Rare and unusual car number plates

Slideshow

Unusual number plates seen in and around London

Guyana (diplomatic)
  

Singapore
  

G'day from Oz!
  

UK import plate
  

New Zealand
  

Unknown
  

Morocco
  

ukraine
  

Not Irish but...
  

Fake plate
  

'Bent as a nine bob note'
  

Poland mix-up
  

UK Japan import (front)
  

UK Japan import (rear).
  

Sweden temporary plate
  

Dutch temporary
  

Fake not French
  

USA remake
  

Cyprus visitor plates
  

Dutch temporary plate?
  

Uncertain
  

Tropical Ford
  

British export
  

Hungary
  

new york
  

Poland old type
  

greece
 1 Comment 

AUS New South Wales
  

Japan
  

Sweden ? custom
  

Russia
  

Texas plate
  

German temporary
  

Luxembourg temporary
  

Christ knows
  

Kuwait
  

Denmark commercial
 2 Comments 

Bulgaria
 1 Comment 

French Temporary
  

Belgian reissue
  

Qatar
  

Ontario plate
  

German trade plate
  

Saudi Arabia_edited.JPG
  

Swiss CD plate front.JPG
  

Swiss CD plate rear.JPG
  

CD plate front.JPG
  

CD plate rear.JPG
  

Hockey sticks rule the 2000s, except temperature

  Life expectancy

World population

Global GDP

< Food prices.

Oil till 2005 >

Gold v 

Temperatures?

Fertiliser prices

Spot the odd one out. They all look damn similar don't they, but just one is not reliable, the temperature record. Unfortunately all the prices are absolutely real, as is the world population. The familiar hockey stick, which needed to both compare like with unlike (the temperatures from 1979 onwards were satellite based, land based for 50 years earlier and then proxy) and rewrite history to dispose of the little ice age and medieval warm period, both in textbooks for decades until then, in order to give the impression our temperatures had suddenly started rising. Steve McIntyre followed this up by using the computer algorithm to show whatever data was put in the same shape was guaranteed.

 

But the 2000s have indeed been the decade of the hockey stick economically. Are they connected? Mostly they are, and not by chance either. Bear in mind the Bilderberg Group planned to use mid-east chaos such as invading Libya and Iraq to raise the oil price artificially to $150, which has been closely reached now twice, and as can be seen the 2005 price here, already the peak of the stick is now double that in 2011. This has been engineered through wars and selective restrictions on exploration and energy taxes, nominally in the name of the environment but actually to allow the same remaining oil to be sold for around double the previous market price or more. Therefore big oil are definitely involved with climate change, as it has made their work a lot easier, gaining twice the price for the identical amount of work. Inflation causes a ripple effect, so food and fertiliser (partly oil based) follow faithfully, while gold has risen simply as the currencies have been puffed up without added production through bailouts and quantitative easing (creating cash from nowhere), meaning they become worth less per pound or dollar as there is no more production behind a greater total sum of cash. That means the money shifts to hard currency, ie commodities, with gold as king.

 

The final and sharpest rise which is probably the major reason behind the others is world population. As food production remains flat and oil reduces, and the people multiply logarithmically, the shareout ratio is obvious. And bear in mind in nature most sharp peaks end with a sharp fall. If this occurred for any of the prices it would be a welcome miracle, if for the population it would be a disaster.

Diversity? wtf!

Until a few years ago diversity had a standard meaning and was then hijacked as the newspeak of the left to mean wherever you are you need to represent every single element of the society, and if not then make a law to bring them in from wherever you could. The only word which came to mind is why? Social engineering is only present in totalitarian societies. Slavery and actual discrimination is now banned as well, so the law protects everyone, and the rule of law means each applies to everyone equally.

Isn't that enough?

Apparently for the left, not at all. I won't even try and understand diversity from their side, as trying to view the world as a paranoiac, criminal or psychopath only tends to send you over that way and even if you can learn their strange ways doesn't mean you can do anything about it. Society should be organic and change naturally, and I see no merit or relevance in making sure your company represents society as a whole for the area, especially as that would also mean Indian shops and restaurants employing a representative number of black and white people as well as Asian. And housing and education and basically every aspect of society is meant to be diverse, so much so a spokesman for the left stated last year after a visit to Newcastle it was something like 'Aggressively White'. Excuse me, before the 60s every bloody place in Britain was 'Aggressively White', just as Peking (I prefer the names we can actually pronounce and spell so will continue to use them) is still 'Aggressively Chinese' and Lagos is 'Aggressively Black'. Of course, if you condemn a national area for actually having the dominant local race dominating it must apply universally.

To stray into their psychology just for a moment, all I can imagine is through the white man's guilt, these bedwetters feel so bad for the British Empire which was carried out two generations before most of them were born, they feel some deep-seated compulsion to make up for it (despite it civilising many savage societies who killed women and attacked innocent people in organised crime throughout their history, as well as India having probably the worst class system in world history) so do their best to destroy any success they see coming from what they see as an immoral gain at the expense of the coloured (I love using these words we'll soon be prosecuted for mentioning, but I do not mean 'black' but every other colour which is not white, so believe I am being totally accurate). Such motivations are entirely negative, so coming from a negative point of view, all following acts and results can only be negative. Base a theory on a false and destructive premise and you will create false and destructive policies. Force three different races to live and work together, and at best they'll avoid each other (my old college canteen had black and Asian tables as that was what they created themselves, and very few others would venture onto them) and at worst rip each other apart. When I was teaching it was a total mixture of races and religions, and the one thing guaranteed was they would take the mickey out of whichever races weren't there. And you tell a Chinese parent their daughter is going out with a black man, it's almost like lighting a firework.

