Machinery of Government/broadcasting revolution/future of the Labour party

At the beginning of my career I worked in a section of the Privy Council Office called “machinery of government.” Its religion was “ministerial responsibility”, whereby the Minister was responsible to parliament for the actions of his or her department. In many cases the civil servants escape effective control because they move from job to job faster than their mistakes or errors can be discovered.

What you see below is an interview with a former British Member of Parliament, Douglas Carswell. I wish we had MPs of this quality. In terms of perspicacity, range of thought, eloquence and experience, Carswell is head and shoulders better than almost every Canadian MP. He is one of the few people in parliament to have thought deeply about how government actually works.

He speaks of the Prime Minister sending “charter letters” to Ministers telling them of their mandates – we have this in Canada. But what he adds to this idea is vital. He says the letter should also mandate the civil servants who are expected to stay in the job to assist the Minister for as long as the Minister is in office, so that they cannot transfer out while they are supposed to be getting their job done.

  • The future of the Labour Party – at 27 minutes
  • Boris Johnson and the current government at 28 minutes
  • Problems with the mandarinate and the “quangocracy” at 30 minutes.
  • The broadcasting/digital media revolution at 44 minutes

How I wish we had people of his quality in Canadian politics!

Trump at Davos

Trump starts at the 2:26 minute mark. After a recitation of his economic successes, he reminds the audience that the US will never surrender to gloom and catastrophism, before concluding with allusions to the great cathedrals of Europe as emblems of hope, daring, and orientation towards success.

“You are going to be so tired of winning by the time I am through”, he said a while back. The prediction may be coming true.

He declared that in the previous two regimes, the US had lost 60,000 factories, and that since his coming to power, had regained 12,000 of them. 200,000 manufacturing jobs had been lost under Bush Jr. and Obama. This was the principal reason he decided to run, said he.

“The time for skepticism is over”.

He claims his policies are designed to improve the life of the American worker: “A nation’s highest duty is to its own citizens” [at 34:22] Would you not like to hear that coming from Justin Trudeau? “A pro-worker, pro-citizen and pro-family agenda”. Do you seriously imagine Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren have a chance against this?

White Girls Sacrificed for the PC Moloch

Does it get more ghastly than this?[here]


Over decades, the British police and the Labour Party have been guilty of turning a blind eye to the sexual exploitation of White girls by Muslim rapist gangs aided and abetted by local mosques and imams.

The political commissars of the local areas have sought to suppress all information of this and protect the police and politicians from the wrath of normal people and from British justice. So far, none of the police officers complicit in this or the Labour politicians have been brought to account or held accountable in any way.

Such a disgusting state of affairs shows the unbelievable moral rot and decay in the Establishment, the police, and the judiciary. The lives of young White girls can be sacrificed on the primitive altar of political correctness (aka left-wing thought) to further the cause of destroying the British people and the White race. No more despicable act can be imagined.

One day, “the terrible swift sword” of justice will be the reward for these debased rapists and the political hagfish that protected them.

Rebel Yell

A crack in the wall, or “White men correctly perceive American Jews as their enemies?”

The major point of this article by Philip Greenspun is that a) it is written by an American Jew and b) it describes the conflict between liberal Jews and their beliefs and the average white working class American, and their livelihoods. It is astonishing in that it talks about the deeply unmentionable topic of why Jewish political power and attitudes are so often hostile to white people, understood as European-origin Caucasians. [There! I said it]

“But what if a white guy’s perception that American Jews are his enemies is accurate?

“Suppose that a low-to-medium skill white man wants to earn money via working. This article by a Harvard economist says “The total wealth redistribution [due to low-skill immigration] from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year.” What political party promotes the low-skill immigration that will take money away from this white man via lower wages and higher rent and give it to rich Americans (they enjoy paying lower wages for their service workers and receiving higher rents for the apartment buildings that they own)? The Democrats. Although only 71 percent of Jews voted for Hillary Clinton (Wikipedia), groups that claim to be “Jewish” constantly remind Americans that adherence to the modern version of the Jewish faith compels them to vote for Democrats, support immigration, etc. (example: “The Jewish Case for Open Borders”, which notes “Jews have been especially active in this mobilization, driven by their social liberalism, their sense of religious duty, or both. Synagogue networks sprang up to offer aid to refugees, while groups like Jews United for Justice and Jewish Voice for Peace have been a visible presence at protest rallies.” (it would be interesting to run an experiment in which physicians and lawyers from around the globe show up and are immediately eligible to practice medicine/law in NYC, Los Angeles, DC, and Miami, then see whether “religious duty” compels Jews to support open borders!)).”.[snip]

“Suppose that a white man is in between jobs. What political party advocates the continued legality of discrimination in employment such that he will be hired only if no acceptable applicants identifying as “women” or non-white are available? Again, the Democrats and again, publicly supported by people who call themselves “Jews.” (See also, the Anti-Defamation League supporting race-based college admissions; the 2018 “Reform Jewish Movement Condemns Decision to Roll Back Federal Affirmative Action Guidance”; a 2017 article noting that “Most mainstream Jewish organizations still support affirmative action.”)

