North Polar Ice thickening: what a bummer for some.


David Davis

How sad for these poor men. The entire article is a scream.

And poor sad tormentd Prince Charles really does appear to have bouhgt into the global warming scam 100%.

 

http://alphainventions.com

I didn’t know Philip Pullman was this good a writer about liberty


UPDATE2:Little Man What Now? has also republished it. What this exercise shows is the utter futility of an Enemy Governimg Class trying to supress stuff it does not approve of, until its Terror-Police have effectively removed the publication-tools from us all. They clearly know nothing whatever about the history of England in the 1620s-to-1640s, as the new and revolutionarry technique of “imprinting” was at last getting going on a large scale, and at a difficult time for the battling of ideas which was then going on.

UPDATE:– THE TIMES took this piece down off its site some hours ago, to the original link to the Times OUT OF landed Underclass is broken. ( ARRSE have the full text.) The Cato Institute also quotes some of it. Good job I virally-pasted the whole thing….

David Davis

UPDATE:- Here in full is the big and angry discussion thread about this piece on the Army Rumour Service at http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=117552/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=20.html

Hat tip to the Landed Underclass for exposing the true significance of this prescient piece of writing:-

Are such things done on Albion’s shore?

The image of this nation that haunts me most powerfully is that of the sleeping giant Albion in William Blake’s prophetic books. Sleep, profound and inveterate slumber: that is the condition of Britain today.

We do not know what is happening to us. In the world outside, great events take place, great figures move and act, great matters unfold, and this nation of Albion murmurs and stirs while malevolent voices whisper in the darkness – the voices of the new laws that are silently strangling the old freedoms the nation still dreams it enjoys.

We are so fast asleep that we don’t know who we are any more. Are we English? Scottish? Welsh? British? More than one of them? One but not another? Are we a Christian nation – after all we have an Established Church – or are we something post-Christian? Are we a secular state? Are we a multifaith state? Are we anything we can all agree on and feel proud of?

The new laws whisper:

You don’t know who you are

You’re mistaken about yourself

We know better than you do what you consist of, what labels apply to you, which facts about you are important and which are worthless

We do not believe you can be trusted to know these things, so we shall know them for you

And if we take against you, we shall remove from your possession the only proof we shall allow to be recognised

The sleeping nation dreams it has the freedom to speak its mind. It fantasises about making tyrants cringe with the bluff bold vigour of its ancient right to express its opinions in the street. This is what the new laws say about that:

Expressing an opinion is a dangerous activity

Whatever your opinions are, we don’t want to hear them

So if you threaten us or our friends with your opinions we shall treat you like the rabble you are

And we do not want to hear you arguing about it

So hold your tongue and forget about protesting

What we want from you is acquiescence

The nation dreams it is a democratic state where the laws were made by freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people. It used to be such a nation once, it dreams, so it must be that nation still. It is a sweet dream.

You are not to be trusted with laws

So we shall put ourselves out of your reach

We shall put ourselves beyond your amendment or abolition

You do not need to argue about any changes we make, or to debate them, or to send your representatives to vote against them

You do not need to hold us to account

You think you will get what you want from an inquiry?

Who do you think you are?

What sort of fools do you think we are?

The nation’s dreams are troubled, sometimes; dim rumours reach our sleeping ears, rumours that all is not well in the administration of justice; but an ancient spell murmurs through our somnolence, and we remember that the courts are bound to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and we turn over and sleep soundly again.

And the new laws whisper:

We do not want to hear you talking about truth

Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours

We have a better friend called hearsay, who is a witness we can always rely on

We do not want to hear you talking about innocence

Innocent means guilty of things not yet done

We do not want to hear you talking about the right to silence

You need to be told what silence means: it means guilt

We do not want to hear you talking about justice

Justice is whatever we want to do to you

And nothing else

Are we conscious of being watched, as we sleep? Are we aware of an ever-open eye at the corner of every street, of a watching presence in the very keyboards we type our messages on? The new laws don’t mind if we are. They don’t think we care about it.

We want to watch you day and night

We think you are abject enough to feel safe when we watch you

We can see you have lost all sense of what is proper to a free people

We can see you have abandoned modesty

Some of our friends have seen to that

They have arranged for you to find modesty contemptible

In a thousand ways they have led you to think that whoever does not want to be watched must have something shameful to hide

We want you to feel that solitude is frightening and unnatural

We want you to feel that being watched is the natural state of things

One of the pleasant fantasies that consoles us in our sleep is that we are a sovereign nation, and safe within our borders. This is what the new laws say about that:

We know who our friends are

And when our friends want to have words with one of you

We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need

It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law

It is for us to know what your offence is

Angering our friends is an offence

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Inconceivable.

And those laws say:

Sleep, you stinking cowards

Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms

Freedom is too hard for you

We shall decide what freedom is

Sleep, you vermin

Sleep, you scum.

Geert Wilders speaks on Fox News about his film “Fitna”


It is sad, and a bit unfortunate, that there are now fewer and fewer people who either believe, or want to say, that there is such a thing as an absolute scale of goodness or evil.

It is not shameful to believe, and to believe it strongly enough to defend the same, that the values and achievements and liberal civilisation of the Classical liberal West indeed  _are_ better than all other competitors for the honour of showing The World How To Live.

