“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.” - John C. Fyfe, et al., Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown, Nature Climate Change journal, v6, March 2016, page 224 (below).
Summary of the key evidence of the failure of doom predictions from 124 simulations of 24 CMIP-5 scare mongering computer models, as published in peer reviewed Nature. This confirms that the official models which ignore feedback are wrong, as explained in detail in our “Failure Evidence for All 21 Ipcc Positive-Feedback Climate Models” http://vixra.org/abs/1302.0044 They can be fitted to 195-98 (by means of epicycles and fiddles), but are debunked by the latest observations.
1. In the most widely-hyped scare-mongering climate change report by IPCC in 2007, all 21 of its “different” models all identically ignored negative feedback entirely, while including all-positive feedback from water. Thus, they implicitly and wrongly assumed that warm moist air that absorbs heat doesn’t rise, expand and condense into sunlight absorbing clouds well above the ground/ocean/icecaps.
2. Dr Roy Spencer’s peer reviewed paper found that you can only identify negative feedback in specific tropical weather systems, where CO2 heating of the ocean generates cloud cover that soon wipes out surface temperature rises (below cloud bases). Idiot “critics” then pointed out that you don’t see water negative feedback in other data pertaining to land (no water to evaporate) and clear skies (no cloud cover). You can only see water’s negative feedback over the tropical monsoon systems that Spencer studied. This, “critics” claimed falsely, debunked Spencer’s findings. (By similar crackpot “reasoning”, the absence of ice in the sun would be held to prove that ice doesn’t exist.)
3. Correlation is not causation, so the biased data selection of a temperature correlation to CO2 doesn’t validate the simplistic greenhouse effect of CO2 controlling climate. In a greenhouse with an atmosphere about 100 miles high and with 71% ocean area, CO2 heating inevitably causes additional water evaporation: moist air that absorbs sunshine, heats, expands and rises buoyantly until it reaches cold air, where it makes additional clouds. The upper surfaces of the clouds heat up, reflecting and also absorbing energy and trapping the "energy imbalance" far away from the ground, ocean, ice caps.
4. This is “negative feedback” from water: the heating of the atmosphere seen from satellite albedo (reflected heat) and microwave temperature sensors that determine oxygen’s temperature. The satellite temperature data is biased against recording any negative feedback at all, because negative feedback by its nature only occurs under cloud cover (evaporation causes more cloud cover, negating as Spencer found, most of the warming effects of CO2).
5. The main driver of temperature as Nigel Calder (1950s New Scientist editor) recently proved is cloud cover seeding by natural cosmic rays, see https://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/climate-physics-101/ which is the inverse effect of the “no go theorem” used by deniers of natural climate change to debunk the idea that energy delivery is proportional to temperature. In the case of cosmic rays, as proved by C.T.R. Wilson’s Nobel Prize winning “Wilson cloud chamber”, the more ionizing radiation, the more ion trails for water droplets to condense upon, and thus the more cooling by clouds. The bigoted human climate change crackpots ignore this vital mechanism, and instead claim that Calder’s inverse correlation between cosmic ray intensity and climate temperature debunks the role of cosmic rays! In fact, it proves it, since cosmic rays boost the ionization that causes water vapour to condense into clouds, but deliver insignificant heating energy!
Above: as we've long explained using controlled experiments with ice outdoors in the sun and in the shade and trees in shade and sun, tree ring growth proxies and ice sublimation (oxygen-16 to oxygen-18 ratio data, since lighter water molecules in ice sublime more readily -with less energy) are debunked by negative feedback (cloud cover increases due to increased evaporation from warming oceans in a real world "greenhouse" with oceans). In a nutshell, tree growth and ice sublimation doesn't respond to temperature in the way observed in controlled experiments where cloud cover isn't varied.
In the real world, the mean percentage of the sky covered by cloud increases with ocean temperature due to evaporation increasing the humidity and thus the percentage of the earth covered by saturated air (clouds). This increase in clouds with temperature cuts down solar solar radiation exposure to trees and ice, thus shading them, and offsetting the effects of air temperature variation! Thus, the flat part of Michael Mann's hockey stick is not a real constant temperature, but instead is provably just the misinterpretation of the proxies. You cannot determine any temperatures from ice sublimation or tree ring growth, because as mean air temperature rises, mean cloud cover also increases (evaporation of water from warm oceans) causing negative feedback, and offsetting the effect of the air temperature increase. It proves impossible to get the few climate hype skeptical journalists like James Delingpole to grasp this. This universally suppressed mechanism proves that climate is naturally far more variable than Mann indicates using unreliable ice and tree proxies. Mann's rising part of the hockey stick (20th century direct temperature measurements) is more reliable, but disagrees with tree records from the same period. Instead of using this fact to debunk the entire set of tree and ice "proxies", he simply cuts and pastes in the direct measurements, ignoring the discrepancy. Journalists are complicit in this cover up, by making speculative or strawman style arguments instead of sticking to hard facts. Once you grasp the mechanism, you can see that the recent apparent correlation of temperature to CO2 level isn't impressive, since the natural variability means that at any time it's about 50% likely that the temperature is naturally rising and 50% likely that its falling. It's not a flat line that suddenly goes up when CO2 emissions rise.
