I Just Dropped the ‘C’ Bomb on Some Never Trumpers…

Conservatism has a problem and it’s the same problem it was about this time last week when I wrote by far my most popular post ever on this site: the one about MILO.

The problem is a four-letter word and it begins with “C”.

(No, not that one. That’s my favourite and I use it all the time in English conversation – though rarely in America and never in print.)

I mean “cuck”.

Mind you, the way some of my audience reacted you’d think I had used the much more offensive word.

Read some of the comments – a Ricochet podcast – and see for yourself.

I’ll continue this piece after I’ve posted this bit since I have NO IDEA how to publish articles on a Facebook page. I don’t even know how do stuff like bold or italics or a different point for the headline. But I guess this is shit I’ll have to put up with if I’m going to create the original content necessary to make people read this site.


More on Me, Milo, NeverTrumpers and the C Bomb…

So yeah, I used the C bomb and they recoiled as if I’d used the actual C word instead of just the relatively harmless insult – cuck – used by red-meat conservatives to dismiss those of a more vegetarian variety.

It’s not a term I particularly adore myself. Too macho. Too Kurt Schlichter and Mike Cernovich. I’m a big fan of both those guys’ writing but I’m not them and they’re not me. I’m an Oxbridge educated Englishman who used to have long girlie hair and has taken lots of drugs and actually values shit like nuance and literature and lightness of touch. But there are some occasions, nonetheless, when only the word “cuck” – short for cuckold – will do. And one of them, I decided, was when venting on Ricochet about the defenestration of Milo.

I have no axe to grind against Ricochet – they’re my friends. At least I thought they were till I saw the response from some of their readers to that podcast. And those responses seem to me emblematic of everything that is wrong with the conservative movement in its broadest sense: the prissy, prim, navel-gazing, self-regarding, uptight strain who see themselves as Keepers of the Conservative Flame and who dismiss anyone who falls short of their invented standards as “not a real conservative” and therefore unworthy of their support.

God, how this applies to NeverTrumpers. (It was NeverTrumpers, of course, who went after Milo). I really don’t care if Donald Trump was a Democrat once. I don’t give a toss – nor did all those women who voted for him – about the “grab them by the pussy” tapes. I don’t care about his brashness and his vulgarity and his inability to have lovely skin tone like Obama and to make grave-sounding speeches about absolutely nothing like Obama was so good at doing.

All I care about is: is he good at getting conservative shit done? And he is. Really good at it. I like the military – most conservatives do. I think poor kids, whether black or white, shouldn’t have to endure a substandard education which only prolongs and increases the vast societal divide between the haves and the have-nots. I think global warming is a massive, mostly left-wing conspiracy against free markets, liberty and science. I believe in the Laffer Curve and think lower taxes are better than higher taxes.

Donald Trump is doing good stuff in all these areas and more. You can see why the liberal-left might not want to give him credit for this: they’re perennially wrong about everything. But the people I really don’t understand are the people in the conservative movement who are not cheering him to the rafters.

“Don’t make the best the enemy of the good” they say.

Damn right. Except in Trump’s case the phrase should be: “Don’t make the best the enemy of the pretty damned amazing.”

Trump’s doing great. He’s funny, he’s a King Troll on Twitter, he’s sticking it to the liberal media in a way that they’ve deserved for years and he’s doing lots and lots of really good things which anyone of an even half-way conservative disposition should be celebrating.

I’m sorry NeverTrumpers – because some of you are my friends: or were – but your ingratitude nauseates me in the same way your willingness to chuck Milo over the back of the sledge to feed the wolves disgusts me.

That’s why I’m wheeling out the C word once more because, I’m sorry but you deserve it.

Cucks. You’re a bunch of cucks. There it is.

“Ich bin ein Berliner”

JFK’s words (which actually mean “I am a doughnut”, but never mind) have been popular since the latest terrorist atrocity – as of course they inevitably would. We all know well enough, by now, the standard operational procedure that all right-thinking people adopt whenever someone from the Religion of Peace commits another mass murder.

First, the snappy hashtag phrase of solidarity: #jesuischarlie #prayfororlando#ichbineinberliner

Then the decorating of your Facebook/Twitter profile in the colours of the flag of the latest victim country. So: red, gold, and black are this month’s red, white, and blue.

Then the candlelit vigils.

Then the hipster playing “Imagine” on a wonky piano in an impromptu and entirely unexpected gesture near the scene of the atrocity.

Then the visit by politicians vowing that the people will remain defiant in the face of this outrage.

Then the good news story about some Muslims who were brave and/or nice – usually members of the persecuted Ahmadi branch of Islam – which proves that it is a Religion of Peace really.

Then the caravan of grief moves on. Till the next atrocity. And so on and so on ad infinitum.

We’ve all noticed this stuff, many times over. And most of us find it properly sick-making. But there’s one other element in the standard left-liberal playbook response to these terrorist atrocities which, I think, hasn’t been widely noted yet. And I think it should be because it’s as least as disgusting and lame and feeble and hypocritical and dishonest and cowardly and succour-to-the-enemy-giving as any of the responses I’ve listed above.

I’m talking about the Blame Nigel Farage response.

We saw a perfect example of this in the immediate aftermath of the Berlin atrocity earlier this week when the chattering classes on social media very quickly made up their hive mind who the guilty party was in the Christmas market massacre-by-truck.

Was it, perhaps, the ISIS-inspired terrorist who killed a Polish truck driver, commandeered his vehicle, drove to a crowded Christmas market in the centre of Berlin, turned off the headlights and then accelerated into the crowd of men, women, and children, killing at least a dozen and maiming many more?

Of course not!

The very worst, most evil and culpable person in the world the day after the Berlin massacre was – in the view of progressive types on Twitter and on the BBC and in The Guardian – Nigel Farage.

But what could Nigel Farage possibly have done wrong that was worse than killing lots of people going about their shopping in a Christmas market in Germany?

Well, he’d done the terrible thing of saying this in a tweet:

Terrible news from Berlin but no surprise. Events like these will be the Merkel legacy.
You might be wondering what the problem is here. Me too. I think it’s perfectly arguable, indeed entirely reasonable, to suggest that Angela Merkel’s bizarre experiment to invite over a million “refugees” of mostly Muslim extraction into her country was primarily responsible for this terrorist attack. Thinking this doesn’t make you a bad person or an “Islamophobe”. It’s a simple numbers game: the more Muslims you invite in the greater the likelihood that among them will be unfriendly ones bent on doing great harm.

But to appreciate this basic, obvious truth is to think clearly and logically – which is not something the liberal-left likes to do. What it much prefers to engage in is emotive demagoguery, dubious moral equivalence and cynical smearing of the type we see expressed in this response to Farage’s tweet by a left-wing activist called Brendan Cox.

@Nigel_Farage blaming politicians for the actions of extremists? That’s a slippery slope Nigel

Cox is keen to promote the idea that extremists from the “far right” are just as big a threat as “Islamist” ones.

On the day after the massacre, he tweeted:

Far right &Islamist extremists share same hate driven psychology, intolerance towards difference& tendency to violence. We must defeat both
Well, it’s a point of view, certainly. But if you ask me it’s a crass, ignorant, and irresponsible one. What on earth does the “far right” have to do with a mass murder of innocent shoppers committed by a follower of Islamic State? And how does the comparison add anything useful to the debate? It doesn’t: it does the exact opposite. It’s a classic piece of liberal-left “whataboutery”, of intellectual evasion, of progressive smearing.