“American Jews are more likely than non-Jews to benefit from a larger government. Jews are over-represented in medicine by 7X (source, a bit misleading since I don’t think this is adjusted for the fact that median age among Jews is older than the U.S. median and an older person is more likely to have completed medical school). For anyone working in health care, the river of government cash that started flowing in the 1960s (Medicare and Medicaid) has been wonderful. Jews have more years of education than the average American (Pew) and therefore are more likely to get jobs at universities, which have been supported by federal student loan subsidies (and soon, loan forgiveness in Queen Elizabeth Warren’s jubilee year!), tuition grants, and research grants. Jews living in larger cities (that may be 97 percent of us) have benefited from the fact that a big government builds most of its lavish facilities in big cities. I don’t want to take the risk of being lumped in with the Jew-haters by implying that there are Jews who work in finance, but if there are indeed any Jews in this sector of the economy they’ve been advantaged by government policies favoring Wall Street. Jews tend to hold the credentials that qualify them for unionized government work, e.g., school teacher, social worker, etc. So they benefit when government payrolls are fattened and expanded.

“Jewish Democrats will tell you that they’re voting for a bigger government not in order to line their own pockets, but because of their commitment to social justice, which they say may be inspired by their Jewish faith and identity. But what stops a white man who can’t access these rivers of government cash from resenting these Jews and disbelieving their claims of altruism? (When queried, my coastal-dwelling Jewish friends simply dismiss the possibility that there is anyone who could have voted against the Democrats for reasons of rational self-interest; in their view, Trump voters, for example, are stupid and short-sighted, and fail to realize that they are stupidly voting against their own self-interest, e.g., because Planet Earth will be destroyed by climate change without the Democrats in charge of the federal government.)”

Read the rest of the article here.


The cliched phrase “Orwellian” applies to this incident. A former policeman called harry Miller was told he had been cited for a “crime/non-crime”, which incident goes on to a police record. No statute has been passed that he has offended. No crime has been committed, as the police admit. It is purely a police procedure. But it will show up as a hate crime on his record.

As Miller said, this policy of militant suppression of hatecrime follows from the MacPherson Report on racism. England, where everything is policed except the crime, in the words of Mark Steyn.

No evidence is required to have a hate incident. The British are caught in a policy spiral. No laws are needed to generate this mess. I am NOT making this up.

“The higher echelons of the police have completely sold out to Stonewall“, says Harry Miller, the former cop. “They are entirely unaware of the fact that the policy they enforce has no legal basis. They have been ideologically been captured by Stonewall.” – [which is a British pro-gay group]

No questioning of this is allowed within the police, because that constitutes transphobia. I am not making this up.

How did we arrive at this stage? Because we were told we were to forget everything we knew. #nodebate To debate is to hate.

Harry Miller is associated with Fair Cop, a lobby group for sane policing.

Expressing disbelief in gender ideology will become a heresy in the gendered theocracy of the near future. Miller concludes that the rainbow sign has become the new swastika.

Roger Scruton, giant, dead at 75

Sir Roger and family

Roger Scruton said the job of the conservative intellectual was to give reasons why ordinary people should not have to give reasons for their habits, thoughts, and beliefs. I would love him for that idea alone, but he had so many more.

His discussion of the “French nonsense machine” in “Fools. Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left” makes one grateful that he had the industry and fortitude to go through all the immense crap that constitutes French leftist thought and show precisely why it is crap. I can admire but not imitate his devotion to explicating tedious nonsense, but I am the beneficiary of his plumbing the depth of French intellectual sewage.

His output was tremendous. Go to Amazon or any book site and see for yourself. His discussion of Wagner was deeply informed by musical knowledge. His discussion of wine, well, I look forward to it. The drink upon which civilization has been founded, he said.

A summary of quotes is found here, in the Guardian, of all places.

Scruton was a man who wore his greatness humbly.

About half of scientific articles false; more scientific decline expected

I was reminded of the finding by Dr. Richard Horton of Britain’s Lancet magazine that roughly half of articles in science publications are false, only to discover that the article was about five years old. {I am sure that things have improved since then}.

Horton wrote:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world,?makes her view of the subject quite plain:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”?

For an eminent scientist writing against fake science, in its myriad forms, you may profitably add William S. Briggs Statistician to the Stars, to your list of favourites.

Briggs exposes the “diversity in science education” scam here. The statements required of candidates for academic jobs are called Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (DIE) statements. [He cites an article by a mathematician in the Wall Street Journal and various other sources, so who says what in the paragraphs below is too confused to sort.]

These statements are intended to ensure that “applicants for faculty positions profess their commitment to these social goals, have become required on eight UC campuses and at colleges across the country. These requirements are promoted as fulfilling worthy goals: to help redress the historic exclusion of underrepresented groups, to ensure that candidates from all backgrounds apply for and are given fair consideration for faculty jobs, and to make sure faculty respect and support all students in their teaching and mentoring. “

“A document from the University of California tells us how the system worked in six searches in the life sciences, and I find it a bit disturbing—disturbing because the ideology and social engineering is clear, because candidates, however good in scholarship, were eliminated if their diversity statements fell below a specified cutoff, and disturbing because the only kind of diversity involved was racial and gender diversity. But we know that that is what people mean when they talk about “diversity”. Ideological, class, and background diversity are irrelevant.”

Only 214 of the 893 candidates (24%) passed muster here as having adequate diversity statements. These 214 were then passed on to the appropriate departmental search committees to create a short list for interviewing candidates (these are typically 3-6 candidates per job). In this search and the second one below, candidates were also asked to explain their ideas about diversity during the interviews. The diversity interviews also served to weed out candidates:…

So even at the two last stages of the process, candidates were eliminated because of a perceived insufficient commitment to diversity.

“Coyne rightly points out that the quality of the applicants’ work nowhere was important in this filtering process: only their ability to DIE.”

Thus I conclude that, apart from all the other reasons cited for bad science above, we may expect a wholesale decline of science caused by ethnic, sexual and racial sorting.

Is it any wonder that universities will have to be dis-established?