So my entire point is diversity is a meaningless and irrelevant concept, the only guaranteed result is to destroy any society it is operated in. And in Britain much is now operated by law, and just below the law you try filling in a job application form and then having an interview in the public sector if you haven't learnt diversity policy inside out. You can be the best worker available and an absolute genius but if you can't answer their trick questions over what you should do if someone catches their turban in the lift or calls the office cat a Paki then the job you will not get. And if you refer to someone with cerebral palsy as a 'spastic' they'll stop you working for the state for the rest of your life, even if you're a doctor interviewing for a medical position, and quoting the textbooks (a spastic is a medical term however much the left have tried to wipe it from the dictionaries). It also assumes there is something extremely bad with a country which was originally white (they haven't applied it to any others, much to my own confusion, as if diversity is essential for US then it is essential for EVERYONE). This is dangerous, and only the other side of racial purity. Any ideological concept based purely on a political opinion and bearing no relation to reality is equally dangerous, and leads to the same totalitarian actions against the perceived enemy, followed by the vigilantism and divide and rule by getting neighbours to report others for crimes against diversity, just like reporting hidden Jews to the Nazis. There is absolutely no difference in reporting the Jews as reporting the employers who don't have anyone in a wheelchair, even if they are a professional football team.

As most people know, diversity is the second ugly sister of multiculturalism, the view all cultures are equal even if they maim and kill children and cover women in black sheets from head to toe. There is no right or wrong for the left, as long as it's another race or religion doing it. And no, they needn't be a minority as they will defend to the hilt whatever dire acts, normally considered serious crimes if carried out by the white natives, wherever they are carried out including their own original countries. That allows female genital mutilation, aborting girls and banning women from going to school as long as it's 'part of their culture', and they will fight for the death to allow polygamy and forced marriage when they live here as well. That is pretty well the essence of diversity, they want a thorough mixture of every possible element of the world right here and when completed presumably everywhere else. Returning to the mental motivations of these proponents, who currently appear to be the majority in Britain and only absent from a section of the Tory back benches and bishops, why anyone would genuinely want to debase a society once the greatest on the planet (in not just my opinion but millions of immigrants who stow away across many countries to get here every single day) which they also have to live in is a mystery to me, and attempting to understand it is not just impossible as it is not rational, but would send anyone that way as well, so don't even try it.

Discrimination, my arse

Listening to Woman's Hour on the BBC, I was amazed to hear the most educated women in the country whining and whinging on every single week about them not being able to succeed in every profession being discussed, exactly the same as when black people on the TV crime shows regularly say the police only stopped them (while speeding/no insurance/carrying drugs etc) 'because they're black'. Of course it only needed one instance of the weary policeman explaining he stopped the car at night and couldn't see who was driving it to prove nearly every single other example was equally bogus, and the secondary evidence being the huge majority of them were indeed guilty of offences.

Now we have laws against discrimination it's both very rare from the start, at least against women, and while police may enjoy nicking black men in the street for whatever reasons of their own, very few can or will be convicted as a consequence unless they have broken the law, which the figures show they frequently have, which I would suggest is the likeliest reason the police will stop them more than anyone else.

But these pathetic women, bearing in mind my mother qualified as Britain's youngest barrister in the 50s, and said her view of feminism was doing your best and getting on regardless, and continued to become a judge. One example may only be one, but it does set a precedent in an era where women earned less and landlords were allowed to select who they wanted by colour and race. Nowadays none of these things are allowed by law, although apparently many companies do pay women less but I would suggest this is between the staff, them and the unions to sort out assuming it actually is now illegal, and if not then work so it is if they are doing exactly the same work as men (unlike the tennis players who wanted the same prizes for three sets per round, bleeding cheek). But to hear these academics and professionals bleat on every week 'there aren't enough women in management/medicine/Nobel Prizes' or whatever the area that week is is sheer sour grapes. Of course I'm not saying there isn't any discrimination, but besides being illegal would account for so few either lack of women or black people having as many top jobs as white men as to be insignificant.

It is basically a sign of immaturity and a lack of worldliness which blames others for our lack of success in any way. It's no different really to a Jewish person like me claiming I didn't get a job because I was Jewish, even though I no longer have a Jewish name and even if they met me very few could even tell. But that hasn't stopped some Jewish people I know saying they were treated badly simply because they were Jewish although it was physically impossible to know. That adds an element of paranoia to the others, and between them cover virtually all accusations of bias, as if any woman goes to college and passes the exams they will become equal to everyone else with those exams, and only if they believe they will not will be at a disadvantage through their negative attitude, which then automatically puts them on the defensive, alienates people and then blames others for their lack of success.

Any self help manual will tell you the same things, do your best and the world will respond. And success does not discriminate, only your imagination is required to do that.

Black and white

Nothing to do with Paul McCartney and his piano, but the observation much of what I write is seen in terms of black and white rather than shades of grey. To me this is a left field accusation, as if I'm talking about what I know well enough to write about it, I either know it sufficiently or not, so shades of grey only conveys one thing, uncertainty or vagueness.