“Right wing extremists are just as big a problem as Islamist terrorists,” it seeks to tell us.

And: “Let’s not seek to point the finger of blame at any ideology in particular.”

And: “But do let’s blame the kind of people who think mass immigration is a bad thing because their ‘intolerance towards difference’ is what’s really causing all this violence.”

So I’m really not surprised that Nigel Farage chose to take Cox to task on LBC radio.

Hours after the Twitter exchange between the two, Mr Farage went on LBC radio and said: “Well, of course, he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox, he backs organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful but actually pursue violent and very undemocratic means.”

What does surprise me – though it shouldn’t: I’ve seen often enough how these people roll – was the speed with which the news cycle shifted its attention. One minute we were being invited – quite properly – to focus on the latest appalling atrocity committed in the name of the Religion of Peace. The next – ooh look, a dickie bird! – everyone from the BBC and The Guardian, to various rentaquote Labour MPs, plus the usual suspects on Twitter had decided that the real story of the day was how disgusting and culpable people on the right were, especially Nigel Farage.

MP Tracy Brabin, who replaced Mrs Cox in her Batley and Spen constituency, said: “Beggars belief… A new low for Farage.”

Chris Bryant, the Rhondda MP and former shadow Commons leader, said: “The sheer nastiness of Farage sometimes takes my breath away.”

Chesterfield MP Toby Perkins added: “When your entire career has been built on hate, not hope, it perhaps shouldn’t shock me, but Farage still sinks lower than I’d have believed.”

Jess Phillips, MP for Birmingham Yardley, wrote on Twitter: “I hope Farage never ever feels the pain we feel about Jo, because unlike him I am not a monster.”

Again, it’s worth asking: what had Nigel Farage done or said wrong to justify phrases like “sheer nastiness” and “monster”? And if Nigel Farage is a “monster”, what term would you use for the Tunisian guy who murdered that Polish truck driver and then deliberately ploughed the vehicle into a Christmas market full of kids?

I think we need to be absolutely clear here: these people have no claim whatsoever to the moral high ground. They are stupid, wrong, and evil.

In December 2016, as throughout this year and last and the one before, innocents have been butchered by a merciless creed which deliberately sets out to kill and maim by whatever means. And instead of facing up to this threat and asking important questions like “how did this come about?” and “how can we deal with it?”, all these left-wing virtue-signallers in the Labour party, at The Guardian, at the BBC, and on Twitter want to do is duck the issue by pointing in the direction of their favourite bugbear “the far right” instead.

Here is Owen Jones playing the game in The Guardian:

No more pussyfooting around: Nigel Farage and his associates have poisoned our country’s political culture, and it’s time to push back. Their offensive – in every sense of the word – has been so swift, so devastating, that we risk normalising it.

Here is the left-wing comic Mark Steel trying it on in the Independent with some satire which works really well if you’re a doctrinaire left-winger and Hope Not Hate fan who believes Brexit was a disaster and that what Europe needs right now is more unchecked immigration, from the Middle East and North Africa especially.

What has fuelled their moral indignation is the fact that Brendan Cox is the widower of Jo Cox, the MP who was murdered in the streets during the EU referendum campaign by a loner with neo-Nazi sympathies called Thomas Mair.

I have never spoken to, read, or met anyone on the Brexit side of the argument who was any less appalled by Jo Cox’s murder than people on the Remain side were. Yet ever since her senseless death at the hands of a vile individual, elements in the Remain camp have sought to pin her murder on the “rhetoric” used by the Brexit camp, especially by people like Nigel Farage.

(This is a common trope of the regressive left – and has been since at least the 2011 shooting of Arizona Democrat politician Gabrielle Giffords, which the liberal media also did its best to blame on right-wing rhetoric rather than on a sad, confused, angry nut-job.)

Probably the most egregious example of this was a piece by David Aaronovitch in The Times, which I wrote about under the headline “Aaronovitch: Brexit campaigners kinda, sorta killed Jo Cox MP”

Few people have pushed this notion more assiduously than Brendan Cox himself – who donated a large chunk of the memorial fund raised in Jo Cox’s honour to the dubious charity Hope Not Hate, whose speciality is to promulgate this same misleading line – that the “far right” is an equivalent threat to fundamentalist Islam.

No doubt in doing so Brendan Cox believes he is honouring his wife’s memory.

The problem is that the “good work” Brendan Cox believes his wife was doing before she died is anathema to over half the country – and indeed to millions of people in Europe whose countries have been swamped by the kind of mass immigration that the Coxes believed would be good for them.

That’s why the Remainers lost the referendum: because, contrary to the assertions of campaigners like Jo and Brendan Cox, British people had had quite enough of unchecked immigration and could not see the benefits of remaining shackled to a sclerotic, anti-democratic, supra-national bureaucracy within the European Union.

However, the response of the losing Remainers (the 48 per cent) has not been to accept with good grace the democratic will expressed by the Brexiteers (the 52 per cent). Rather it has been to fight, fight, fight the result with whatever means, fair or foul, come to hand and to try to ensure that Brexit never happens.

Among the fouler means the Remoaners have sought to use to get their way is to try to blacken the motives and character of anyone who voted Brexit, while claiming for themselves the moral high ground as ordinary decent people who represent the “British values” of tolerance and fairness and who are appalled by the supposed outbreak of post-Brexit “hate crimes” in a country they claim not to recognise anymore.

It goes without saying that this is pure propaganda based on the flimsiest of evidence, most of it anecdotal or simply made up.

But it’s a line that has caught the imaginations of the losing Remain camp and their friends in the media, not least thanks to Brendan Cox himself.

Whatever phrase you use to describe Cox’s activities since his wife’s murder, “maintaining a dignified silence” wouldn’t be one of them. This was especially noticeable in the tense days before the referendum vote, when he invoked his late wife’s memory to promote this popular Remain trope: that the language being used by the Brexit camp was inflammatory and dangerous and somehow unBritish.

“I think she was very worried that the language was coarsening, that people were being driven to take more extreme positions, that people didn’t work with each other as individuals and on issues, it was all much too tribal and unthinking,” Mr Cox said.

“She was particularly worried – we talked about this regularly – about the direction, not just in the UK but globally, the direction of politics at the moment, particularly around creating division and playing on people’s worst fears rather than their best instincts.”

He has continued to promote this view ever since – taking advantage of the significantly higher media profile which he gained as a result of his wife’s death and finding a ready audience at parti-pris, pro-Remain media organisations like the BBC for his left-leaning, pro-immigration, anti-Brexit opinions. This Christmas he has been given still more space to promote his views by Channel 4 which has chosen him to broadcast their Alternative Christmas Message.

Is there, perhaps, some special rule whereby if you have been tragically widowed, you get a free pass to spout unchallenged whatever views you like in public – even if the cause you are supporting is potentially very dangerous and certainly very offensive to well over half the population?

Brendan Cox’s many admirers in the Remain camp – on the regressive left and in Hope Not Hate most especially – would seem to think so.