In the real world, the mean percentage of the sky covered by cloud increases with ocean temperature due to evaporation increasing the humidity and thus the percentage of the earth covered by saturated air (clouds). This increase in clouds with temperature cuts down solar solar radiation exposure to trees and ice, thus shading them, and offsetting the effects of air temperature variation! Thus, the flat part of Michael Mann's hockey stick is not a real constant temperature, but instead is provably just the misinterpretation of the proxies. You cannot determine any temperatures from ice sublimation or tree ring growth, because as mean air temperature rises, mean cloud cover also increases (evaporation of water from warm oceans) causing negative feedback, and offsetting the effect of the air temperature increase. It proves impossible to get the few climate hype skeptical journalists like James Delingpole to grasp this. This universally suppressed mechanism proves that climate is naturally far more variable than Mann indicates using unreliable ice and tree proxies. Mann's rising part of the hockey stick (20th century direct temperature measurements) is more reliable, but disagrees with tree records from the same period. Instead of using this fact to debunk the entire set of tree and ice "proxies", he simply cuts and pastes in the direct measurements, ignoring the discrepancy. Journalists are complicit in this cover up, by making speculative or strawman style arguments instead of sticking to hard facts. Once you grasp the mechanism, you can see that the recent apparent correlation of temperature to CO2 level isn't impressive, since the natural variability means that at any time it's about 50% likely that the temperature is naturally rising and 50% likely that its falling. It's not a flat line that suddenly goes up when CO2 emissions rise.
This Nature paper debunking the official models is being ignored by the BBC just as my paper explaining the mechanism is ignored by Nature. The mainstream media avoids direct science controversy reporting and it is taboo to do scientific investigative reporting.
This is also relevant to quantum field theory controversy. The mainstream media's position of reverence to science's "expert authority" (where it happens to suit their political agenda) can be amusingly debunked by taking the same position with their political reporting as follows:
- Only the government's own famous politicians in charge are contemporary "expert authorities" in politics because they have power and full access to secret data, so only their speeches and writings are worthy of reporting. Opposition politicians are not in power, don't know all the facts, and certainly aren't in a position of similar authority.
- Anyone criticising the government is unfashionable by definition and thus boring.
- Reporting criticisms of the government will confuse the public, who won't know what to believe.
- Trying to get to the bottom of controversy by looking at evidence and facts takes too much time, effort, and expertise that the media don't have. More money can be had more easily from fashionable celebrity interviews and censoring out fact based criticisms/alternative ideas.
These tactics by the mainstream media in politics would turn democracy into dictatorship. So why on earth do they do the same in science, which is supposed to be liberal with regards to freedom of information, new ideas and criticism of dogma?
(This post on politically corrupted media pseudo-science is cross-posted on our other blog, here.)
In the same way, nuclear weapons effects are routinely exaggerated by using idealized test data blast and radiation transmission in open deserts and from people outdoors (not in concrete buildings) in low-skyline Japanese cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945). The exaggerations are then used by antinuclear bigots like CND to try not to lower the yields, but to try to ban nuclear weapons. However, this is debunked by an inspection of declassified surveys proving excellent survival rates in concrete buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki where fires were extinguished with simple water buckets (the firestorm peaked 2-3 hours later, not instantly as in CND type propaganda). It is further debunked for nuclear terrorism in recent studies of blast and radiation transmission in modern concrete skylines, which greatly absorb energy from the blast wave thus attenuating it, as well as absorbing radiation. Few people end up with burns, blast or radiation sickness inside modern concrete buildings. But even if they did, and even if nuclear weapons effects were exaggerated, couldn’t we just reduce the yields of stockpiled weapons instead of disarming? This is never discussed, a fact which tells you what’s going on.
As physicist Richard P. Feynman put it in his lectures on “This unscientific age”, since nuclear fallout is insignificant compared to natural background radiation, the anti-nuclear folk must be more concerned about banning natural exposure than nuclear test fallout (e.g., banning naturally radioactive potassium-40 in coffee and bananas, natural cosmic radiation in visits to mountain tops, Denver, and air travel). It is simply untruthful to hype a smaller threat as a danger while ignoring one a hundred times greater which is natural, and it is untruthful to claim that natural hazards are unavoidable. In other words, idealistic politics, not genuine nuclear safety, drives CND folk. Some are deluded by personality liars and nasty pseudo-scientists, but most can grasp that we need compact nuclear weapons to deter the invasions and military attacks that set of both world wars, when bulky, expensive conventional arms and mobilization not only failed to deter war, but helped to start it in 1914. As with eugenics, today’s media accepts anti-nuclear bigotry due to its lazy reliance on “science authority”. When you take account of the actual scaling for realistic city effects of nuclear weapons, the effects are not of a different order to conventional weapons. The millions of conventional weapons in a large war are actually equivalent to the thousands of nuclear weapons in a stockpile: there’s no “overkill”. The use of weapons to produce particular effects such as fallout, akin to lingering mustard gas bomb fears in WWII, were deterred and also largely negated by simple countermeasures and widespread education in defence.