Now I read and hear these style of arguments in the written and spoken media every day, and to counter my position will use James Delingpole's 'Dogshit in yogurt' scenario. Rather than do your best to keep dogshit and yogurt separate, those using shades of grey will interminably (as there is and can never be a right answer when black and white have been removed) discuss how much dogshit should be in yogurt, with camps of 'as much as you like', 'as little as possible' etc, but the end result actually being identical, ie dogshit in your yogurt. Black.

So extend that to knowns and possibly knowns, what in the list is black and white or not?

Cancer
The Mafia
Britain being in the EU
Climate change/global warming
Taxing the rich more than others

etc etc.

I did not decide to specialise in any particular subject or area besides my actual job as a therapist, all other academic pursuits were imposed on me by the demand to pass a degree after three A levels. Between them all I learnt slightly more than most as I changed subjects for a year each time, thus including a year of A level science and degree level accounting on top of law and humanities.

The eventual outcome of 'individual pursuit', ie leaving college at 31 and finally being free to learn unrestricted by exam requirements, and the result was I learnt to decipher the difference (and level of) between shades of grey (uncertainty or personal opinion) and black and white (eg cancer is not a matter of degree, ie how much cancer do you want in your body?' is not a valid question.

This means I put every single item through the monochrome machine and it comes out the other end with a shade and reason for it. That was almost entirely through my legal training and years of application as a teacher, and will add here that in teaching you only use shades of grey to moderate students' essays, and not what you teach. 'It may be a good thing to punish thieves' was and never will be part of a legal lesson, although I do recall seeing a few in the media trying to argue it.

Examples are listed here, and each topic I can assign a number from 0-10 as to greys or black and white, based on the available evidence.

Wind turbines- Rating 10: My evidence is easily available, absolutely impossible to misread or measure badly, so given the opportunity and patience you can do a simple budgetary account of their output v input costs, and it is around break-even to negative, based on average wind speeds and durations and fixed and variable costs. The bottom line is they perform no function whatsoever. How can you have grey when they waste resources 100%?

Quantitative Easing: This has a few reasons, known by those who carry it out (governments) otherwise why would they do it? These are:

1) Keep interest rates low:

These (using basic accounting methods) benefit some people at the expense of others. Low interest rates guarantee twice as many individuals lose than gain, as the savings on mortgages are half the losses on savings. But the government and banks borrow at these levels so save money themselves.

2) Keep the currency low

I won't go into pages here, but devaluing your currency makes savings worth less than they were, and shifts cash into commodities, as they have innate value, like gold, food and oil.

This

3) Causes inflation: Governments know this, but don't mind as inflation reduces debt by a similar amount, the government are in debt, so it means the amount they owe is worth less than it was without adding a single thing to the GDP. That is fiddling with numbers, and in the real world referred to as 'False Accounting', and is illegal. It is also currency and market manipulation, which in the real world is referred to as 'Serious Fraud'.

Rating 9 (as some people do benefit).

EU membership:

There are solid knowns, as the profit and loss account (we lose, trust me), and then opinion pieces, such as 'Who do we want making our laws, our elected politicians or foreigners with no means of regulating through democracy?

Rating 8 (as some involves political choice, which can never be black or white).

Cancer I'll let you rate this one.

Mafia Membership- Rating 9 (as it benefits the small minority in the mafia at everyone else's expense)

Gay Marriage 0 on its existence, as how can anyone else have an opinion what other people do which only affects them, and marriage is only a cultural artifice with no physical basis in reality, but 9 as far as whether the word 'marriage' is used to nominate it, as marriage is a union between a man and a woman once you choose to accept it as part of your own culture.

I hope these give enough examples to demonstrate the Howard patent pending topic rating system. Therefore if a topic has a rating above 8 or so it becomes a 'known', and anyone then arguing as if it's a 3 or 4 can fuck off  be sure they haven't really thought it through or done their homework as the only ways you can treat a fact as an opinion is when you don't know enough to pass the exam.

Climate honesty

Quotes :

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, * I can speak quite frankly. The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

"Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

 “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

 

Thanks to Climate Change LIES for the information 

*This highlighted in red says more than any other phrase I have ever come across in my climate travels. Take that element away and they would all start speaking the truth as well (assuming it couldn't actually end them up in prison).

How to rescue Britain

Our government want to raise all taxes by 3% to protect public services, guaranteeing a long term recession and making it impossible for the Tories to be re elected as they caused it. There are alternatives available (some already in use in many countries such as Iceland, Latvia and Estonia) but as they would cause loss to the bankers will not be implemented by any of the three parties in parliament who are all run by the same leaders (otherwise why would they all be in favour of the EU, quantitative easing and the Kyoto Protocol? A normal democracy is made up of parties who differ on major issues). So if our government was honest and independent even if they only added a few it would solve enough of our problems in time for the next election and get a Tory landslide (or any other party who implemented them, but we've currently got the coalition).