I got a small taste of this myself when, at the height of the Farage/Cox spat, I tweeted:

“When are we allowed to say that Brendan Cox is a total arse?”
There are worse insults in the English lexicon than calling someone a “total arse” – as I was reminded by the large number of responses I got from Hope Not Hate virtue-signallers telling me as I was a “c***”. My view on this remains as it was when I tweeted it: that if you’re going to express suspect opinions in the public arena, then you should expect to be called on them, no matter how tragic your personal circumstances. Of course, Cox deserves sympathy as a widower; this does not, however, give him carte blanche to promulgate – uncriticised – the kind of political viewpoint which, unfortunately, goes a long way towards explaining the wave of terrorism we are experiencing in Europe today.

For about 24 hours, I experienced what Nigel Farage has to put up with pretty much every day of his life – and has done for the last 25 years. Wave after wave of self-righteous lefties pouring vitriol, wishing death on me, calling me the worst names they could think of in their limited imaginations.

I’m perfectly OK with the insults. I’m used to it. It’s a technique popular with the regressive left known as “point and shriek” and “isolate and swarm”. The purpose – as Vox Day explains in this SJW attack survival guide – is to frighten you, isolate you, and silence you. And the key thing is to recognise it for what it is and not be upset by it – and definitely not apologise.

But what I cannot tolerate or forgive – and nor should you – is when these scum-sucking regressive types think they have the right to judge and to take the moral high ground.

Farage was absolutely right when he said in that tweet that the massacre in Berlin was a direct result of the Merkel legacy.

John R Bradley puts it well in the Mail:

The undeniable reality is that Europe’s breathtakingly reckless open-door immigration policy has provided a perfect cover for Islamic State to further its bloody, anti-Christian agenda.

Undeniable and real it may be – but the regressive left shows, as yet, absolutely no sign of accepting it or engaging with it.

This is why I have a very special Christmas message to all those people who attacked Nigel Farage for telling the truth about the Berlin massacre, and to all those who called me a “c***” for being rude about Brendan Cox.

You are the reason Donald Trump won the US Presidential election; you are the reason 17.4 million people voted for Brexit; you are the reason the European Union is collapsing. You are hateful, bigoted and – for all your hypocritical pretences to the contrary – fascistic.

You are an intellectually spavined, moronic, self-righteous and disgusting losers who have been shown by the events of 2016 to be on the wrong side of history. There is nothing noble or worthy or decent about your ranting rage: it is the fury of a vampire stuck with a stake, realising as he shrieks his last that finally the good guys have ended his reign of terror.

I leave you, as a treat, with the delicious words of Owen Jones in the Guardian – as demented a case of psychological projection as it has ever been my amused privilege to witness.

We face a great danger, and not even those who will suffer because of it have realised just how grave it is. Intolerance and hatred have been legitimised across the western world. Dissent is becoming treason. That is bad enough. But there are other violent extremists who are being both radicalised and legitimised across the west. If we don’t take a stand now, new dark chapters are soon to arrive.

No, Owen, my fluffy little ephebe. It’s not my side that is guilty of any of that. It’s your side that has been doing this for decades – closing down free speech, demeaning people who dare to speak out, promoting hatred and violence while pretending to preach tolerance (so long as it’s tolerance of things you think it’s OK to tolerate).

You are unconscionable scum. Your philosophy has been responsible for causing untold misery across the world for over a century. The idea that any of you are able to take the moral high ground on anything is as risible as your threadbare arguments.

Still, the great thing is that you guys finally lost in 2016. Happy 2017 everyone – it can only get better from here on in.

It’s Only Midges…

August 10, 2015

Count them all for a fabulous prize!

Lots of people, when they see this disgusting photo, will go: “Oh that’s not midges. That’s….”

And then they’ll shove in their tuppenny ha’penny worth as to what they think was the real culprit.

My legs. My bites. And it definitely was midges, I can tell you. I was there. It wasn’t in Scotland, surprisingly, but by the road at end of a particularly lovely sunny day last Wednesday in mid-Wales – my birthday, as it happened – when our car got a flat tyre and I had no option but to crouch there being eaten alive while I changed it.

You wouldn’t think creatures so small could wreak so much havoc. (Well, actually you could: fleas are about the same size and do the same damage). That’s probably why when I felt them feasting on me savagely I didn’t do what I would definitely done had it been they been, say, mosquitoes on a roadside in the Democratic Republic of Congo and changed into long trousers sharpish. I just carried on, thinking, “Ah well. It’s only midges.”

Some midge facts:

An individual midge is almost invisible to the human eye, at about a millimetre long. Only the bloodthirsty female causes us torment. The male feeds on plants and nectar, while his mate requires blood to form her eggs. Midges are alerted to human prey by the carbon dioxide on our breath. A swarm can inflict about 3000 bites per hour using a distinctive feeding technique: while mosquitos pierce the skin and suck up blood through a syringe-like mouthpiece, midges cut the skin, and then lick up the pool of blood that forms.

Oh, and apparently, midges cost the Scottish tourist industry £286 million a year in lost income from all those tourists who’ve been chomped and vow never to return.

How many bites can you count on my leg? If you email me at Jamesdel@dircon.co.uk and you’re the first with the right-ish answer then I’ll send you a free signed copy of one of my books. You’ll deserve it. You’d have to be pretty weird, bored or obsessive to count the insect bites on a revolting photograph of someone’s leg. So I shall be very interested to see if anyone does.

Related posts:

  1. Our island story
  2. All hail Adele for committing the music industry’s worst sin
  3. Grandfather’s footsteps
  4. I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry

One thought on “It’s only midges…”

  1. apparently says:26th August 2015 at 10:25 amNever mind the midges James…

    Where did you get those hairy legs?

Comments are closed.

God, I hate Katie Hopkins…

April 23, 2015

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – FEBRUARY 9: Katie Hopkins seen leaving the ITV Studios after an appearance on ‘Loose Women’ on February 9, 2015 in London, England. (Photo by Neil Mockford/Alex Huckle/GC Images)

God, I hate Katie Hopkins. But not for the reasons everyone else does. I hate her in the sense that I can’t help worshipping her and the ground she treads on because she does what I’d like to do but does it so much better: she annoys all the people who most deserve to be annoyed, she remains articulate and collected in the face of all the brickbats that are thrown at her, and above all, she seems to make a damn good living out of it.

The last bit isn’t as obvious as you’d think. I was talking to an agent the other day about the best way to make the most of a career as an outspoken media commenter and his argument was that you shouldn’t stray too far from the middle ground for that way you alienate half your potential audience.

This is especially true if you’re on the right. Outrageous pinkos – look at Owen Jones, Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Polly Toynbee, et al – tend to get a much freer pass from our left-leaning media culture. But their equivalents at the conservative end of the spectrum are much harder to find. In fact I’d say that there’s only one and that’s Hopkins.

Over the weekend, you may have noticed, Katie Hopkins was trending on Twitter yet again – this time because of a piece she’d written in The Sun in which she’d upset the Offenderati by using the word “cockroaches” in the context of the boatloads of hapless, parched, pitiable migrants now fleeing Libya. At this point you’re obliged tactically to distance yourself from Hopkins by noting how distasteful you too find her appalling choice of words. But I’m not going to, for several reasons, the first being that that it was so devastatingly effective.