In all of these examples, the media refuses to get engaged with the scientific arguments, preferring to quote “authority” figures, personalities, instead. This is precisely why the public remains ill-informed and the controversies are never ended by hard factual debunking of propaganda. Fundamental physics controversies are similarly treated as taboo by the media, by claiming it to be a mathematically “boring” subject, far beyond the skills of journalists to engage with. Instead, obsolete and often wrong interpretations of the equations are given, such as the notion that there is a single amplitude or wavefunction associated with a particle (that is the false 1st quantization theory, debunked by Dirac’s 2nd quantization and Feynman’s path integral). A particle in a “quantum computer” doesn’t have a single wavefunction amplitude which remains unchanging and indeterminate until measured, storing entangled state information that can be used to compute. Instead, as Feynman showed clearly in 1985, in relativistic quantum mechanics, it’s being endlessly affected by random interactions with field quanta. There is one wavefunction amplitude for every one of these interactions, which must be summed: the electron’s state is continually being changed by discrete, quantum interactions with its particulate Coulomb field. This has never been clearly revealed in the popular media, to debunk Bohr’s and Schroedinger’s incorrect (non-relativistic) belief in a single wavefunction amplitude per particle. Enforced ignorance and apathy results.
Update (3 May 2016): another example of the corruption that comes easily from power
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
- Lord Acton, letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton (1887).
Above: "Restricted" classified police evidence and notebooks by officers 27 years ago, in 1989, allowed the cover up of the causes of a policing disaster at a televised football game in Hillsborough. Police leadership made an error and opened a gate to allow a large number of Liverpool football fans into an already crowded area, resulting in 96 deaths. Instead of accepting blame, the person in charge used every trick in the book to cover up the truth and blame the football fans for being drunken thugs. A news agency used by the Sun newspaper, as well as Thatcher's press secretary Sir Bernard Ingham, visited the scene the next day and was instead told by the police that the tragedy was due to drunken fans crowding in, rather than a police crowd control mistake. What's so curious about this example of a cover up is that it seems impossible to get people who make errors to admit the truth. Sir Bernard Ingham is still not apologising for believing the police misinformation even now, after an independent inquiry has exposed the truth, and some of the Hillsborough football fans who he offended with his repeats of propaganda are now trying to get his knighthood removed. I have no sympathy for Ingham. He was employed as a nuclear industry consultant for years while a newspaper columnist for the Daily Express and other journals and his pompous, patronising, style, has done zero to debunk anti-nuclear political propaganda; far from it. He wrote articles after Chernobyl about Greenpeace's inaccurate radiation fear mongering leading to 100,000 abortions, but Ingham failed to make any significant splash of headlines, or change attitudes to radiation. His attitude is dogmatic, pompous.
The nuclear industry and anyone who relies on bells and whistles like authority titles or other affiliations with officialdom to try to impress anyone is just insulting the educated readership with rubbish. This is entirely consistent with the celebrity arrogance: power and access to secret information is a recipe that breeds corruption. Errors get suppressed. It's a rotten approach to public relations, which should not patronise or force feed the media but should encourage criticism and technical arguments and engage with them to dig out the truth, which is not selected "facts" but is the entire evidence; the truth is the full set of the facts both for and against anything, together with an invitation to all to interpret those facts objectively. Any cover up of any facts invites misinterpretation and renders those selective facts which are available, incomplete and thus liable to lead to untruthful conclusions. As the Sir Jimmy Saville BBC scandal proved, the legal industry and the "free" media are liable to join in the cover up of politically incorrect news about corrupt powerful personalities for decades, for fear of litigation, scandal, and abusive arguments. "What is truth?", asked Pontius Pilate. Pilate, like many today, simply didn't grasp that truth is the full spectrum of facts, for and against, giving a freedom to interpret all of the evidence without dogmatic prejudice, and to change the interpretation if new facts emerge to be considered.
 |
| 1986 Chernobyl UK newspaper scare mongering: Oxford University Professor Wade Allison, author of Radiation and Reason, debunked the Chernobyl scare mongering by Greenpeace, CND, etc. (acting in collision with sci fi selling newspaper editors) in his 27 June 2012 Invited lecture at ANS Meeting, Chicago (3.2 Mb) "A Tragedy of Misunderstanding: there was no major radiation disaster at Fukushima" Dr Charles Sanders points out in his 2010 book Radiation Hormesis and the Linear No Threshold Assumption that such scare mongering was not safe but cost 100,000 lives through unnecessary abortions in response to scare stories in newspapers: the offsite dose rate was too low to cause injury. |
Second update of 3 May 2016:
BBC2 have just transmitted a program called Conspiracy file: Who shot down MH17?, debunking all of Putin's lies and conspiracy theories about the murder of 298 human beings aboard passenger jet MH17 over the Ukraine by Russia on 17 July 2014, and also providing additional evidence, pieced together from Russian soldiers facebook photo entries from 2014, which include loads of time dated and location linked photos of the BUK serial number 23 provably used to shoot down MH17. I watched the documentary as transmitted, just after the above update about the suppression of the truth for 27 years in the Hillsborough disaster, and the Jimmy Saville scandal.
Like this blog, it's heavy going and not designed to be populist entertainment, but designed to put the hidden, well validated facts out, while debunking the lies. Putin's Ministry of Defence started putting out one lie after another, changing their version each time it was debunked, while Obama's American "former CIA analysts" continue to conspire with Putin by endlessly appearing on TV (1) to claim that anyone who points out inconsistencies in Kremlin propaganda should be ignored, and (2) to refuse to declassify and publish American CIA evidence of the BUK missile launch. As with other conspiracy theories, American authorities perpetuate mythology by refusing to enter into technical discussions of the evidence. The program does however show what the truth is, based on all the evidence so far. The evidence which Russia claims shows that MH17 was shot down by a CIA UFO, or Ukrainian planes/missiles, is carefully sifted in exhausting detail and found, in every single case, to be provably a complete lie. No, not just a complete lie, but also a complete lie that is totally incompatible with all of Putin's many other Kremlin MH17 claims.