It is distressing that there are not more chaps like this strange-looking Dutchman, who reminds me of one of my maths teachers in the 1960s.

God and Charles Darwin: Hate mail and the sort of people who send it….


…are related: possibly in an evolutionary way.

David Davis

Sir David Attenborough, being old and therefore in possession of the facts, probably knows about the coming Endarkenment. Apparently he is in receipt of hate-mail, for allegedly “defending” Charles Darwin and the rather poorly mis-named “theory of evolution” in a BBC prog to be transmitted on Sunday.

It is at least 99.99% certain that the planet is astonishingly old, and that diversity and shape of all creatures has altered over tremendous spans of time, so that those that live now are adapted to the external conditions. Because mathematically nothing at all is truly impossible (that is to say, an event’s probability is actually the rational number zero) given enough time and dice-throws, there may be at some time in some place in the Universe a creature called “God”, which proceeds to create – in six days – (a rush-job?) a populated world full of humming-birds and neopastorally-ecstatic human individuals, and without parasites or mosquitos. But Attenborough and I, and maybe also Richard Dawkins, would state this to be highly improbable.

Now to hate-mail. There may be for example an equal degree of hate existing in the minds and hearts of both “Darwinists” and “Creationists”: but I doubt it. For one thing, this is a field of endeavour where “The Science” (terrible phrase) is truly settled. I say this in order to see whether I get hate-mail either from paleobiologists or from creationists. Whereas “Darwinists” are in general rational individuals used to civilised argument and the informed defence of a position with fact, I suspect “Creationists” rely on what they’d term “Faith”. Faith is fine in that of course God’s Mind encompasses the Universe, has done so since the beginning of Time, and He Imagines all that was, is or will be in it: all that is, is thus a product of His thought. That much is obvious to a scientist. But the evidence that God cobbled the earth together in six days, around 6,000 years ago, is scanty at best.

The sorts of people who send hate-mail are those generally with no evidence for their position, but whose world-view is utopian and ideal-driven. For example I think here of socialists, the sort that are not as successful as Polly Toynbee and without her journalistic outlets for their ire: also of “animal rights” “campaigners”. There are of course other kinds, mostly on the left. Whether there is also a connection with the fact that they have very little to do, and lots of time to scratch their own arses, may be relevant. Tere seem to be very few such people on the Classical liberal wing of politics.

If there is a connection developing between the left’s hate-mail-generators and “Creationists”, I think we ought o find out. Both strands of pre-capitalist-idealism will lead civilisation, on purpose, to disaster.

UPDATE1:- I have unashamedly lifted part of The Landed Underclass’s almost simultaneous post to ours, and it’s below. I did wonder in fact whether to discourse in this post about The Nature Of Evil and where God fits in regarding Evil’s continued existence, but forbore this time:-

It seems that nowadays one demonstrates one’s godliness and piety not by acts of charity, humility, contemplation, prayer, etc. but by screaming for the head of anyone who expresses any view that one can, by whatever theological manipulations, deem ‘offensive’.

If I were Mr  Attenborough, I’d go to see my producer and insist that the theme music for my programme were changed to:

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat.
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings.
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small.
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiny urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small.
Putrid foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

[Python, source typos corrected]

God versus Science: something for the commentariat to argue about over the weekend…


David Davis

This just floated in from somewhere. Personally I see no problem whatsoever with Science co-existing with religious belief. Many scientists I have known were devout Christians.

I think we all ought to read 1.John (1 and onwards a bit) and ask what it meant.

But the fella relates a nice story.

Citizen Tom obviously thinks about stuff. I might go back from time to time and see. But for now, here’s what Keeley Hazell thinks. We will continue to employ her for now, inspte of Gordon Brown and his “end to Tory boom and bust”…

Sex and the Pope: perhaps he meant to say it for strategic reasons!


David Davis

If I was a serious Pope, such as Benedict XVI and John Paul II both are, and being either of those two gentlemen thus realising that uncertain trumpets are of little use, then I would view the current state of the Anglican Church with unease.

It’s like the deck-fittings and masts of a tall ship in a storm, which have come loose: and now they threaten the survival of the rest of the boat if not jettisoned.

Perhaps he means to “widen the rift” inside Anglicanism. It could be seen as a strategic risk on one hand, but also as a way to do some much-needed tidying-up too. The Asse-Hat has consistently made an arse of himself and the Church he’s supposed to lead, for some years. The C of E has been allowed to carry on behaving like a minority sect, so perhaps the Pope thinks it’s time it was one.

The socialist-democrats are getting their retaliation in first.


David Davis

I make no apologies to anybody here on this blog about the difference between right and wrong.

The Classical liberal West is truly, yes it is, the best way for people to live. ALL other systems or “philosphies” or even “religions”, except for some I may talk about in the Libertarian Alliance Christmas Post, are errors at best (and should be avoided), or else they are diabolic and deliberate conspiracies to destroy – at worst – and should be expunged. Socialism, personified by the US “Democratic” “party”, falls some way towards the second category.

The demolition job on Sarah Palin, frightened shiteless of her as the Nazis Democrats have been, since she was the nearest thing to a US President that the Republicans conservatives possessed this year, has started. Predictably, they are clearing up stuff about her family and its extensions first. they’ll start on her when they really get going.

You just watch them, while they prepare for 2012.