One reason why so many torpedoed mariners were eaten by sharks in the Second World War is that sharks are drawn to explosions. This is what Hopkins achieved with her “cockroaches.” It was her very own USS Indianapolis: in came a veritable Guardianista Who’s Who of finny horrors: Diane Abbott; Owen Jones (natch); Piers Morgan; Russell Brand – all turning the waters of Twitter red in a roiling frenzy of noisome, bleeding-heart self-righteousness.

And in the wake of all the celebrity offendotrons – the Wankerati, as I call them – came shoal after shoal of opportunistic bottom feeders: the ones trying to get her sacked from The Sun; the ones demanding that Hopkins be prosecuted (no really: a whopping 2200 of them have already signed the inevitable Change.org petition) for “incitement to genocide”; the ones tweeting photos of her children and declaring how unlucky they were to have such a frightful mother.

Now the textbook lefty response to this kind of monstering is to play the victim card, as so-called “anti-poverty campaigner” and professional lesbian single mother “Ms Jack Monroe” has just done. She could, of course, have just quietly stopped using Twitter. Except, being a Social Justice Warrior, she couldn’t. No, she had to weaponise her exit with a heart-rending blog about how she felt Twitter was no longer felt a “safe space” : “Today I left my house at 4pm. Head down. Eyes flicking at every stranger walking towards me on the street. Sunglasses on the Tube. The man arrested roams free after 15 hours in Policy custody, updating his blog with sneering comments…”

The not-so-subtle implication of this – and we’ve seen similar tactics from Stella Creasy MP and a feminist campaigner called Caroline Criado Perez – is that free speech has gone too far and it’s time we had a clampdown. This is the guerilla version of the conventional war which has been waged on free speech by the left-liberal establishment (from Keir Starmer, CPS and an emasculated police force to Hacked Off and their amen corner at the BBC and the Guardian) via the Leveson Inquiry and the vexatious arrests of all those Sun journalists. It’s cynical, it’s dirty, it’s illiberal and it’s much, much more dangerous and ugly than anything Katie Hopkins has ever written.

But the reason so few people appreciate this is – ooh look! Katie Hopkins wrote a nasty word, so we needn’t talk about it. That, I’m afraid, is the level to which so many vitally important debates have been reduced these days by the liberal-left’s Alinskyite tactics.

In the case of Hopkins’s Sun piece, no left-wing commentator, so far as I’m aware, felt under any obligation to respond with any manner of reasoned counterargument. They might have pointed out that because the West created the Libyan crisis it has a moral obligation to fix its consequences; or they could have gone the whole hog and argued that we have a duty to house all refugees, come what may.

They didn’t though because – a bit like with all those rapists out there who just can’t help raping women because they’re provocatively dressed and therefore have it coming to them – their intellectual processes were short-circuited by Hopkins’s outrageously unforgivable deployment of a single term: “cockroaches.”

A piece in the Independent claimed that this was the kind of dehumanising words the Nazis used, so apparently rendering Hopkins’s entire commentary beyond the pale. Lots of people in the comments section and on social media agreed with this analysis. I hope this tendency frightens you as much as it frightens me.

Why? Because it’s a dirty rhetorical cheat, not an argument. No, worse than that it’s a vicious lie. By focusing on just one intemperate word (designed, as so much of the best polemical writing does, to provoke a response) and freighting it with far more significance than any remotely objective interpretation could possibly bear, it calculatingly misrepresents the opinions of a heroically brave, often admirably sensible woman who dares, as so few do, to voice what the silent majority are really thinking.

Related posts:

  1. Television: Weekly shockers
  2. I hate Lush. I love Aldi. How about you?
  3. Twitter: ‘Tweet’ went the birdy, and we did
  4. I hate to say this but Cameron’s speech has just won him the election

2 thoughts on “God, I hate Katie Hopkins…”

  1. Sholto says:24th April 2015 at 8:09 amThe Left get to write the narrative because basically they have taken over the public sector. Not, as the Right grumble, because of a cunning Gramscian plot to take over the institutions, but because they have had no choice.
    When I was at Uni (Dept of Maths & Computer Science) there were no lefties in sight, ditto Engineering, Accountancy, Physics, anything requiring accuracy and logic. No, they were bunched up in the softer sciences, in fact the softer the science the lefter its participants.
    Obviously one does not emerge from the academic meringue of a Sociology or Gender Studies course to be confronted with a vista of open doors into the private sector. Whereas here in Australia, and I imagine elsewhere, the public sector often insists on a degree but they normally don’t care what degree. Hence you are best advised to never stand between a leftie and the taxpayer’s teat.
    So we have reverse Darwinism at work – those with the most intellectually and academically questionable degrees end up in the environment where they have most influence over the rest of us.
    Those of us unfortunate enough to live in the real world always face an uphill fight to be heard over the overwhelming superiority of media volume and bureaucratic diktat at the disposal of the other side.
    The West is stuffed.
  2. Richard Treadgold says:25th April 2015 at 3:32 amSuch perception. Such common sense. Such enjoyable simplification. Such is Delingpole.

How My Spivvy, Unsuitable New Motor Brought Out My Inner Clarkson

2001 Golf V6 Four Motion

A bit late, I know, to put in a bid for Jeremy Clarkson’s old job. But I think I might just accidentally have rediscovered my inner petrolhead.

What happened was this. We’d just replaced our old sensible family car (a Ford Mondeo) with another sensible family car (a Skoda Yeti), only to realise that it just wasn’t enough. If you live in the country you really need at least two cars. The question was: what type should it be?

Well, there are all sorts of cars I would like to own — the one I covet most of all being one of those evil-bastard Range Rovers, preferably the sport model with Kenneth Noye-style tinted windows, because I borrowed one once and it was totally amazing. Not only can they go unfeasibly fast for a car so big but if you hit anything it doesn’t matter because you’re the King Tiger and everything else on the road is a Sherman at best. Problem is, I don’t run a hedge fund.

My budget, I reckoned, should be about £4,000 max. Spend anything less than that on a second-hand motor and you’re courting disaster. Or so I ignorantly imagined until I consulted my mate Gary who, besides being a QC (probably the only one called Gary), also happens to fancy himself as a used-car expert.

‘Don’t bother with garages. Just see what there is on eBay,’ he said.

‘But how will I know if it’s any good?’ I said, appalled at the sheer recklessness of it all.

‘You won’t. It’s a punt. But I’ve bought six cars that way and only one has been a lemon. What kind of thing are you after?’

I’d been dreading that question because cars aren’t something I’ve thought about for the past 25 years. Sure, they mattered in my youth: I had a bright red Opel Manta, which I used to race against my spivvy friend Tom Purton’s Golf GTi. But as you get older, I find, boy-racer toys inevitably tend to join the lengthening list of things you must learn to do without, alongside Class As, clubbing, rock-solid erections, energetic games of squash, styleable hair and so on.

Obviously, though, it would have to be something safe, roomy and practical, capable of fitting the kids comfortably in the back and with good fuel economy. And cheap to maintain. Something German, probably. ‘Golf?’ suggested Gary, which sounded a bit on the small side. But then I remembered how Purton’s GTi used to cream my Manta. ‘A Golf, yeah, why not?’