1) Allow interest rates to rise to the market level
2) Flat rate income tax around 20%- studies show well off return to the country, stop avoiding tax, and poor people far better off.
3) Renationalise public services. They are monopolies so by their nature outside capitalism.
4) Leave the EU and with it the Kyoto Agreement.
5) Stop quantitative easing and allow the market and currency to float naturally.
6) Ban bailing out of banks, change law to compensate savers and not bankers if they go bust.
7) Stop the use of savings for market making.
8 ) Bring back the gold standard or equivalent fixed currency standard.
9) Subsidise public transport fares, Britain has the highest fares in the world and prevents people commuting to jobs they could otherwise find.
10) Stop faffing around with nonsense like gay marriage and invading third world countries who will kill themselves and each other whatever we do, so why kill our own men there as well?
11) Close the door on immigration and make it exclusive rather than inclusive as it was before Tony Blair and is in virtually every other country in the world.

Jewish rap video (complete version)

Law v science- fight!

My parents and I are legally qualified, they are barristers while I dropped out after my degree to become a therapist. But the legal training forces you to justify every single point you make and prepare your entire evidence before you proceed.

All three of us independently saw straight through the entire façade of global warming, simply because they put shaky material out before it is certain, and treat it as if it is a given. In law you'd either get disbarred if you did this at that level and frequency, or lose your clients a great deal of money and their freedom in some cases. Each new study or article talking about something 'possibly happening at an unspecified time or after our deaths' makes us cringe equally, while the greatest crime of all which science and scientific method warns against on day one (as it does in law and sociology, my minor subject) is extending from the particular to the general, induction.

Therefore finding a small glacier is melting or the Arctic ice is smaller this year than it was for 20 years is a piece of evidence. Over time (a scale far longer than politicians or the media, who these scientists are working for and feeding, are prepared to wait) you can put these items together until you reach a reasonable conclusion, one in criminal law (for mankind is on trial here) requiring a level of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt', and then can genuinely claim the world is dangerously warming. Till then we have theories, local and short term incidents, and computer models.

Now had the temperature already risen a dangerous amount and caused dangerous weather then of course we would be in trouble. Whether it was our fault would require a different study, directly eliminating every single driver of weather since day one before the 1970 cutoff point when CO2 reached levels high enough claimed to influence the temperature significantly (it still hasn't but don't worry about that) and if entirely dismissed the decadal oscillations and solar changes which have been almost the only drivers of climate in favour of added CO2 as well then the case has been won.

Look at that scenario and compare it with reality:

Temperature has been measured differently, and while the highest hockey stick by Michael Mann used by the UN to legislate shows a massive (OK, infinitesimal) rise of 0.7C in 150 years, while CO2 rose 50%, but others show a lower rise, and most but not all have been adjusted to rise (despite the urban heat island effect where most ground stations are raise the temperature by around the measured amount) and there is no exact consensus of the rise but only 0.7C as the possible maximum.

Studies combining solar activity (cosmic rays and sunspots) and the decadal oscillations caused by the earth's wobble track the temperature line very closely, while the 45' rise of CO2 is fairly linear. This is solid evidence, in the present and clearly measurable in comparison with sampled and averaged world temperatures, post-processed to fill the gaps and altered to within an inch of its life.

It is absolutely clear that if presented genuinely, the 'reasonable man' (the legal test) would not see any solid case for warming, let alone the secondary charge of being 'man made'. The scientists are not paid by results but by quantity produced, if they don't publish a certain amount they don't get paid and may lose their jobs. So produce they do, and let the rest of us deal with what junk or otherwise they do produce. Before global warming and science had not been political since the claim the earth was the centre of the universe the majority of science was decent and useful, with a small rump of the sort of junk studies the papers love and publish people who name their dogs certain things are more likely to be struck by lightning than those who go to Majorca on holiday, but they were the edge of decency and quite separate from curing diseases and making cars go further on a tank of fuel.

But global warming turned the neutral man, that is one neither particularly bad nor good, into a monster. The leaders, who realised the potential and created studies guaranteeing their field would be provided with cash for decades, were the ones who were probably bad to start with, while the majority as always were the colluders who simply rode the wave of dubious science to keep their own jobs and positions. But every single one has at least one degree, usually two or three. They were taught science (not law), and scientific (but not legal) method, and ought to be fully equipped to separate wheat from chaff. But clearly not. When the cards are laid out, lawyers in general can easily see the dog's breakfast of utter nonsense, contradictory claims, alterations, non-sequiturs, incomplete experiments etc, everything which would get a student sent down but once qualified can't lose their degrees so have no reason to hold to such standards if being paid to put them aside.

A lawyer (including an academic one, as we all have to process the same material as students as practitioners) can assess a good and a poor case almost immediately, just as a detective can. It is mainly through training and being exposed to a series of statements from witnesses and defendants, especially in a jury trial where both sides are so convincing if you listen to one you'll usually accept them as correct, until you hear the other and put them together. Global warming has two sides, I have just presented them, and to me the case for the defence is so strong the judge wouldn't even allow it to come to trial but dismiss the case and jury. Now we are well over 20 years down the road of predictions made originally in the 80s and 90s and can see the rise in temperature is nowhere near even the lowest of the predictions, it means the sensitivity to added CO2 in the form of positive feedback from increased humidity cannot exist. If it had we'd have evaporated enough water from the oceans to cause a rise beyond the bare amount for added CO2 with none at all. The one thing which has risen is CO2 (despite phenomenal taxes to attempt to slow it down) and the temperature per year stubbornly ignores all attempts to derail it from its 30 year positive/negative cycle.

