America's slide into martial tyranny passes another milestone in Pennsylvania, as the Feds turn a sonic weapon on protestors at the G20 conclave, and police and military attack citizens.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Flu shots and body bags
What foresight for the Canadian authorities to ship a supply of body bags with their doses of the flu shot - a deadly cocktail of live viruses and poisonous adjuvants.
Brown's New World Economic Council
More of the same from that lying cocksucker. He won't rest until he has destroyed the last vestiges of this once-sovereign nation, and handed it over to the criminal oligarchs.
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Self-styled..
.."Leader of the Revolution" addresses UN General Assembly.
Gaddafi gives a rambling rocket up the arse of the UN Security Council. My sympathies are with the interpreter...
Here's Part II and Part III, during which he compares the General Assembly to Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner. Find the rest yourselves.
Gaddafi gives a rambling rocket up the arse of the UN Security Council. My sympathies are with the interpreter...
Here's Part II and Part III, during which he compares the General Assembly to Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner. Find the rest yourselves.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Radical statism
I'm sure others will give Polly a good fisking for her opinion piece in the Graun entitled: 'A Lib Dem moment?Could be, but only if they go radical'. Nevertheless I will offer my few thoughts.
Firstly, adjust that Babelfish for Fabianese. It is important to note words like 'progressive' and 'radical' have meanings significantly different than their counterparts in standard, freeborn English. With all such value words, it is useful to assume the antonym is intended.
This is clear in the party's name, where 'Liberal' has come to include a belief in a benevolent, hegelian state -an oxymoron if ever there was one.
And whatever 'democrat' means must be discerned with reference to the party's foul betrayal of its manifesto commitment to support a referendum on the last EU treaty.
Anyway, turning to Polly, we find:
"If he [Nick Cleg] was serious, he could go for Labour's jugular with an unequivocally radical message. The empty political ground is not in the crowded centre, but out in the near-deserted radical wastelands. But Clegg looks over his shoulder, anxiously protecting those essentially conservative seats that so many of his MPs hold."
Polly offers no real clue as to what she means by 'radical', although she mentions the party's opposition to the Iraq war and tuition fees as possible moments of radicalism, and when she concludes she seems to contrast 'slash and burn' cuts with being radical.
But what of the 'near-deserted radical wastelands'? I would say those wastelands are far from deserted, indeed they're not even wastelands. That's where you find all the rest of us who can't stand the Lib-Lab-Con brigade, all the ideas that that lot doesn't dare to even contemplate out loud, in other words the majority of the people. Out in the wasteland, we're not a bunch of savages waiting for the missionary man to proselytise us back to the centre ground, we're organising. We're trying to think up a way, not to return to the centre ground, but to march on it, besiege it, smash it to smithereens.
Firstly, adjust that Babelfish for Fabianese. It is important to note words like 'progressive' and 'radical' have meanings significantly different than their counterparts in standard, freeborn English. With all such value words, it is useful to assume the antonym is intended.
This is clear in the party's name, where 'Liberal' has come to include a belief in a benevolent, hegelian state -an oxymoron if ever there was one.
And whatever 'democrat' means must be discerned with reference to the party's foul betrayal of its manifesto commitment to support a referendum on the last EU treaty.
Anyway, turning to Polly, we find:
"If he [Nick Cleg] was serious, he could go for Labour's jugular with an unequivocally radical message. The empty political ground is not in the crowded centre, but out in the near-deserted radical wastelands. But Clegg looks over his shoulder, anxiously protecting those essentially conservative seats that so many of his MPs hold."
Polly offers no real clue as to what she means by 'radical', although she mentions the party's opposition to the Iraq war and tuition fees as possible moments of radicalism, and when she concludes she seems to contrast 'slash and burn' cuts with being radical.