A few clicks later, Gary had found a Golf not at all far from where I live. Jolly reasonably priced too at just £2,200. It wasn’t a model I recognised: not a GTI but something called a V6 Four Motion. Quite old — 2001 — but with just 85,000 miles on the clock. So I did a quick Google to see what the reviewers said. None of them went into much detail about its practicality or fuel economy, it must be said. But they did mention that it has a top speed of 134 miles an hour, grips corners like glue, and can take out anything from a standing start short of a Ferrari. I gave an edited version of this to Fawn, focusing on the fact that it was nearby, excellent value and a fraction of what we’d been expecting to pay.

When we went to pick up the car it was like going back to an older, better age: an age when the wife stayed in the house making small talk with the vendor’s girlfriend while the men got down to business with that all-important test drive. We settled into the cream leather seats. The car smelt of vanilla. ‘Check out the noise of the V6 engine,’ said the man. He turned the ignition. It was a rich, throaty burble you just don’t hear on a Ford Mondeo. And how fast does it go, I asked. He smiled. ‘Like a stabbed rat!’ he said. And proceeded to demonstrate.

So now I have, sitting outside my house, exactly the opposite of the car we needed. It burns up fuel. There’s not nearly enough boot space. It’s quite cramped in the back. It hates going straight on motorways because it’s much more designed for hairpin bends on the Nürburgring. The kids loathe it because the music system is so old that it hasn’t got an adaptor for their iPods. The Fawn is deeply suspicious that I may have sold her a pup and that I’m probably going to end up killing myself.

And me? I totally agree with all the above but am helpless to do much about it. It’s like this. You’re away on some business trip and you get chatting to a supermodel. She’s 23. She makes £5 million a year. She says, ‘I’m really sorry but I’ve got this thing about middle-aged Spectator journos with big teeth, glasses and receding hairlines and I know you say you love your wife, but can we just agree to have this totally no-strings-attached affair with loads of meaningless sex in lots of exotic locations?’ Well, that, I’m afraid, is how I feel about this car.

Really, I’d say, it’s absolutely useless for anything but fun. But the fun is so much fun I’m not sure I care. There’s something ineffably satisfying when some little tosser in his pimped-up spivmobile thinks he can out-accelerate you from the lights and you leave him sniffing your exhaust fumes. And I don’t think I’ll ever quite get over the thrill of being able comfortably to take, at 70 mph, country bends which in the Skoda would be lethal at 40 mph. Just so long as I remember not to get my cars mixed up when I’m doing it, that’s the important thing.

Related posts:

  1. The Great Diesel Scandal
  2. Glorious send-up
  3. Why losing Clarkson is the BBC’s biggest mistake since keeping Jimmy Savile
  4. “I gladly fell prey to a cougar”


Gotcha! The Sun Gives the Breastapo a Taste of Their Own Medicine

Professional lesbian and poverty chic Guardianista cookery writer “Jack” Monroe is unhappy.

She tweets:

Here’s the Sun ‘head of PR’ sending a collage of topless photos to targeted journalists. Creepy, abusive, harassment.

So too, we can safely infer, is former Equalities Minister Harriet Harman, who tweeted two days ago:

Glad that p3 gone. Women expect to be equal in C21. Not posing half naked. Well done Clare Short & 1000s of women campaign

So is Third Wave Feminist Caroline Criado-Perez:

When this is how the head of PR at the sun uses p3 how anyone can say this isn’t woman hating is beyond me.

So too, no doubt, is this veritable Smörgåsbord of angry birds (Deborah Orr, Stella Creasy, Polly Toynbee, “Bidisha”, the full set…) who, but two days ago, were crowing in the Guardian about their alleged victory in having denied less hatchet-facedly committed members of the sisterhood the right to bare their breasts on Page 3 of Britain’s favourite tabloid newspaper.

Why are they all so cross? Because the Sun has successfully deployed against them the weapon that tyrants fear above all: mockery.

At least I hope that that was the reasoning behind the Sun’s unexplained decision first to pull its traditional topless bird from page 3 and then to restore her in today’s surprise comeback edition.

M’learned friend (and ex-Sun columnist) Toby Young isn’t so sure. In this excellent post at the Spectator he has come up with a number of plausible competing theories which have more to do with business than they do with pleasure or ideological principle.

But let’s, for a moment, give the Sun’s strategists the benefit of the doubt and assume it was all just an attention-grabbing wind-up. If so, they have done a very right, very necessary and very responsible thing.

The tabloid press has come in for an awful lot of stick since the Leveson enquiry, the Sun especially which has had dozens of its journalists dragged through the courts, as a result of often needless, vexatious and politically-motivated investigations which have cost the taxpayer many millions of pounds in wasted police time.

By striking back in this way at its joyless enemies on the authoritarian left (the same people, of course, who are pushing so hard for Leveson-style press regulation), the Sun has reminded us why it is so important for the health of Britain that our tabloid press should remain robust, confident, unmuzzled and, yes, on occasion, offensive.

By “Britain” I don’t, of course, mean the spavined, mimsy, narrow-minded, egg-shell-treading, politically correct tyranny which exists in the warped imaginations of the progressive crowd and which they would dearly like to impose on the rest of us.

I mean the more traditional one which still exists, just about, and which the silent majority of us still inhabit. In this Britain – Real Britain – people look at the bare breasts on page 3 of the Sun and see not an assault on women or a threat to the very fabric of society but simply a bit of bawdy but essentially innocent fun.

Like Toby Young, I’ll leave the last word on this to the former Page 3 girl Jodie Marsh who, on the day of the ban-that-wasn’t, tweeted thus to the campaign group @nomorepage3:

may I humbly suggest that you now put your time & effort into something that actually matters like campaigning against FGM…

Related posts:

  1. Press regulation only helps the bad guys
  2. North reports the Press Complaints Commission to the Press Complaints Commission
  3. My excitement over the Conservatives’ manifesto…
  4. Why money-printing is like ‘global warming’


Records of the Year 2011

Hello everyone and welcome to my Records of the Year 2011. I could probably have tried to produce a more balanced list (more rock maybe; more dance) but instead I’ve just been honest and plumped for the ones which have spent most time in my CD player – and a lot of it, for whatever reason, does seem to err on the side of stoner folk. Or “wrist-slitting music” as some of my more rockist US friends tend to think of it. Still, I maintain that my taste is immaculate and I know that there are some of you out there who have come to rely on my records of the year list as the perfect way to stock up your collection with music which doesn’t suck. This list is for you. I hope it brings you joy.

Laura Marling – A Creature I Don’t Know (Virgin)

Pale, young and sensitive, steeped in the wispy feyness of trad and nu folk, with even a name that sounds as drippy as a wet dish cloth, Laura Marling is not the type of artiste who makes you go: “I’m gagging to hear her new album.” You should be though. This, her third, is a triumph of poised, coolly elegant, slily seductive folk which stands comparison with the best of Joni Mitchell (whom she greatly resembles at times) and the early 70s Laurel Canyon scene. Some of it – the lilting Salinas – is nakedly Californian; some – Night After Night – could be Leonard Cohen; my favourite is the very trad, shanty-like Rest In The Bed. But it’s all lovely, her voice is perfect, the tunes are growers: a classic.