On a personal note I hope one by one new people will notice the current state of climate data and gradually realise you can't have global warming without the warming element, something the politicians have as yet failed to grasp, mainly as besides the cashflow element which drives it above and beyond the others, they are still talking way ahead in the future and dismissing the present as if the future is all that will count. Give that to a judge, a jury or a teacher and the result will be the same, a big fat FAIL.

Jewish rap

David Howard's Jewish Rappaport

 

Come on everybody, come on everybody, come on everybody and do the shpritz!

 

I'm a good frum boy, I'm a haimisher Yid

I'm here to tell you I'm the kosher kid.

I may be white and I may be a Jew,

but I can rap and I'm here to show you.

 

Let's rap to the Cohen, rap to the Cohen, rap to the Cohen beat, oy vay!

 

Don't look at me like I'm a shmo

I'm the man as you'll soon know

I'm not that rough and I'm not that shabby

and if you diss me I'll tell my rabbi.

 

I'm a shloch oy vay, I'm a shloch oy vay, baruch baruch atah adonai.

 

I served my time learning rap from the rov

I passed my test and they said 'mazel tov!'

I told my booba and I told my ma,

they said 'go David, you will be a star!

 

hava hava hava nagila, hava hava hava nagila!

 

So I hit the streets and I crashed the scene

I covered every yard of Golders Green

I rapped in Hendon and I rapped in Mill Hill

I haven't rapped in Kenton but I certainly will.

 

Yossi, Yossi, Yossi, hey! All the people shout 'oy vay!'

 

I'd like a job where I can stay

with a lively crowd to make my day.

I haven't made a profit but I haven't made a loss.

The only job I got was a gig at Brent Cross.

 

Make me an offer, make me an offer, make me an offer I can't understand.

 

I'm Morris Portnoy the kosher kid

some people still call me a Yid,

I don't care 'cos it is true

There's nothing wrong with being a Jew

I like to get my food from Blooms

chandeliers adorn my rooms

I fly to Tel Aviv and Spain

and watch the Spurs at White Hart Lane

 

My wife gets borscht and beets at Yarden's

We go to shul at Kinloss Gardens

I've got a tub and I've got a sauna

I left my heart at Henly's Corner

I thumb my nose at yellow lines

traffic lights and warning signs

Let the goyim use the code

there's ain't no rules on Finchley Road.

 

We like to hang out at the gym

Our kids all go to Habonim

They go to camp and they go to cheder

and ask four questions at the seder.

 

Golders Green and Hendon Central

Taking pills 'cos they say we're mental

Onyx taps with golden fixtures

Going out and dating shiksas

 

Osem Goshen lockshen mayim

The Land of Canaan and the melech Mitzrayim

Esther Moishe Ruben, Dov,

you finish your barmitzvah and they shout 'mazel tov!'

 

Don't be afraid your identity is showing

be proud to be a Levy or a Cohen

Even though they think we're British

we speak in English but we think in Yiddish

 

We like to relax, we're always chillin'

we say our prayers when we lay our tefillin

the bible says we are the chosen

our greatest poet's Michael Rosen.

Opinions can never be facts however hard they try to make them

I will extend my theme of lack of choice on the liberal left of politics, after seeing a post by Jeff Foxworthy pointing out if a liberal doesn't like a TV programme they don't turn over but try and ban it.

swearing alert!

Gay marriage is a single example representing all. It is a matter of opinion. It is not, and can never be right or wrong, people either agree with it or not, like what music they prefer. You can as a technician say some music is better than others mathematically, or art either looks like what it claims to be more or less so, but gay marriage is pretty much a strawberries or bananas situation. But the left say it is right, and if you disagree with it you are wrong, and being on what they (not me) call the 'liberal' side then want the wrong opinion criminalised, like the growing number of activists who want climate change sceptics banned by law.

This is outright Nazism, Sovietism, Totalitarianism or every other ism which has destroyed countries in living memory, demonised Jews, women and any other group blamed for the ills of the world, often supported by God (as who can argue with God?) to remove it from the realm of either discussion or logical analysis. No doubt, as Marx observed (Karl, not Groucho), the antithesis (in the form of people like me who say wog, spastic and mongoloid because we know they are harmless but told not to) ought to grow and eventually wipe out the extreme left who attempt to squash the ability to have the other opinion from them. I was saying to a friend tonight how our multicultural Asians almost unanimously will not date British men, and the few who do are usually ostracised by their friends and family. We did not ask them to live here, they spent thousands moving half way across the world, and then look down on the culture of their host nation and do their best (not our best, it is their choice) to avoid the white man whenever they can, and at best not even learn their horrible language when even the white people working for the state have to either learn theirs or pay a fucking fortune for someone to turn up at a moment's notice and translate.

This is not simply an opinion, it is stating how things are by everyone's direct observations. Join a waiting room for medical or council purposes, you will barely hear English spoken, and even if they eventually learn it they will still tend to stick in their own communities and mix with the British as little as possible and shun anyone within their community who does. Besides observation the Asian colleagues I have tell me this happily as although some are exceptions they observe the same thing directly to tell outsiders like me they are seeing things correctly. The point here being if we dare to question Tony Blair's multicultural Hades were are simply called racist, and rather than even requiring banning the mentioning of it altogether they have already made racism a severe crime only limited by the efforts of the police to squeeze a case they witness into the definition. But if I dared to say this in front of the wrong people they'd take my words and submit a police report for saying immigrant communities do not mix, not because the natives will not tolerate them but because although they love our houses, jobs and health service they clearly are not that keen on the actual residents who were here already.