But what of the 'near-deserted radical wastelands'? I would say those wastelands are far from deserted, indeed they're not even wastelands. That's where you find all the rest of us who can't stand the Lib-Lab-Con brigade, all the ideas that that lot doesn't dare to even contemplate out loud, in other words the majority of the people. Out in the wasteland, we're not a bunch of savages waiting for the missionary man to proselytise us back to the centre ground, we're organising. We're trying to think up a way, not to return to the centre ground, but to march on it, besiege it, smash it to smithereens.
"Should drugs be legalised? Of course, and as soon as possible"
The Guardian has got together a bunch of 'leading voices' to assert their views on drugs and the law. Here's Philip Pullman talking sense:
"Should drugs be legalised? Of course, and as soon as possible. Every human society we know about has used drugs to dull pain, to bring about sleep, to prolong wakefulness, to increase physical endurance, to induce hallucinations, or just to feel better and promote good fellowship. The war on drugs, so-called, is a policy of utter and unforgivable folly; you might as well make war on human nature.
Legalising drugs would have three huge and immediate benefits: it would cut the link between drugs and crime, and empty the prisons; it would ensure that supplies were pure and reliable and not cut with chalk or worse; and it would provide a vast new source of tax for the Treasury. No one was a bigger fan of Prohibition than Al Capone."
Legalising drugs would have three huge and immediate benefits: it would cut the link between drugs and crime, and empty the prisons; it would ensure that supplies were pure and reliable and not cut with chalk or worse; and it would provide a vast new source of tax for the Treasury. No one was a bigger fan of Prohibition than Al Capone."
Saturday, 19 September 2009
Conspiracy theory and rhetorical fallacy
Deriding opposing views as 'conspiracy theory' and labelling their proponents as 'conspiracy theorists' is a very successful strategy, but due to the law of diminishing returns, it is wearing rather thin. It's success comes from its amalgamation of a number of rhetorical sleight-of-hands, which are set forth in Schopenhauer's classic on the subject, which I cited below.
Rule 19: Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his argument, and you have nothing much to say, you must try to give the matter a general turn, and then talk against that.
Therefore, by labelling a specific position, for instance the belief that Dr David Kelly was murdered rather than committed suicide, as a conspiracy theory, and then pulling the focus back to conspiracy theories in general and lingering on those that are most outlandish or the easiest to debunk, such as the moon landings being fake or better still alien abduction, you can argue there's no point spending time dealing with the specific in question.
Rule 32: Put His Thesis Into Some Odious Category
If you are confronted with an assertion, there is a short way of getting rid of it, or, at any rate, of throwing suspicion on it, by putting it into some odious category; even though the connection is only apparent, or else of a loose character. You can say, for instance, "That is Manichaeism" or "It is Arianism," or "Pelagianism," or "Idealism," or "Spinozism," or "Pantheism," or "Brownianism," or "Naturalism," or "Atheism," or "Rationalism," "Spiritualism," "Mysticism," and so on. In making an objection of this kind, you take it for granted (1) that the assertion in question is identical with, or is at least contained in, the category cited - that is to say, you cry out, "Oh, I have heard that before"; and (2) that the system referred to has been entirely refuted, and does not contain a word of truth.
Even farther than that, 'conspiracy theory' has been so over-used, it has attained the power to induce an almost pavlovian response in some hearers, instructing them to file the contended information under 'dubious', 'dangerous' and 'probably nonsense'.
Rule 38: Become Personal, Insulting, Rude
A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
Rule 19: Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his argument, and you have nothing much to say, you must try to give the matter a general turn, and then talk against that.
Therefore, by labelling a specific position, for instance the belief that Dr David Kelly was murdered rather than committed suicide, as a conspiracy theory, and then pulling the focus back to conspiracy theories in general and lingering on those that are most outlandish or the easiest to debunk, such as the moon landings being fake or better still alien abduction, you can argue there's no point spending time dealing with the specific in question.