Kate Bush – Director’s Cut (Fish People)

I love this album and I was quite shocked when John Grant (as in, you know, John Grant the singer/songwriter/genius) told me the other the day that he can’t bear it. What doesn’t he like about it? “Everything.” Well he’s a Kate Bush fan and I’m a Kate Bush fan, so take your pick. What this is, basically, is a Kate Bush remix album with Kate Bush doing the remixing of tracks from The Sensual World and The Red Shoes. Because Hounds Of Love was such a total masterpiece it’s easy to underrate the two albums that followed – and one of the joys of Director’s Cut is rediscovering old favourites like Never Be Mine and weirdities like Rubberband Girl – and realising how much they meant to you and how much you’ve missed them. The title track of The Sensual World is given a new name – Flower of the Mountain – and lyrics from James Joyce (as Bush had always originally intended: she just couldn’t get the permission first time from the Joyce estate); the other stuff is given new arrangements and performed in a lower vocal register, which for me conveys maturity, wisdom and comfort-in-the-skin, but which I can see if you prefer your Kate Bush high and youthful might feel a bit of a comedown. I compared the extended Never Be Mine here with the original: both work for me, just in different ways. Oh, and because it’s all recorded in analog, the sound is much warmer than it would be on digital. Why can’t all music still be made with this loving attention to detail?

Seasick Steve – You Can’t Teach An Old Dog New Tricks (Play It Again Sam)

Seasick Steve needed a bass player and now he’s got one: John Paul Jones. Truly, it’s a match made in heaven. I caught them at the Latitude festival (not enough of them, unfortunately: there was some kind of child-related crap that delayed me) and the magic wrought on Seasick Steve’s act was a joy to behold. Where before he was an amiable, but slightly annoying bluesy raconteur whose stuff went on a bit, suddenly you were experiencing loud, thrilling breaks and duels between guitar and bass, giving the material drama and space and yes, even a judicious hint of the spirit of Led Zep. You didn’t want the songs to end – whereas in the old days, sans John Paul Jones, you kind of did. Anyway, the album bears this out. It’s worth getting.

Jack Cheshire – Copenhagen (Safety First)

If you like Roy Harper, Gravenhurst, Badly Drawn Boy or Nick Drake you will adore Jack Cheshire’s Copenhagen, for this is exquisitely wrought, gorgeously melancholy song-writing in the finest traditions of mildly psychedelic, quintessentially stoner folk. There’s also a bit of Logh in there too, perhaps imbibed from the remote Swedish studio where it was recorded. The vocals are attractively slurred and sleepy, the lyrics dreamlike and beautiful, and the melodies and arrangements – check out the superb Magic Eye Lens, for example – get right under your skin. I especially recommend the title track. So much do I recommend the title that you should stop what you’re doing right now, listen to it instantly on Spotify – then try telling me it’s not your new favourite melancholy stoner folk song.

David J Roch – Skin & Bones (Dram Music)

And while we’re in melancholy folk mode, he’s another excellent offering – from a proper actual undertaker. Roch’s vocal range extends from a very creditable, Antony and the Johnsons soprano to a winsome, cracked , mildly Oirish, Tom McRae-like baritone, his songs are often infused with the kind of dustblown, vaguely Old Testament bitter-sweetness you find in Johnny Cash or Nick Cave (which will be why Roch is touring with Grinderman), his arrangements are adventurously baroque and his tunes often enormously catchy. It’s a grower.

Paul Kalkbrenner – Ich Wieder (Rough Trade)

How reassuring it is to be reminded in this uncertain, changing world that some things remain immutable: the Germans still know how to make a seriously good trance/techno album. Though you might not have heard of Leipzig’s Kalkbrenner, he’s huge elsewhere and was recently assessed as Germany’s 11th biggest brand name (between Mercedes Benz and Porsche). His fifth album is your chance to find out why. Some of it’s warm, pulsing, mellow trance in the manner of Ulrich Schnauss; some of it – Des Stabes Reuse sounds like the distorted crashing of goosestepping Soviet boots – is more abrasive. It’s cerebral, inventive and constantly entertaining. Highly recommended.

Cashier No. 9 – To The Death Of Fun (Bella Union)

Cashier No. 9 are a trio from Belfast who think they’re from late Sixties California: in a most excellent way, obviously, or they wouldn’t be on this records-of-the-year list. This is sun-drenched, breezy, driving-down-the-freeway-with-the-roof-down melodic rock, with jangly guitars, a widescreen ambiance, wall-of-sound arrangements, and echoes not just of the obvious West Coast suspects but also of Simon & Garfunkel, a bit of the Smiths, a hint of Tindersticks, maybe even a hint of Syd Barratt. Really, really good anyway. If you don’t like it probably means you’re dead.

Kate Bush – 50 Words For Snow (Fish People)

Here is our finest, weirdest, most original singer-songwriter on probably her best form since Hounds of Love. By turns endearingly, defiantly kooky (eg the title track, in which Stephen Fry intones increasingly weird made-up euphemisms for snow “ankle-breaker” while a whispering Bush eggs him on) and hauntingly, eerily lovely (eg Wild Man, in which she empathises with the plight of a fellow, rare, elusive creature, the Yeti).

PJ Harvey – Let England Shake (Island)

If anyone else were to make a folkie protest album laden with references to soldiers getting their limbs blown off in what might be Afghanistan, it would be irksome, predictable and to be avoided like the plague. But this being PJ Harvey, it is apolitical, unpreachy, subtle, eerie, poignant, and beguiling. It’s also her most English album yet, recorded in a Dorset church, and rooted in that folk tradition somewhere between Cecil Sharp House and Kate Bush in away-with-the-fairies mode. She’s come a long way from her early arid hard rock period and her mid-career Americana, yet still she sounds unmistakably like herself. All hail the mighty Polly, a veritable one-woman Radiohead.

Danger Mouse and Daniele Luppi – Rome (Parlophone)

Five years in the making, Rome is an imaginary soundtrack homage to Ennio Morricone by super-producer Brian (Danger Mouse) Burton and Italian LA-based film score composer Daniele (Sex and the City, etc) Luppi. It could so easily have been a precious vanity project: recorded in Rome with Morricone’s studio with several of his old musicians, now in their 70s and 80s. But in fact it’s a swoonsome, exquisitely judged affair whose lush, tasteful, lounge-tastic orchestral tendencies are nicely undercut by the down and dirty vocals of Jack White and Norah Jones. Besides the obvious (though not overdone) hints of spaghetti western, it ranges from edgy Love-style psychedelia to Zero 7 smoothy soul to dustblown lo-fi of Calexico. If you hear a better chill-out album this year I’d be surprised.

The Pierces – You & I (Polydor)

This record is so obviously commercial that I almost feel embarrassed to recommend it. And it’s produced by Coldplay’s bass player Guy Berryman, which may put you off even more. Give it a couple of plays (or even one play, frankly), though, and you’ll find resistance futile. Catherine and Allison Pearce are Alabama-born sisters who sing songs with the drama and catchiness of Abba, the jangliness of the Byrds, the melancholy West Coast summeriness of the Mamas and the Papas with clear vocals and lovely country harmonies, unapologetically overblown production and such absolute assurance that you don’t mind one bit that at least half the songs sound like California Dreaming.