This is not about any issue in itself though, but they are used as examples of opinions which the left treat as facts which are therefore either correct (multiculturalism) or wrong (limiting immigration and maybe even particular groups specifically). The fact till maybe 15 years ago this always happened in virtually every country in the world and still does in the majority (would you like to try and buy a house and live in Saudi Arabia, America, Switzerland, Jersey, Libya or Iran?) has been conveniently totally forgotten by the beyond the left who treat unlimited immigration (including the criminals fleeing from the authorities) as a given. Well fuck them. The further they go in doing all they can to tell us what we can and can't believe the further I will go showing them up and fighting every single taboo they are creating to keep us down and out.

So although it's not about deliberately raising the issues and words they want banned by law, although the sheer freedom to say them ought to also motivate everyone of right mind to force the survival of them, but recognising the sheer incorrectness and further dangerousness of the trend to polarising opinions as right or wrong. It's totalitarian, nothing like left wing or liberal, but pure extreme fascism. Read this, learn the formulas, and don't let them pervert you.

The lunatics really are running the asylum

 I've worked out the specialists are so good in an incredibly narrow field they've either lost the ability, or more probably never had it to fit their small area of expertise into a large picture in any way, or see the significance of their own little twisted logic. I also suspect a good deal of autism is at play here, as it is a sign of a higher intelligence in many cases but very limited understanding where it all fits together. At top levels of science I wonder how many also suffer from a degree of it- Michael Mann and James Hansen, as well as Al Gore all show very clear signs of mental illness- personality disorder, megalomania, paranoia etc in varying degrees, and they are all in such incredible positions of power very few people would be aware it would be either possible or actual to have borderline psychotics running the world.

But looking the opposite way, how many balanced people would care about running the world, let alone try to? It has always been the preserve of the maniac, look at Idi Amin, Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, I could fill a page or two. Just because their countries are or were so piss poor the people couldn't overthrow them doesn't mean the same people don't rule in the west- they just cover it up far more as the people would kick them out otherwise.

I reckon once people assume their leaders are madder the higher up they go on average it will all fit into place. Tony Blair always had the look of a mental patient, while Barack Obama has no link between his metaphorical head and heart, in fact if purely being metaphorical he simply has no heart. Once you have these things pointed out they become obvious. The signs are a lot clearer than fraud, simply as we are all human and can recognise others' traits as you can cover up theft very easily with help but can never hide your own madness very easily. Blair and Obama only manage as their teams of leaders (yes, the Bilderberg group and Club of Rome etc appoint leaders below them, heads of state are the first public level of government below the private levels) keep their actions heavily regulated, but if you look at their actual policies, such as allowing unlimited immigration into the UK (a few million in a decade and growing) and legislating CO2 as a pollutant although we'd all be dead without it these dangerous criminals have done exactly the same things as Idi Amin and Mugabe but have never had it tied in with their own personalities as officially they form part of a government rather than being individual dictators, which also takes the eye away from the individuals. But if Obama has his executive orders, what does that make him when he uses them? A dictator of course, what else could a unilateral action with no opportunity to challenge be?

Now if you got together an entire room or cabinet office of a mix of the rulers (hidden) and leaders (representatives of the rulers)  what would that make? The EU and UN of course. The EU is run by the European Commission, a small cabal of professional politicians, who originate law for the entire EU mainly in secret, which then goes to parliament not to be voted on but implemented. Those 'politicians' paid many times more than real national ones do nothing, literally. An MEP is paid to be the front business for the EU mafia, who run drugs and arms like the real ones, as well as mass theft through shadow banking and commodity price fixing etc but make the idiot people think it's a real parliament who make laws we can change when we vote new ones in. But if you call a discussion group a parliament but don't give them any actual power then the people can easily discover they are only a discussion group.

The UN are no different, except they include the rogue states like Libya and Saudi Arabia, who keep women at home and don't allow other religions to practice openly. Add god into the psychotic mix and you have suicide bombers and hijackers whose own life is irrelevant in exchange for killing the infidels. So only being a matter of degree we have nutters ruling most of the world and more so than any other time before as they are now working almost entirely as a single unit using Agenda 21 as the catalyst. And although I don't know enough about the woman to know if she's on the ball or not yet I will say that comparing her with the extremely similar and totally sane Ken Livingstone of London infamy she is as far gone as they get politically, in a way which could be shown as an example of the worst in every politician throughout history. Although her accusations of a possibly criminal past are only in the preliminary stages, proof of guilt is the last thing we'd ever get from a leader simply as you rarely make leader without making damn sure there are no loose ends (look at the lengths Obama went to by wiping the details of every member of his family from the records, yet no one's ever challenged it) what we already know she did is proof of mixing with the dogs, and you rarely mix with a pack of dogs if you're a pussycat. We've had a succession of utter rubbish running many countries in the last few decades- Clinton, Blair, Obama, Mugabe, Berlusconi, and no doubt many more I'd know little about elsewhere, but Julia Gillard is such an archetypal baddie it's amazing enough people (the Australians should be way more savvy than the wet Brits who prefer their tea and TV) haven't seen through her and kicked her out soon after she broke her first promise of 'no carbon tax', and now says she'd have done it even if not forced to by the Greens, just like Ken Livingstone would 'never extend the congestion charge zone' or 'only an idiot would get rid of Routemaster buses'.