Rule 32: Put His Thesis Into Some Odious Category
If you are confronted with an assertion, there is a short way of getting rid of it, or, at any rate, of throwing suspicion on it, by putting it into some odious category; even though the connection is only apparent, or else of a loose character. You can say, for instance, "That is Manichaeism" or "It is Arianism," or "Pelagianism," or "Idealism," or "Spinozism," or "Pantheism," or "Brownianism," or "Naturalism," or "Atheism," or "Rationalism," "Spiritualism," "Mysticism," and so on. In making an objection of this kind, you take it for granted (1) that the assertion in question is identical with, or is at least contained in, the category cited - that is to say, you cry out, "Oh, I have heard that before"; and (2) that the system referred to has been entirely refuted, and does not contain a word of truth.
Even farther than that, 'conspiracy theory' has been so over-used, it has attained the power to induce an almost pavlovian response in some hearers, instructing them to file the contended information under 'dubious', 'dangerous' and 'probably nonsense'.
Rule 38: Become Personal, Insulting, Rude
A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
The comment thread on Charlie Skeltern's Guardian piece on the 9/11 Truth movement contains some choice examples of this.
Pish to Hegel
"In talking of philosophy, I admitted that my system upheld the Quietists, and commended them. Shortly afterwards the conversation turned upon Hegel, and I maintained that his writings were mostly nonsense; or, at any rate, that there were many passages in them where the author wrote the words, and it was left to the reader to find a meaning for them. My opponent did not attempt to refute this assertion ad rem, but contented himself by advancing the argumentum ad hominem and telling me that I had just been praising the Quietists, and that they had written a good deal of nonsense too.This I admitted; but, by way of correcting him, I said that I had praised the Quietists, not as philosophers and writers, that is to say, for their achievements in the sphere of theory, but only as men, and for their conduct in mere matters of practice; and that in Hegel's case we were talking of theories. In this way I parried the attack."
Arthur Schopenhauer - from 'The Art of Being Right'
Friday, 18 September 2009
Brown shills for "world economic government"
According to the Guardian:
"Gordon Brown last night urged EU leaders to back an audacious plan for a new system of world economic government in which the G20 and IMF would be empowered to tell major economies how they should tailor their national policies"
Only a raving conspiracy theorist would have a problem with that, right Cisbio?
(Hat tip: Henry North London)
"Gordon Brown last night urged EU leaders to back an audacious plan for a new system of world economic government in which the G20 and IMF would be empowered to tell major economies how they should tailor their national policies"
Only a raving conspiracy theorist would have a problem with that, right Cisbio?
(Hat tip: Henry North London)
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
Unintended Irony
Here's George Monbiot, unwittingly describing himself:
"Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don't answer their critics. They make what they say are definitive refutations of the science. When these refutations are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won't notice the trail of broken claims in their wake."
But George, it's your cohort who refuse to debate the science, on the spurious grounds that you've already had the debate.
(Hat tip: Longrider) (pic)
"Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don't answer their critics. They make what they say are definitive refutations of the science. When these refutations are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won't notice the trail of broken claims in their wake."
But George, it's your cohort who refuse to debate the science, on the spurious grounds that you've already had the debate.
(Hat tip: Longrider) (pic)
Sunday, 13 September 2009
I love to see the Gadsden Flag flying high
Hmm, interesting discrepancy in the estimates of the number of people attending the Tea Party in Washington. According to the New York Times:
"The demonstrators numbered well into the tens of thousands".
Indeed they did. According to the Daily Mail there were up to two million.
Not that any corporate toady from the MSM is capable of grasping what the demonstration signifies.
"The demonstrators numbered well into the tens of thousands".
Indeed they did. According to the Daily Mail there were up to two million.
Not that any corporate toady from the MSM is capable of grasping what the demonstration signifies.
It couldn't happen here
Here is one reason why we should have the right to bear arms. In this country, if a woman had done the same thing, she would have been arrested, added to the DNA database for life. If she was unlucky, she'd be put through a trial and maybe sent down for manslaughter. If not manslaughter, they would have done her for illegal possession of a firearm.