Putin deserves huge credit for inventiveness and for lying. All of Putin's official explanations were originally rigorously presented as absolute truth, but were subsequently debunked, when photoshopping of satellite photos was proved. In the most inventive example, MH17 aircraft on an unequivocal Russian satellite photo was shown flying at just 300 metres below altitude of the satellite, in the vacuum of space. Interesting, isn't it? According to Russian radar (aka the photoshop retouching Stalin used to delete Trotsky from Lenin's side in the famous photos), planes can fly in space. The conclusion is that Putin is corrupted by power and is sending out a smokescreen of lies which works. Most of the Western media is confused and refuses point blank, like James Delingpole on climate change lies, to get into the scientific details.
It is a fact that all mainstream journalists (I have media training and have written articles, but I don't currently earn a living that way) are corrupted by power. I remember having to totally "rewrite" my first published magazine article in 1994, to get it accepted by an editor who declared the original subject to be "boring". My "rewrite" involved taking the original article, tearing it up, dropping it in the bin, and starting completely afresh, carefully researching it to meet the agenda which the journal then needed. So I know what happens with the journalists who seem to have autonomy to investigate and write about anything they like: they only get that autonomy because they think like editors and publishers, delivering what most readers want, which is selective facts dressed up as a good piece of fiction or the retelling of facts in fairy tale format. The full truth is always too long, too boring, or (ironically) too "controversial". You always get anger when debunking a dogmatically held myth. This is a deterrent against telling the truth.
For example, I well remember the press being flooded with photos of drunken football fan riots prior to the Hillsborough tragedy in 1989: I was never taken to a football match in the 1980s by my parents for fear of this behaviour. So when the police boss at the Hillsborough football stadium made his error, his blame on the fans was "specious", or superficially plausible (although a lie when you look at all the facts). This is why he got away with it. Across London, football games were regularly disrupted by fights between drunken rival fans, so to London newspaper editors such as Kevin McKenzie of the Sun newspaper, the similar tale from the police chief at Hillsborough sounded plausible. So McKenzie accepted the police lies and so did many of his readers, because those lies sounded believable. Putin's propaganda is nowhere near that sophisticated so it's less believable, but Putin doesn't give a toss because the Western media and political system only judges propaganda with reference to the author. If the author is the official Russian Ministry of Defence, that's taken as an equally valid counterargument to the West.
Putin is happy to settle for the fog of war to descend over MH17. He doesn't need to provide any unequivocal proof. Like the hate agenda of the environmentalists, if his PR men chant long enough, the noise they make breaks down the Western media's ability to hear anyone telling the complete facts, the truth. That's good enough for Putin, who through his help to Assad in Syria has ensured the rise of ISIS, leading many thousands of deaths, billions of dollars of destruction, and to the flood of a million refugees into Europe from camps in Turkey. This depressing documentary adds to the general feeling that Russia should have been helped even at vast expense to the West, by a new Marshall Plan, immediately after the USSR disintegrated in 1991. We should jumped in quick then to bring Russia up to a Western economic standard to stabilize it against corruption and rogue politicians. We should have treated it as we did Europe in 1945:
"In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Goodwill."
- Winston Churchill's own Frontispiece motto, History of the Second World War.
What has happened instead increasingly appears to be something more like the way Germany was treated by the West in the 1920s, which sowed the seeds for another war. Another analogy is the way American placed economic sanctions on Japan in response to its invasion of China, prior to 7 December 1941 when Japan decided that the American economic sanctions on Japan - far from being a peaceful alternative to military action - were interference of a sort deserving a war. My point in these analogies is not that Russia will be provoked into starting another war tomorrow, but merely that, historically, risk of an outcome of war in vaguely similar situations has not proved to be of zero. Backing down (appeasement) will encourage aggression. One possibility for a war free future if Trump becomes the next President of America in December is a Trump-Putin alliance, since Trump and Putin both seem to respect each other as businessmen. Last December, Putin said that Trump is "Он яркий очень человек, талантливый, без всяких сомнений" which, according to Google translate, means: "He's a very bright man, talented, no doubt."
MH17, Ukraine and Syria will just have to be written off, as not being sufficient cause to put the ordinary Russian folk under more pressure from sanctions. The "utopian" idea that making the ordinary people suffer with sanctions (or bombing) will cause regime change was debunked in Japan, Germany, Vietnam, Syria, etc. (boots on the ground were needed for regime change; Japan's regime change came not purely as a result of bombing but at the end of a long naval conflict, etc.). Economic sanctions backfire by justifying enemy propaganda.
Regular readers of this blog will be aware that what we need to do is to lift sanctions on Russia to demonstrate good will and to reduce the need for them to issue propaganda and back Assad, while stepping up Western defensive (not offensive deterrent) systems to credibly deter Russian military aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere.
We need credible weapons systems that can deter and stop Russian invasions. That's something that proved to work. What has historically been disproved is the approach of economic sanctions, basically what we did with Germany in the 1920s and Japan in the 1930s.
