end of the first information revolution, but the changes in who had power were nether-the-less as dramatic as the first revolution.
It was the Sun Wot Won it – the rise of the press and media control
However, whilst the 1830-1920 revolutions were dramatic, there was a problem for ordinary people with the technologies. By and large the most effective communications were 1-to-many forms: printing, publishing, broadcasting. These were all very expensive technologies that only a few big organisations could afford. As a result, those who could afford such technologies like the press barons and media moguls, became incredibly powerful. Indeed, they would sometimes literally boast about their power to decide who got into power such and the notorious Sun headline after the 1992 UK election declaring that it had lied about and manipulated the news in order to ensure a victory for its own preferred party (who had no doubt bought that support by policy changes demanding by the Sun’s owners). This zenith in power of the UK press was linked to another information revolution of the 1980s when outdated “hot-metal” Linotype printing was replaced by computers which allowed journalists to input copy directly. The result had been to bring down the cost of printing newspapers and make them hugely profitable and hugely powerful.
But even if IBM never believed in mass computing, the computers that brought down the cost of publishing, didn’t remain the sole property of the big corporations for long. Soon, printing – by use of a personal computer and printer – started to come within the reach of most households. And from 2000 onwards mobile devices started to become readily available such that a majority of people now have access to the internet: both as readers and publishers through social media.
It is not possible to have an information revolution without affecting political power. And the result of the internet has been amongst many:
To empower those in Britain who are against being in the EU
To empower those in the “Arab spring” revolutions
To enable Trump to come to power despite the most viciously hostile press campaign.
And we have undoubtedly not seen the end.
The Climate wars
How does this explain the climate wars? Below is a graph showing the interest in “Global warming” and the rise of internet usage. Do you notice something familiar? If not, go back to look at the graph of witch trials and the efficiency of printing. I don’t think anyone that has been involved in trying to get the real climate science heard has any doubt that the last decade has been one of the nastiest campaigns by the “powers that be” in academia (“Science”) who have tried every trick in the book to force the public to accept their viewpoint that “the end is nigh”.
And what was their primary means of distributing their politicised “science”? The press and the Internet. And what was the sceptics primary means: the internet. It was undoubtedly a war created and fought on the internet. One between the old “establishment” of science in academia and those scientists who had formally been denied a voice who largely came from jobs in the private sector.
Information wars – they don’t say who is right – but they do tell us who will win.
The 16th century witch trials may have been triggered in the same way as the “climate wars” of the 21st century by a change of technology for communicating ideas, but I have no doubt that I could have as easily shown a graph of many other facets of religion, commerce or ideas, showing how the printing revolution triggered various “wars” between social groups. Likewise, the internet revolution has empowered new groups who were formally denied power. Their views and ideas now have far more clout leading to many social changes from leaving the EU to Trump. But that doesn’t mean those ideas are right. It is just possible that the old “Washington swamp” is a far better form of government than what Trump says he will deliver. Those in the establishment “swamp” will lose – but that doesn’t mean those outside the swamp are better at government. Likewise, it is possible that a society run by “our betters” in the EU would be a better one than one where ordinary people get to say who governs us. But the EU will lose and the ordinary people will win, because it is the ordinary people that have gained a voice and hence power through the technology of the internet.
But the best views don’t always come to power – witch finders can win (albeit temporarily), greens who want to end the western world gained control for a while, technology doesn’t chose “good” ideas, it just changes who gains a voice and through it gains political power.
Thus, being “right” is no indicator of success, but knowing who is winning and just as equally, who is losing power through the change in communication technology does allow a few good predictions:
The UK is going to leave the EU. No matter what the “establishment” MPs might want, the simple fact is that the old establishment from which the MPs came is no longer in control of UK politics.
Trump will not be the last “popular president” in the US. That does not mean all future “popular presidents” will share his “conservative” views, but I can predict with confidence that many more presidents which the press loath as much, or even more than Trump, will come to power.
The climate “elite” will lose. They might think that having every single scientific body back their political outcomes …. but history shows that having power is not enough to stop those who gain a voice through new technology.
The example of Tommy Robinson
Tommy Robinson, according to all the laws of political power that used to govern who controlled our country, should be a non-entity. He is loathed by the press who constantly lie about him. He is loathed by most politicians – who happily spread the lies of the press. He had no political party to support him and the press and judges were constantly harassing him – and even the money-grabbing lawyers didn’t want to take his money.
But his latest video exposing the racism and homophobia of the BBC has, despite being banned by facebook and ruthlessly attacked, now been seen by over 700,000 people (It currently shows 679,000 – but it said almost the same number a few hours ago so it seems to me YouTube have stopped the counter!)
I find his rise to power fascinating for I am neither member of his social group nor that of the journalistic-swamp attacking him. So I am to some extent impartial.