Ken only ran a city, this bitch runs a massive country (in size anyway) with theoretically enough sensible voters to see right through her, and only with a massive backup from abroad could possibly survive in such a potentially hostile environment. Someone is clearly protecting her from the fire, and unless like all criminals (assuming she was) left a careless clue or two behind will at worst only suffer a defeat in the next election. I was actually amazed the Americans, previously the most politically aware country in the world, voted Obama back after beginning to destroy their entire way of life, but possibly that was because Romney was such a creepy arsehole even the force of his decent policies weren't enough to overcome his disgusting personality (I read plenty, and I was duly disgusted). But unlike Obama at least he HAS a personality. Or maybe the accusations (hold on, over 100% turnout and 100% unanimous support are real) of election fixing were the real reason. And that would need a greater cooperation than faking a moon landing, but unlike the moon landing is not only possible but rampant worldwide, so maybe the question should be 'If it is common in half the world, why NOT the USA?'. It has truly come to that, with countries now catching up with those we used to colonise and civilise in the opposite direction by all coming down to their level. Soon it won't make a blind bit of difference if Obama or Mugabe ran the US as within a couple of months Obama has already managed to do as much to destroy the country as Mugabe had in his first term. Just hark back to when he regularly raised the debt ceiling in his first term, now he has no need to court the voters he can really do what he wanted (remember the 'one term isn't enough to complete my work' quote?) and has even surprised me in the speed that has happened. The carbon tax is now on the cards as guaranteed by me before the election, notice it wasn't in his manifesto so people didn't have the chance for a clear choice either way, and is sending money to the Al Qaeda sponsored government of Egypt, who are not a country one would normally expect to have good relations with the west, so why is he so friendly to them?

Political correctness dissected

I think I have managed to analyse what political correctness has done and how and why they must never be allowed to do what they are doing. Political correctness attempts to restrict the use of words, ideas and opinions, and what I have worked out is they have taken various different things and then treated them all as if they are the same. These are:

Facts
Opinions
Insults
Lies

Insults: Now we already have more than enough laws to stop either incitement to a crime, so any direct statements to cause any sort of harm were never under question as already known to be both wrong and illegal. Normal people in a free country would stop right there. Insults are offensive but do not actually directly cause or incite others to cause harm. Nonetheless if you or I called someone a bloody wog even outside their presence we'd be behind bars a lot faster than any burglar or mugger. There is a school of thought which would claim banning insults makes society a better place but does it stop people thinking such things or just saying them in public? In the Falkland Islands the soldiers called the natives 'Bennies' and when that was stopped called them 'Stills'. When asked why, it was because 'They were still Bennies'. So banning the use of the word doesn't change the attitude behind them, and if you ban one bad word people will either use another or just say it in private. The playground took a set of medical and technical words such as spastic, imbecile, mongol, backward, retarded, handicapped and cripple from hospital and social work unit to the black book of sacking offences, despite the words all having strict dictionary definitions and communicating often an exact meaning required by medical and associated professionals. Ban the words, defile the language and replace them with others firstly people don't understand 'educationally challenged?' 'differently abled', and within a decade have then replaced the last lot and need a new set ad infinitum.

Opinions: Beyond words we have facts and opinions. If you begin with opinions (as how, one would ask, can you ban mentioning any facts?), they are divided in two very clear parts. One is personal preference, not based on a single fact so impossible for any to be right or wrong. This spreads from taste, such as music, food and art, to political and social preferences, where some may be happy living in multicultural Brent where you struggle to hear a single English speaker in the street, while others would feel they had been suddenly swept to the departure lounge at Delhi or Lagos airport and thoroughly uncomfortable. As immigration is one favourite hot potato, this is as good an example as any to start with. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' about who we prefer to share our lives with, and if people could actually choose whether to live in a multicultural area or not then it would never become a problem, but as multicultural tends to follow people rather than lead, it is an issue. But to then claim one is actually the only correct way to be, as if it was a fact, you have become totalitarian. I agree banning foreigners from any areas like in apartheid is also totalitarian, but so is allowing uncontrolled immigration because the government have decided it is right. In reality neither is right and neither can be right as the cultural mix of a town is something people either prefer or not, and always will be, just as some people prefer their local food and others prefer something more exotic. Who is someone else in power to tell them only one is right for food or the people who created it?

So my point is, with political correctness, they have taken a growing set of left wing opinions, and said they are right, the only correct ones, and therefore there is no alternative opinion as they have elevated their chosen opinions to the status of facts, and then on top protected them with the status of insults or worse to ban the chance of a challenge. Now once you begin restricting people's personal preferences, and then banning or criminalising their expression, you have become fascists. Forget what people call themselves, if they (like the aptly named 'National Socialists' before them) act like fascists then they are simply parading as left wing freedom fighters and doing the exact opposite. The only freedoms they want are for themselves to rule with an iron hand and for their chosen allies, currently Muslims (anyone know why?), environmentalists and certain criminals such as foreign terrorists and families who mutilate or kill their children ('it's their culture' they say, to justify female genital mutilation, honour killing and aborting female fetuses). Now banning the word 'backward' or 'mongol' which were used by doctors, teachers and social workers right up to the 70s doesn't protect a single person. But justifying the worst known behaviours around the world, including covering the faces of women, or stopping them from driving or going to school as they do in Iran and Saudi Arabia is not only never shunned but rampantly protected from criticism as 'they are only doing what is right for them'.