The reason the West is using the disproved approach (economic sanctions) and not the proved approach (a credible tactical nuclear deterrent to deter conventional warfare) is political: stemming ultimately from CND's and the Nukemap (Glasstone) style political version of the effects of nuclear weapon, a cover up this blog is all about. Nobody it seems wants peace, or truth, despite claiming to want these things. (The actions don't match words.)
Hate propaganda rules the world, rather than objective understanding and truth.
British and American racism (5 May 2016 update)
(In case you think she's an imperialist, Jeremy Corbyn, see what she wrote about the pseudo-socialist socialist billionaire Sir Philip Green.)
Despite murdering 20-40 million Jews, mostly in Ukraine, in the 1930s, i.e. 3-6 times more than Hitler, the Soviet Union and its communist supporters in Britain and America played the racism card to their advantage by claiming to be anti-racists, e.g. British anti-nuclear bigot CND Vice-Chair and current Labour Party Leader, a racist, warmongering, terrorist mass killing supporter, Jeremy Corbyn.
Communist deceptions are the key reason why I am an anti-communist: the actual ideology and sales pitch of communism is actually perfectly OK with me, what is wrong is its use as an excuse to impose fanaticism by banning reasoned debates and deleting objective, constructive criticisms under the false claim that such criticisms are rude or silly.
Communist deceptions are the key reason why I am an anti-communist: the actual ideology and sales pitch of communism is actually perfectly OK with me, what is wrong is its use as an excuse to impose fanaticism by banning reasoned debates and deleting objective, constructive criticisms under the false claim that such criticisms are rude or silly.
"Jeremy Corbyn has vowed to continue talking to terrorist organisations Hamas and Hezbollah, in comments that threaten to further destabilise his leadership ahead of the local elections. The Labour leader refused to denounce the groups in the wake of calls from Jewish leaders, the Israeli Ambassador and members of his own party to distance himself from those with anti-Semitic views. He has previously referred to the organisations as "friends", despite both being declared terrorist groups by the EU and America. ... Ambassador Mark Regev said on Sunday: "You’ve had too many people on the progressive side of politics who have embraced Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of them are anti-Semitic organisations ... you’re embracing an organisation which is homophobic, which is misogynistic, which is openly anti-Semitic, what’s progressive about that?"" - Kate McCann, Daily Telegraph.
If I referred to terrorist, racist group as being a friend, I'd be a racist supporter. But Jeremy Corbyn's anti-nuclear CND mindset sees himself as an "anti-racist". This is a propaganda "smoke screen" idea borrowed straight from George Orwell's 1984, where you reverse the meaning of words so that they no longer match their actions: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
Comintern, the USSR's old international propaganda front which Orwell was describing, was based on lying: abusing nuclear weapons effects data or environmental damage data for the purpose of attacking the West by trying to make objective progress on war avoidance taboo. Red Ken, former London Mayor and close personal friend of Corbyn, was only suspended by him after immense pressure for Ken's repeated, unrepentant claim that Hitler supported the Jews.
Political correctness is the fascist art of taking offense to anyone who gives you justified criticism. It is the suppression of free speech to forcefully close down one side of an argument without addressing the full facts. Your right to be "offended" at my views on the suppression of certain provable facts in quantum gravity leads to my freedom of speech being cut off. Political correctness is the effort to shut up people without bothering to address the facts they state. There is no problem with carefully reasoned, objective censorship; the whole problem is a lack of such objective censorship. Stalinist fascism finds guilty anyone who contradicts the party dogma. Stalin has a right to free speech, but his critics don't because to criticise is to be a party traitor.
Hitler was not a supporter of Zionism. What's curious is that Red Ken won't admit his error; he is arrogant and totally unreasonable, which is also the problem with holocaust denier David Irving, the moon landing deniers, and many others: they are so entrenched in egotistic dogma that they refuse correct their errors. Jeremy Corbyn is still refusing to stop calling racist Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups "friends". His hypocrisy in saying he is anti-racist while continuing in actions a racist dogmatic leadership is commonplace. Jeremy Corbyn campaigns against truth, the full facts on nuclear weapons. As I noted at the end of the previous update to this post, hate propaganda rules the world.
 |
| Fanatics Jeremy Corbyn and Red Ken Livingstone both featured in the 1987 Conservative General Election Poster. In February 1985, Jeremy Corbyn told Socialist Action that political victory required "a series of disputes, of which parliament is only part", Red Ken Livingstone in February 1987 declared: "I am not in favour of the Army. I am in favour of replacing it with armed workers' brigades to defend the factories." Alas, their dreams of Marxist socialism did not fall with the Berlin Wall in 1989. |
Update (9 May 2016):
"Ken Livingstone ... claim[s] that Adolf Hitler was an early Zionist ... Hitler hated Jews from his early impoverished days ... in 1923, writing Mein Kampf, he revealed that for them his only ambition was to be wiped out.
"Ken Livingstone ... claim[s] that Adolf Hitler was an early Zionist ... Hitler hated Jews from his early impoverished days ... in 1923, writing Mein Kampf, he revealed that for them his only ambition was to be wiped out.
"Hatred of the Jews ... is also present in the extreme Left. ... the conventional (and convenient) fallacy is that nazism and communism are at opposite extremes. Not so.
"Both advocate brutal dictatorship, one-party rule, extreme fanaticism and mass-murder of all opposition. Originally the full title of the German Nazi party was NSDAP, meaning in German the National Socialist German Workers Party. Note the second and fourth words: Socialist and Workers. That was how it started out.