Undoubtedly Tommy is very clever, he’s also getting a lot of support as shown by the increasing professionalism of his videos. But what this video above and the ~700,000 views in a few days highlights is that a person who comes from a social group that journalists like the BBC despise and call “Cannibals”** is now gaining massive support. The loathsome BBC have tried every trick in the book and a few more (Goebbels book of propaganda) and they have failed and they will continue to fail. The establishment have already got to facebook to ban the video (for what – exposing racist homophobic views of a BBC journalist – attempting to attack Tommy as racist and homophobic!)
Indeed, it seems to me, that the more those in the establishment like the BBC and parliament attack Tommy – the more he is becoming a symbol to those in the “Cannibal classes” of resistance against the establishment. Thus far from weakening him, each attack makes him stronger.
Only fate & hindsight that will tell us whether the change in society that is seeing those like Tommy rise to power was for good or bad, but it is inevitable. He or someone or some people like him, who represent those the BBC think of as “Cannibals” were going to gain power. And of course that will be against the howls of protest and vicious attacks by the present inhabitants of the establishment swamp … as their tentacles are cut loose from the levers of power.
We live in interesting times! As the huge political and social changes in recent years show, a major revolution is occurring before our very eyes. Given the increasing rate at which such revolutions have an impact, we should see a dramatic change within a few decades. What we don’t know, is the exact changes that will occur, nor whether the present incumbents of power will give it up peacefully or not. All we can really know for certain is that:
The revolution Cometh
** The above program shows a BBC Panorama “journalist” likening the Tommy Robinson class to Amazonian Cannibals.
In recent weeks remainer MPs have been strenuously trying to persuade the populace that it was impossible for the UK to leave the EU without a deal. As a strategy that was not bad (even if I say it myself), because it’s blatantly obvious given the EU took 7 years to reach a deal with Canada that they would never manage to come up with an acceptable deal with the UK in the mere 2 year timetable the EU forced on us (despite requests to lengthen it).
So, the treacherous anti-democratic self-serving MPs were heading toward a nice position: they could pretend that the EU negotiated in good faith, and then reject the deal saying “a no deal is impossible” – so we can’t leave.
That was what they had planned … until today. Because today they came out in public and admitted that a no deal was not only perfectly possible … it was quite likely. And they did this by finally admitting that it was very likely we will be leaving without the stitched up deal on offer from the EU.
First rule of politics: if you don’t want something to happen, don’t give it credence. The treacherous politicians today have not only shown that it is perfectly possible for us to leave without a deal …. they have also said that they will throw the PM a lifeline with these MPs taking all the blame for anything that goes wrong. Because that is what they are doing if they enact this pathetic clause: ANY PROBLEMS and they get the blame.
And now there is no hiding that their intention all along was only to deny the public our democratic decision to leave.
May must be laughing – I was expecting her to go very shortly after Brexit to “take the blame”. But not now.
May is now free to leave with no deal. The idiot MPs intention to stop brexit has been shown for what it is. And if they trigger the clause – they not only feel the wrath of the electorate for intentionally making brexit worse – they get all the blame for any brexit problems.
Game set and match.
The last obstacle to leaving on the 29th March with no deal has gone thanks to these pathetic “MPS”
It is slowly dawning on me what a monumental disaster this is for remain. The tactic should have been to take it through to the vote and then pretend to consider all the options and then pretend that it was not decided long before the debate and vote “no option is good enough … we can’t leave”. To pretend they occupied the democratic high ground … strenuously going along with the rules, but on a technicality – not blatant unlistening arrogance – “having” to vote against leaving.
For that they needed:
To prevent the public believing that leaving with no deal was a viable option. But they’ve blown that by showing they think that is a very realistic possibility (why else are they so desperately trying to stop a no deal).
They needed to pretend that they were going along with the will of the people – but the only reason they couldn’t go along with it …. just now … was because after due consideration none of the current options were good enough. But they’ve just blown that argument, because without any consideration they’ve tried (and failed) to block the very viable option of leaving without a deal.
The other prerequisite, was that they had to pretend that there was some deal that they could agree to. That the issue was not about stopping brexit – but about choosing between different deals. And for that they had to avoid at all costs showing themselves to be a group of traitors who will stop at nothing to try to halt brexit. And again, they have clearly failed because by today’s extremely unusual and highly dubious vote that had nothing to do with Brexit, they have shown they were was clearly just trying desperately to stop brexit.
And the reason I’m writing this, is because it’s becoming clear that even Remainers on twitter think that this move by MPs is anti-democratic. It shows them to be a group who are just trying to force through their own point of view with no intention whatsoever of listening to their constituents. Remainers don’t like this tactic! Remain MPs have lost credibility with their own supporters. It’s a monumental PR disaster. It smacks of the worst kind of politicking, and there is not a chance in hell they can claim the democratic high ground now. It just underlines the sense that remain, like the EU are undemocratic in the way they work.