Other Lives – Tamer Animals (Play It Sam)

Other Lives are a five-piece from Stillwater, Oklahoma who exude much the same pastoral loveliness and wispy delicacy as Fleet Foxes, allied with the moody, subdued epic quality of the National and something of the electronic portentousness of Arcade Fire. There are also passages where they sound extraordinarily like Pink Floyd. All in a good way of course. This is mellow, wistful, widescreen, dustblown Americana with ace tunes which creep under your skin

Also worth consideration: Feist – Metals (Polydor); Fleet Foxes – Helplesness Blues (Bella Union); The Unthanks – Last (Rabble Rouser); Mogwai – Hardcore Will Never Die But You Will (Rock Action); The Decemberists – The King Is Dead (Rough Trade); Foo Fighters – Wasting Light (RCA); Jamie Woon – Mirrorwriting (Polydor/Interscope); DJ Shadow – The Less You Know The Better (Island)

Related posts:

  1. My Records of the Year
  2. Records Of The Year
  3. Are music festivals better with children?
  4. Oasis: just how rubbish were they?

3 thoughts on “Records of the Year 2011”

  1. Anonymous says:16th January 2012 at 3:43 pmI’ve used to play a lot of Paul Kalkbrenner years ago. Not sure I’ve checked out the album above. I will have a look!!. The danger mouse album is really good too.I would recommend RSAG – Organic Sampler, Stephanie Bodzin – Liebe Ist and Pascal Feos – terra bong if you are open to suggestions. The last two might be a tad obscure for some palettes tho!
  2. Graeme Walters says:16th January 2012 at 4:54 pmJack Cheshire sounds interesting, as do Cashier No 9 and the Pierces….will probably end up getting the ones I haven’t already.Incidentally, the sublime Ulrich Schnauss has joined Engineers. The new album is very good.
    The Acorn’s 2nd album would be on your list if you’d heard it!
  3. Aloha Johnny says:27th January 2012 at 7:33 pmJames, can you put up a list of all the songs that were on your Ricochet Podcast. I listened while driving and could not jot down the names of the songs. Great podcast by the way.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Romney’s Bad Judgement

Not that you needed another reason to prefer Cain over Romney, but this is a good one, I think: (H/T Marc Morano at Climate Depot)

The GOP front-runner for 2012 sought advice on global warming and carbon emissions from the president’s current science czar — an advocate of de-developing America and population control.

Politics is said to make strange bedfellows, but no coupling in our view is more bizarre than when John Holdren, now President Obama’s assistant for science and technology, once advised GOP presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney on environmental policy.

Holdren’s bizarre views are best suited for an adviser to someone like, say, Pol Pot.

And if you think the Pol Pot analogy is extreme you should look into Holdren’s history sometime. I did for my book Watermelons and the thought that this guy…

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Does Mitt Romney prefer dog-poop yogurt?
  2. Mitt Romney and David Cameron: conservatives who won’t defend conservatism
  3. Rick Santorum is a big government conservative. He’d be a disaster in the White House
  4. Greenpeace’s forest policy is unsustainable

One thought on “Romney’s Bad Judgement”

  1. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:11 pmJust came to your website to say that you are the lowest form of life. Lying and over exaggerating without even understanding the basics. Dont read anything this man says people he only wants you to go to his website to get some click, he is what we call an internet troll and does not deserve a second of your time. Please die so that the world can be a better place.

My incredible Big-Oil-funded life | James Delingpole

My perfect life: funded by Big Oil

As you all know by now, my Evil Climate Denialism (TM) is funded by Big Oil. That’s why I don’t have to waste any of my time scrabbling around doing new blog posts any more. I just lounge around quaffing MDMA-laced Cristal from 17th century Venetian glass while my harem of Estonian nubiles giggle coquettishly as they speculate excitedly on which three of them are going to play the “jeegy-jig” game with Mister James today. Then I have some foie gras. Special extra-cruel foie gras as supplied to me by the Koch Brothers ultra-lux rare breed torture farm. Because that’s the kind of guy I am.

Anyway, I wanted to share with you some interesting correspondence generated by a sceptic who is much, much nicer than me called Russell Cook. I write about him in Watermelons:

Let me cite, by way of illustration, the work of a man from Phoenix, Arizona, named Russell Cook, who describes himself as “a complete nobody”. One day Cook set himself the task of tracing the “funded by Big Oil” story to its source—and he discovered some interesting facts. One was that Ross Gelbspan, “Pulitzer prize-winning reporter” (as he was described by Al Gore and several others) has never won a Pulitzer Prize. Another was that the blanket smear about the alleged corruption of science under the direction of the fossil fuel industry can be traced to just one line of one memo, produced as part of a public relations campaign by the coal industry in the early 1990s with the aim of showing—not unreasonably, you might think—that the debate on AGW was anything but settled.
On this wafer-thin foundation, the environmental movement has managed to construct almost its entire propaganda edifice.

What does this tale prove? On its own, very little. Cook—a graphic artist, not a scientist or a reporter—is just another ordinary citizen who has harnessed the powers of the internet to find information which, a decade or two ago, might well have remained buried. The “funded by Big Oil” meme would have spread through endless repetition. And no one would have been in a position to question it.
But now they can. Anyone can. Out there right now are hundreds if not thousands of Russell Cooks tapping away on their keyboards, following hunches, satisfying their idle curiosity, not taking “no” for an answer, and generally living up to the motto of the (now sadly discredited: see next chap-ter) Royal Society “Nullius in Verba.” Take no one’s word for it.

Anyway, here’s Russell in action again – this time engaging, very politely with a Warmist professor at Oxford called Myles Allen. And getting somewhere:

Prof Allen,

No doubt you are receiving both praise and harsh criticism about your Guardian article yesterday. I have a more basic question to ask regarding the disservice being done science when politicians such as Gore tell the public that criticism or questions asked about the conclusions of man-caused global warming by skeptic scientists should be ignored.

You do agree that this is a larger if not egregious disservice than Gore’s attempts to equate extreme weather to AGW, do you not?

Al Gore has famously said that skeptic scientists are in the pay of fossil fuel companies. He pointed that out most notably in his movie near the end, comparing their efforts and an alleged leaked coal industry memo to older efforts by tobacco companies hiring so-called experts to sow doubt about the harm of cigarette smoking. Gore has quoted both the tobacco memo’s words, “Doubt is our product” and the coal industry PR campaign memo – spelled out full screen in his movie, “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact”.

Did you know you can find the Brown & Williamson tobacco memo in its full context on the internet within mere seconds of starting a search for it?  Did you know the “reposition global warming” memo cannot be found in its complete context in a single magazine or newspaper article, or book, or web site where accusers quote it for proof that skeptic scientists are corrupt and untrustworthy?

Are you aware this bit of so-called ‘proof’ is the singular source for that accusation, that not a shred of evidence has otherwise been found to prove skeptic scientists have received payments from fossil fuel companies accompanied by instructions to fabricate false climate assessments? Does it not trouble you that no less than IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele relied on a person who repeats this unsupportable accusation when he claimed in a 2010 Guardian  article “Attacks on climate science echo tobacco industry tactics”  and that he called for people to ignore a prominent US skeptic scientist last month based on this same accusation?