But it couldn't have happened in this country. She wouldn't have been able to borrow a shotgun from a friend. So instead, she would have been raped, maybe murdered too, and her death would be considered a price worth paying to keep the servile masses disarmed.
But it couldn't have happened in this country. She wouldn't have been able to borrow a shotgun from a friend. So instead, she would have been raped, maybe murdered too, and her death would be considered a price worth paying to keep the servile masses disarmed.
(Hat tip: Libertarian Party Blog)
Saturday, 12 September 2009
What rightwing extremists?
John Denham, the so-called communities minister, has condemned rightwing extremists for the violent clashes between police and, err, muslim youths and their pals in the 'anti'-fascist movement, even though there's not one rightwing extremist in sight.
According to the BBC:
'Mr Denham said such right-wing protesters were trying to provoke an "overreaction" from the Asian community. "Then people blame the people who overreact and the situation gets out of control," he said.'
It's clear where Mr Denham's sympathies lie, not with the law-abiding public or the police, caught in the middle, or even with the liberal traditionalist who believes that everyone has a right to express their view, even if it is offensive to some.
Why shouldn't we blame the 'people who overreact', i.e. the ones who were looking for violence with their political opponents, and failing that, the police? Are they not responsible for their own actions?
As for the 'anti-fascists', I'm guessing the irony of their reliance on fascistic tactics of violent intimidation escapes them.
According to the BBC:
'Mr Denham said such right-wing protesters were trying to provoke an "overreaction" from the Asian community. "Then people blame the people who overreact and the situation gets out of control," he said.'
It's clear where Mr Denham's sympathies lie, not with the law-abiding public or the police, caught in the middle, or even with the liberal traditionalist who believes that everyone has a right to express their view, even if it is offensive to some.
Why shouldn't we blame the 'people who overreact', i.e. the ones who were looking for violence with their political opponents, and failing that, the police? Are they not responsible for their own actions?
As for the 'anti-fascists', I'm guessing the irony of their reliance on fascistic tactics of violent intimidation escapes them.
Friday, 11 September 2009
Climate Cult losing the propaganda war
What a shame! After all their efforts, the ludicrous climate cultists are losing ground to that auld enemy common sense, as a poll reveals the public are not as dumb as their elitist masters thought.
No wonder the degenerate government is desperately trying to fluoridate the water supplies everywhere. If only they could knock 20 IQ points off the average person, as fluoride is known to do, maybe the people would swallow their ridiculous lies.
No wonder the degenerate government is desperately trying to fluoridate the water supplies everywhere. If only they could knock 20 IQ points off the average person, as fluoride is known to do, maybe the people would swallow their ridiculous lies.
The sick, twisted Fabian Nazis who run our government
Nothing exemplifies better the perverted minds of the Fabian government than this new legislation. Nothing exposes the drooling totalitarian fascism more than their plan to criminalise giving a friend's kid a lift home or to a sports event.
Shame on Labour. Twelve years in power and what did you achieve? One million dead Iraqis abroad and a horrific orwellian dystopia at home.
Shame on Labour. Twelve years in power and what did you achieve? One million dead Iraqis abroad and a horrific orwellian dystopia at home.
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
Why do judges love paedophiles?
What's a fitting punishment for a 'monster' who preyed on children for decades? Well, according to the justice system, four years (or 'eight years' in legalise).
I wonder if there's anyone out there who would like to join me in campaigning for the removal of these disgusting judges. It's about time we turned on the heat of popular rage, make them sweat under their louse-ridden wigs.
I wonder if there's anyone out there who would like to join me in campaigning for the removal of these disgusting judges. It's about time we turned on the heat of popular rage, make them sweat under their louse-ridden wigs.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
More exaggeration and lies from the Climate Cult
David Miliband intends to shock the rest of Europe into the climate bunker by peddling the following ludicrous bollocks:
"The spectre of a 4C warmer world, with alligators basking off the coast of Sweden, a vast desert surrounding the Mediterranean and a largely uninhabitable mainland Europe."