"The reason it loathed the German Communist Party was not that they were doctrinal opposites at all. It was because they were bitter rivals for the working-class vote – the only route to power back then. Hitler and Stalin were both genocides, and communism slaughtered more innocents than Nazism. Which makes the surviving respectability of communists and their kinsfolk the hard-Left even more odd." - author/journalist Frederick Forsyth, Daily Express, 6 May 2016, p13.
"Triggered by the revelation that Bradford Labour MP Naz Shah had called for the transportation of Israeli Jews to the USA, the row was further fuelled by a tirade of sickening comments from Corbyn ally Ken Livingstone, who, with almost lupine relish, linked Zionism to Nazism. Now it emerges that at least 50 Labour members have been suspended in the last two months for making anti-Semitic or racially charged comments. Under Corbyn, Labour has truly become the nasty party. ...
"There is nothing endearing or harmless about Corbyn. ... This is a man who calls the anti-Semitic terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah his “friends” and calls the death of Bin Laden “a tragedy”. His link to violent Irish republicanism is just as notorious.
"In 1984, only a fortnight after the Brighton bombing, he invited representatives of Sinn Fein to Westminster, while in 1987, at a meeting of republican sympathisers in London, he stood in silence for a minute to honour eight IRA men who had been killed in an SAS ambush. Just as he equivocates over anti-Semitism he still refuses to condemn the murderous actions of the IRA. ... he was only too happy this week to address a May Day rally in London which featured a phalanx of communists carrying banners ... In 2002 Corbyn addressed an angry crowd burning Israeli flags and waving swastikas at a proPalestine gathering. To cheers from the mob he demanded a comprehensive boycott of Israel to ensure the Jewish homeland was cut off “from the rest of world” with “no recognition and no support”."
- Leo McKinstry, Daily Express, 5 May 2016, p14. (Note to Jeremy Corbyn: no he's not dismissable as an ignorant imperialist; former Labour activist Leo McKinstry was born in Belfast, was a Labour councillor in Islington and worked as a parliamentary aide to Labour politician Harriet Harman.)
"There is nothing endearing or harmless about Corbyn. ... This is a man who calls the anti-Semitic terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah his “friends” and calls the death of Bin Laden “a tragedy”. His link to violent Irish republicanism is just as notorious.
"In 1984, only a fortnight after the Brighton bombing, he invited representatives of Sinn Fein to Westminster, while in 1987, at a meeting of republican sympathisers in London, he stood in silence for a minute to honour eight IRA men who had been killed in an SAS ambush. Just as he equivocates over anti-Semitism he still refuses to condemn the murderous actions of the IRA. ... he was only too happy this week to address a May Day rally in London which featured a phalanx of communists carrying banners ... In 2002 Corbyn addressed an angry crowd burning Israeli flags and waving swastikas at a proPalestine gathering. To cheers from the mob he demanded a comprehensive boycott of Israel to ensure the Jewish homeland was cut off “from the rest of world” with “no recognition and no support”."
- Leo McKinstry, Daily Express, 5 May 2016, p14. (Note to Jeremy Corbyn: no he's not dismissable as an ignorant imperialist; former Labour activist Leo McKinstry was born in Belfast, was a Labour councillor in Islington and worked as a parliamentary aide to Labour politician Harriet Harman.)
Nazis, Jeremy Corbyn, CND, terrorism mouthpieces like Gerry Adams, and the communist racists will be delighted to learn that the Guardian newspaper has published a racially offensive article claiming that all "oppressed" people like Hitler and Stalin claimed to be, are excused for being racists. This evil, ignorant, political agenda rant excuses all racists with an agenda of ethnic cleansing. This is like the 1980's tragedies where victims of rape were asked to play a role in determining the sentences of their rapists. In some cases where the victims forgave the rapists and went for leniency, the rapist could get out early and re-offend, sometimes more violently and kill someone. The second victim would then discover the previous crime history, and demand to know the person wasn't punished more severely to keep people safe. Forgiveness and leniency to excuse or encourage dangerous, hate spreading egotists who issue fake "apologies" is inhumane.
This "reasoning" is like defending Hitler as a man of peace and collaboration because of his signed peace propaganda pact and handshake with Chamberlain on 30 September 1938, or his deal with Stalin to jointly collaborate in invading Poland. Red Ken thinks that because Hitler said at one time that Jews should be deported to Palestine, later changing the destination to Madagascar, and then to Auschwitz and mass graves, that fact proves Hitler to be a Jew loving Zionist until he "went mad" in the holocaust. Ken suppresses from his argument facts which undermine it. Such evil people only get votes not because they are good, but partly because their main opponents are even more corrupted, egotistic and nasty, and partly because the few people who do tell the truth are simply dismissed by the media, ironically, for having an "agenda" (truth) for (ironically) being "rude" (plain facts), or for being "naive" (i.e. lacking Gerry Adams' politically correct doublespeak).
Red Ken also claimed in the 1980's that the USSR was a great socialist dictatorship, despite the fact it murdered even more people than Hitler in the 1930's and 1940's. Contrary to Russian history lessons taught today, on 17 September 1939 Russia invaded Poland from the East, and then committed atrocities against Jews in Poland in the censored Katryn Forest Massacre, something Red Ken for some reason doesn't publicise. The USSR-Nazi Pact only ended on 22 June 1941.