So political correctness has now shifted from fascism to actually sidestepping the law against incitement to hurt others. After all, if you protect criminals you are promoting their actions by default. But back to my main point, which defuses PC entirely once you realise what it does, is cross the line into personal preference and tells people what they can and cannot think and say. Disagree with gay marriage and you're homophobic? (believe me, no one's scared of gay people, so that's another word they invented wrongly) Maybe you actually believe marriage means the union of a man and a woman, so anything else can't be? That's a technical point, even if you have no problem with men or women forming a lifetime legal bond, it just isn't marriage. But say that and they'll sack you (as it's not yet a crime to prosecute but anyone with the power to fire will do so if you do), meaning a totally innocent act has resulted in a direct hardship with little or no chance of compensation.

The second type of opinions are different, as not based on preference but lack of facts. If you don't know something instead of saying so, most people know a little and fill in the gaps, forming an opinion as a result. Therefore science has various studies on intelligence, genetics, racial characteristics to varying degrees, but besides the basics most people don't know these, and base their views on personal experience and anecdotes. This is not criminal behaviour but ignorance, and the treatment is discovery and education. Simply fighting, arguing and banning disagreement altogether doesn't teach anyone anything, it just stops them saying anything and ultimately stops them learning as if you don't ask you won't find out.

Facts: These can be partially or almost totally known. Global warming, for example, claims to be 'settled', but on further study discover a) the majority is set in predictions for the distant future and b) the present situation has as many studies showing one set of results as the other. Now they only accept one side and anyone disagreeing has been compared to paedophiles, nazis, baby killers and one Austrian professor recently called for the death sentence for anyone speaking out against it. In fact the only Nazism going on here is by the activists, as if you do as Mengele and Goebbels did and politicise science, saying only 'Aryan' science was correct, you are behaving exactly like a Nazi, that simple. Can you imagine a politician or pressure group like Greenpeace before saying 'If you believe there is life outside the solar system you should face the death sentence?'. What's the difference? Neither is known directly, both rely on shreds of evidence to be extrapolated and fill in huge gaps with lack of direct measurement or knowledge of the past and future, and then a general theory be made up until or unless there is enough to know beyond reasonable doubt. Whichever example you prefer, there is no previous scientific proposition where the proponents wanted to ban scientists (or anyone following them) from showing evidence to the contrary. Of course science can't do that as it can always learn more.

Intelligence is another much older bete noir of the left. Those far enough gone believe we don't have an IQ, everyone could be an Einstein given the correct conditions, which actually crosses the next line from opinions to lies, as of course there is well over a hundred years of randomised tests showing twins and close family members score the same when separated as identical twins, and different when together as fraternal twins. Identical twins are genetically the same person, and enough studies have proved their IQs and virtually every other personality trait (now being further affirmed in DNA analysis) are virtually the same, even when divided at birth and brought up in different countries and economies. If similar results could be shown for racial characteristics in even one area it would be scientific proof (repeatable and reliable) but they don't like 'the wrong facts', so even when they have been long backed up by science, they try and ban the mention of them. If a black person commits a crime, they don't want it being mentioned as such, even if on the run as a rapist. Concealing the race of a criminal or group of criminals does nothing except protect and encourage them, something the PC lot seem to love to see, as if allowing immigration already wasn't enough, they want to let them do whatever they did to flee their own countries if they were being chased by the authorities there already for doing the same things. But those are just the consequences, probably inevitable, of the practice itself of hiding and avoiding any facts which do not fit their ideology.

Examples:

Words: spastic backward retarded crippled handicapped
Opinions: Economic equality- gay marriage- immigration/multiracial/cultural society
Facts :(whether or not known for certain now they would be if we had enough knowledge to prove). IQ level, environmental influence on IQ, do races vary in IQ, are some races better at certain technical skills regardless of environment (eg orientals at maths), racial identity of criminals and racial profiling.

So in conclusion, we have:

Some opinions are wrong.
Some facts must be wrong as they are not nice.
Bad acts are good if 'cultural' but good words are bad if they say they are 'offensive'.
Debating a closed issue is not permitted on any single one of these.

Ideally breaching all such acts should be punished, some with greater penalties than those against the person and property.

I'm sure those running the show will be quite disappointed someone has spent the time to work out exactly what they are doing, offering others the opportunity to understand their actual methods as opposed to their stated aims of equality and freedom. As always, if someone calls themselves 'Freedom Fighters' and express their aims by killing innocent citizens, it is not up to them to name themselves anything but others to do so. So I am hoping anyone reading this will understand if they call themselves 'Bambi', 'Maurice', 'Politically Correct' or 'Correct' they can only ever be fascists, as restricting personal speech which is not promoting harm to others, and personal opinion, while also restricting the study and dissemination of scientific facts which do not agree with their ideology is only ever present in the worst possible examples of fascism (even if Mao chose to call his something else). Don't look at what these people call themselves, look at what they do and work it out yourselves.