Like his communist father, no doubt he believes in the 'Noble Lie'.
"The spectre of a 4C warmer world, with alligators basking off the coast of Sweden, a vast desert surrounding the Mediterranean and a largely uninhabitable mainland Europe."
Like his communist father, no doubt he believes in the 'Noble Lie'.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Corporate shame
IMF fire sale. Everything must go!
Apparently the Tories are getting ready for another round of privatisations, in order to 'balance the books'. This is being portrayed as some kind of change of direction, which is not at all the case, as the current government has continued privatising with the same fervour as Maggie in her heyday.
So, the government borrows money from the central bank, which makes it out of thin air and hands it over. We the idiot taxpayers then have to pay the interest on this money. The government then gives this money in the form of a 'bail out' to the private corporations. The government being so close to broke by this scheme and unable to borrow any more, then sells off everything it can lay its hands on to the private corporations, who buy up anything of value with the money the government gave them. Then we end up paying the interest for the borrowing and whatever additional charges for using the assets that once belonged to us.
Okay, I may not have that exactly right, but the underlying principle is correct: We, the common people, are getting fucked in the arse.
So, the government borrows money from the central bank, which makes it out of thin air and hands it over. We the idiot taxpayers then have to pay the interest on this money. The government then gives this money in the form of a 'bail out' to the private corporations. The government being so close to broke by this scheme and unable to borrow any more, then sells off everything it can lay its hands on to the private corporations, who buy up anything of value with the money the government gave them. Then we end up paying the interest for the borrowing and whatever additional charges for using the assets that once belonged to us.
Okay, I may not have that exactly right, but the underlying principle is correct: We, the common people, are getting fucked in the arse.
Quiet, Frazer!
Can somebody please give these climate-catastrophe pimps a valium? It's not enough to blame every climactic deviation, be it drought or flood, on the evil planetary virus known as Man, now they want to blame volcanic eruptions on us too!I think they've gone too far. They've hyped the disaster scenario so much, that in the end all one can do is shrug one's shoulders and say 'fuck it then. If the ship's going down, might as well keep partying."
Which would be a mistake, as there are indeed many things which should concern us about the environment. Unfortunately the things we can and should do something about will most likely be ignored, due to the excesses of the enviro-mentalists.
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
Nonsense hoax designed to discredit internet
The mainstream media must be getting desperate. German broadcaster RTE has apparently owned up to the pathetic shakey-video hoax purporting to show a recently-deceased pop star emerging from a coroner's van and not dead after all.
I saw this video, and it was obviously bollocks, although to be fair it was more believable than the last Bin Laden video with the fake jet-black beard.
I saw this video, and it was obviously bollocks, although to be fair it was more believable than the last Bin Laden video with the fake jet-black beard.
Geo-engineering going public
As I have said previously, now that our skies are full of artificially-created clouds, causing God-knows-what effects, it's time for our control-freak masters to start unveiling their agenda ever so tentatively. Hence the Royal Society's report into geo-engineering.
Pharmacide stalling
Here's a story: 50% of pregnant women will refuse the 'swine flu' shot. As it's the corporate media, they're spinning it to look like this is the 50% that is abberant. Rather, it's the 50% who are prepared to be shot up with an untested vaccine.
Come on, women. You know it hasn't been tested. You know they can give you no guarantees that it won't harm your baby. Protect your baby and yourself. Tell Baxter Pharmaceutical to shove their vaccine where the sun don't shine.
Come on, women. You know it hasn't been tested. You know they can give you no guarantees that it won't harm your baby. Protect your baby and yourself. Tell Baxter Pharmaceutical to shove their vaccine where the sun don't shine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