Red Ken, former London Mayor, demonstrating his Marxist "reasoning" again, a pathetic, evil "argument" that Jack the Ripper, Hitler, Stalin or any abuser can use:
Ken Livingstone’s shock claim: I can’t be an anti-Semite because I've romped with Jewish women
By analogy, he could also claim Hitler loved Jews because of that was what Hitler's lying Zionist propaganda claimed to be the case. Whoops! Red Ken actually did do that. Presumably, the Guardian will now publish another article, claiming that anyone who believes and promotes any of Hitler's propaganda as being the truth, is just and worth a Nobel Peace Prize for P.C. racism. We may have to live with Red Ken and Gerry Adams, but that doesn't mean we have to allow them to corrupt the world with their hate propaganda, their dogmatic sycophants published by the Guardian. If you don't fight against bigotry in the media, it always "justifies" a mass murderer.
Democracy as used now is a travesty, a misnomer: in ancient Greece democracy was a daily referendum on issues, not one vote every five years for a choice between two options! Mathematically, modern democracy, a vote between 2 choices once in 5 years, is at least 5 x 365 = 1,825 times weaker democracy than a daily referendum! In other words, at best we have only 0.05 % of democracy. Very weak!
However, if you allow for daily referendum votes on several issues in real democracy, the differences are even bigger. (Also, since the same people and parties with the same policies often hang around for decades in repeated elections, it's more like 15 years, not 5!) So have a very, very weak form of democracy, dressed up as being “strong” because of the ability of a handful of ignorant bullies who own the “free press” to put out propaganda.
Anytime I argue that modern secure banking online database technology, which allows millions of people to securely log in daily, could be adapted for daily referendums of the real democracy sort, there’s no interest. People seem to want virtual dictatorship by a handful of media moguls.
Nasty dictators love the claim that Winston Churchill preferred dictatorship to democracy: “Churchill had it right: “The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”” I feel that this quotation was used out of context; Churchill overall preferred democracy to dictatorship.
What you find is plain hatred directed against realistic progress in democracy, camouflaged as liberalism. Despite the quotation from Churchill, there’s a lot more common sense in the common person than certain elitists like to believe. Hitler gained power precisely because democracy was weakened in Germany by economic ruin, the Kaiser starting WWI, etc. Nor does the overthrow of Ancient Greek real democracy disprove its validity today. The very people who claim to be "progressive", "educated" and "liberal" are exactly the opposite: they are conservative, freedom-curtaining bigots.
However, if you allow for daily referendum votes on several issues in real democracy, the differences are even bigger. (Also, since the same people and parties with the same policies often hang around for decades in repeated elections, it's more like 15 years, not 5!) So have a very, very weak form of democracy, dressed up as being “strong” because of the ability of a handful of ignorant bullies who own the “free press” to put out propaganda.
Anytime I argue that modern secure banking online database technology, which allows millions of people to securely log in daily, could be adapted for daily referendums of the real democracy sort, there’s no interest. People seem to want virtual dictatorship by a handful of media moguls.
Nasty dictators love the claim that Winston Churchill preferred dictatorship to democracy: “Churchill had it right: “The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”” I feel that this quotation was used out of context; Churchill overall preferred democracy to dictatorship.
What you find is plain hatred directed against realistic progress in democracy, camouflaged as liberalism. Despite the quotation from Churchill, there’s a lot more common sense in the common person than certain elitists like to believe. Hitler gained power precisely because democracy was weakened in Germany by economic ruin, the Kaiser starting WWI, etc. Nor does the overthrow of Ancient Greek real democracy disprove its validity today. The very people who claim to be "progressive", "educated" and "liberal" are exactly the opposite: they are conservative, freedom-curtaining bigots.
Update on anti-rudeness (obfuscating or plain lying) "nice guy diplomacy", versus "gun-boat diplomacy" (truth), 12 May 2016
Film of Her Majesty the Queen of England and Prime Minister Cameron has been released this week showing "undiplomatic" stuff: the Queen referring to the Chinese communist leadership delegation in England last year as "very rude", and Prime Minister Cameron has referred to Nigeria and Afghanistan (both hotspots of terrorism) as "fantastically corrupt ... possibly the two most corrupt countries in the World." This is very politically incorrect stuff, but the film is explicit in showing exactly who is saying what and the context, so it cannot be denied as being taken out of context. It is a return to verbal "gun boat diplomacy", ruffling feathers, but beware of the hypocrisy. As we stated above, "democracy" in the West is very weak, while the merest trace of democracy in the European Union (which has elected members to vote on whether or not to rubber stamp policies proposed by unelected European Commission bureaucrats) is even more diluted. If the Queen and Prime Minister want to address corruption, start at home!
Afghanistan and Nigeria are not prosperous countries, and contain large numbers of very poor people. Nigerian police recruits get currently an annual salary of 108,233 Nigerian Naira, which at today's exchange rate (1 Nigerian Naira = 0.00501892 US dollars) is equivalent to $543.21 US dollars a year, or $45.27 a month. They are fantastically poor, and many have wives and kids to support. Although basics like food and accommodation are relatively cheap in Nigeria, if they want to buy shoes and textbooks for their kids, or send them to college, their basic salary is simply not enough to do all that. (This basic issue is relevant to most of the world's corrupt countries.)
Relatively rich foreigners in Nigeria, who do understand the mechanism of low pay that causes the entire corruption problem, keep a few dollars of notes in their driving licence wallets when driving around Lagos for when they are occasionally spotted (as rich foreigners) and stopped for having using the wrong lane or having a dusty licence plate ("when in Rome ..."). You do not solve the corruption problem by imposing more laws, or trying to impose socialist ideals. You end corruption by improving the capitalist economy which pays more tax and thereby increases police wages. It's more like the American system of tipping poorly paid restaurant staff, than outright corruption.
The way to cure the root problem is not ideological con advertisements about banning corruption using socialist lawyers to make up more and more anti-corruption or human rights laws, it's the exact opposite: to end corruption you must use capitalist progress to boost the economy and thus wages. Once you pay an honest wage, you can expect honesty. Nigeria responded to Cameron by asking not for an apology, but instead for the return of Nigerian assets which a previous president had illegally invested in London based properties, making use of British privacy laws (echoes of the Swiss bank accounts used for money laundering by corrupt Nazis). This hits the nail on the head: a great deal of "socialist idealism" driven foreign aid to corrupt countries gets syphoned off by corrupt officials, who invest it abroad secretly. The proved way around corruption is more capitalism to generate money, higher salaries to reduce the incentive behind corruption, and more democratic control of taxpayers money by the people who pay the tax. All of this seems to be taboo to the corrupt, war-making socialist laws and lawyers, the altar boys at the shrine of politically correct lying and obfuscation.
"The world of diplomacy is riddled with deceit and hypocrisy. Political representatives continually seek to maintain their facade of good relations by hiding their real views about other countries. As the American satirist Ambrose Bierce once put it, “Diplomacy means lying in state”. ... [Cameron joked that the anti-corruption summit conference appropriately had invited] “fantastically corrupt” nations ... including Nigeria and Afghanistan, “possibly the two most corrupt countries in the world”. ... Inevitably ... much of the media has predictably described the remarks as “gaffes”. ... As Noel Coward once said: “It is discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty.” In both these cases the truth was spoken. The Queen was absolutely right to express her dismay over aspects of the Chinese state visit, a stiff, awkward event that had signified our humiliating collusion with a totalitarian regime. ... Cameron was right to lambast Nigeria and Afghanistan for their institutionalised corruption. ... At the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation alone, it is estimated that at least $20billion has gone missing from the accounts. ... These two corrupt nations illustrate so much that is wrong with our aid budget – a gigantic £12billion a year project to feed the vanity of our politicians. Far from fuelling development it entrenches fraudulence and dependency."
Only the spread of capitalism and credible deterrence against the misery of invasions and war offer peace and salvation; all forms of socialism and the "outlawing of war" (laws don't stop lawbreakers, who break laws) lead to either dictatorship or economic ruin, with only smug, conceited, misnamed "human right"s lawyers/politicians profiting from the misery of the workers.
Africa imports 80% of its food, despite having 600 million hectares of uncultivated farmland. Trade tariffs and enormous subsidies to EU farmers keep Africa in poverty, Braintree MP James Cleverley (whose mother if African, from Sierra Leone) explains:
"One of the saddest and most disturbing drivers of Africa's continued poverty is global food policy, particularly the EU's food policies. It loudly promotes free market principles but on a global stage, it spectacularly fails to deliver. Far from levelling the playing field, the EU reinforces the structural inequalities that favour big businesses and powerful countries at the expense of developing nations. ... Every week we send £350 million to the EU. Of course, we get a bit of that back through farm subsidies, just enough to keep our farming industry addicted to EU membership. Our farmers are being taxed to subsidise their competitors to keep African farmers in poverty."
Sir Nicholas Soames called James Cleverly MP abusive, insulting words, without even addressing any of the substance of his argument at all: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/soamess-four-letter-rant-at-brexiteer-m8065z598 What Sir Nicholas Soames doesn’t want to hear from James Cleverly MP:
“The famine caused by Mao Zedong's communist policies, killed an estimated 15 to 20 million people between 1959 and 1961. The Bihar famine of the late 1960s and the 1972 Maharashtra drought, though far less deadly, led my parents generation to tell kids like me in the 1970s to think of those starving in India. The 1980s saw the terrible famine in Ethiopia … Their economies at the time were too fragile to withstand the impact of extreme weather events. China and India are both now economic powerhouses. … the widespread crushing poverty of previous decades has been defeated through trade and commerce. I believe that open, honest and fair trade is the best vehicle for lifting people out of poverty. … I have seen the impact of these things through my own life in places like India and China. … But, Africa is not there yet. … it is currently being held back. … The EU’s protectionist attitudes, particularly in food, keeps poor African farmers poor.
“This is particularly ironic as the European Coal and Steel Community, the forerunner of the European Union was designed to prevent war, and prevent poverty through free trade. … It loudly promotes free market principles but on a global stage, it spectacularly fails to deliver. Far from levelling the playing field the EU reinforces the structural inequalities that favour big businesses and powerful countries at the expense of developing nations. … The Common Agricultural Policy subsidizes continental european farmers to produce food in quantities that we cannot eat. Those heavily subsidised surpluses completely distort African and other markets. They undercut the prices of domestically produced food. They make it impossible for impoverished African farmers to compete. Impossible for them to make a sustainable living.”
- Speech by James Cleverly MP, “How the EU's Common Agricultural Policy is making African farmers poorer”, April 27, 2016, http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/speech_by_james_cleverly_mp