These aren’t superficial talking points I toss out, these are from my own 21+ months of research into the accusation, I wrote about van Ypersele’s recent accusation relative to his ties to Greenpeace here  “Climate Science and Corruption”   and I’ve detailed Gore’s contradictions in his own accusation narrative here  “Smearing Skeptic Scientists: What did Gore know and when did he know it?”  As an ordinary citizen, I applaud your efforts to point out distractions which undermine the understanding of science. I have no expertise to say which side is right on AGW, thus I expect scientists to work out their contradictory observations and accurately report on what the situation actually is. If you truly strive to reach that goal, will you write another Guardian article telling how Gore does a disservice to scientists by accusing one side of corruption in the face of no evidence to prove it?

Here’s Professor Allen’s reply:

Dear Mr. Cook,

I personally don’t feel it is particularly relevant where people’s funding comes from. The accusation that sceptic scientists receive money from fossil fuel interests is just as irrelevant as the (probably more frequent, and even more laughable) accusation that mainstream climate scientists like myself only find the results we do because we are in the pay of governments who want an excuse to raise green taxes.


Now I think if I’d been Cook, I would have been a lot snarkier in my response to Prof Allen’s ludicrous straw man claim. Fortunately Cook is made of politer stuff:

Prof Allen,

Indeed, what you say is true. It is entirely possible that an otherwise reprehensible scientist who is a tax cheat, animal abuser, spouse beater, and receiver of money from the Russian mafia could still conceivably write a paper that upholds a critical aspect of AGW.  We are in thorough agreement on that, I believe.

The critical problem here is that a large portion of the population has been led to believe by politicians, policymakers, and enviro-activists that (alleged) fossil fuel funding of skeptic scientists renders them completely untrustworthy. As a case in point, I asked the spokesperson of the largest electric utility corporation in New Mexico for their opinion of Fred Singer’s NIPCC 2009 report in relation of their decision to suspend their membership to the US Chamber of Commerce over the Chamber’s skeptical viewpoints on global warming. The spokesperson replied that her company agreed with a national US news program repeating the words of three scientists from Climate scientists from NASA, Stanford University and Princeton who said the NIPCC was “fabricated nonsense.”

You see the problem there? An electricity provider to several million people relied on a single media source for a literally unsupportable accusation.

To the best of my knowledge, the funding sources of AGW scientists is not the primary point of concern of skeptics, but rather that AGW is not a settled matter in the face of skeptic science assessments. Careful examination widespread AGW narratives indicates accusations about the funding of skeptics is the overriding reason used for telling the public to ignore skeptics. Besides IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele’s recent repeat of this unsupportable accusation, Michael Mann said of Sherwood & Craig Idso in a 2003 ClimateGate email to a reporter:

“An objective reading of our manuscript would readily reveal that the comments you refer to are scurrilous. These comments have not been made by scientists in the peer-reviewed literature, but rather, on a website that, according to published accounts, is run by individuals sponsored by ExxonMobile corportation, hardly an objective source of information.”

Again, I applaud your efforts to point out distractions which undermine the understanding of science. If you truly strive to reach that goal, will you write another Guardian article telling how Gore does a disservice to scientists by accusing one side of corruption in the face of no evidence to prove it?

Here’s Professor Allen again, clearly a mite uncomfortable about the correspondence. (Hence his remarks about the cc list: I know what he means – if I were a Warmist I wouldn’t want my letters going straight to Morano either. It would be like sending your children swimming with great white sharks). Still, fair play to Prof Allen for replying.

Dear Mr. Cook,

And a large portion of the population has been led to believe that climate scientists as a community massage their results for political or self-interested ends. Unfortunately, two wrongs don’t make a right. I would not deny that there is legitimate social science to be done analysing the scientific process, but much of the “evidence” in this area, on both sides, seems to me to be largely anecdotal — it is not a field I work on, so I don’t think I would have much to add to what has been said already.

We should probably not drag lots of busy people into an e-mail debate — apologies to the cc-list.



Cook writes back:

Prof Allen,

I do thank you for the time and consideration you’ve taken to respond. You of course had the option to remain silent, as many on the AGW side have done with my direct questions in the past, so I do appreciate your responses.

With all due respect to your first sentence, I am tempted to ask what evidence you base the assertion that ‘a large portion of the population’ has even heard about, much less ‘believes’, such accusations leveled at AGW scientists. I’ve read extensively in opinion commentary that the rest of the world accepts AGW with the US lagging behind, having perhaps only half of the population as non-believers. Now, your statement appears to have one of two potential explanations:  ‘a large portion of the population’ has actually heard the accusation that AGW scientists are politically or monetarily motivated and have dismissed it out-of-hand, or else the population you speak of is instead a significant minority.

You see how the situation might prompt social science questions here. If indeed a sizable portion of the population does not believe AGW scientists alter data for self-gain, what then prompted you to make such a statement? My underlying question – after having asked so many politicians, policymakers, and environmental journalists about the justification to proceed with GHG regulations in the face of apparently legitimate criticism – is why I receive literally nothing but evasive answers, combined with outright efforts to marginalize skeptic scientists.

Long story short, I’ve done this since 2005, with a greater frequency after 2008. To have a lead author of a GHG regulation bill in Washington state tell me he considered and rejected skeptic scientist assessments, and fail to tell me which specific ones he rejected and for what reason, is simply amazing. To have a prominent board member of a society of environmental journalists tell me the corruption of skeptic scientists has been documented by many journalists starting with Ross Gelbspan, and then fail to tell me specifically who the others were, is inexcusable. To have a reporter of an ocean acidification devastation article be unable to tell me what the overall oceans’ pH level is, or another reporter refusing outright to tell me who actually quantified the ‘scientific consensus’, is inexplicable.

You are of course under no obligation to write another article on the Gore politicization problem that threatens to vastly undermine public opinion of AGW. I included Dr Curry and Mr Lynas in this as I’ve written to them before on the same topic, particularly in regard to Dr Curry’s appearance on the US PBS NewsHour program, which has had IPCC scientist guests on for a combined total of 14 appearances, and not a single skeptic scientist to view his assessments. Curry and Lynas have expressed concern about the politicization of the issue, and your 9/7 Guardian article certainly implies that the AGW issue may be needlessly eroded by political twisting of weather observations.

I’d think if Al Gore takes on the appearance of having libeled/slandered skeptic scientists, you’d view it as even more critical for him to either cease and desist on that tactic, or bring out irrefutable evidence of skeptics’ guilt.

Professor Allen, increasingly terse:

I repeat, two wrongs don’t make a right. The whole issue of who is motivated by what is irrelevant. I don’t care if the author of a paper I am reviewing is an “IPCC scientist” (whatever that is) or a “skeptic scientist” (which we all are) or has horns and a tail: I care if they have done their stats right. Myles

And Cook:

We are in agreement on that fundamental point of the irrelevancy of funding, and I trust that you do care that all scientists get their info right. This, however, is not a common ground shared by legions of loyal followers of Al Gore, who repeat in viral form that skeptic scientists should be shunned.

What I am driving at is that you opened the door by noting how Al Gore overplays an arguably smaller aspect of the issue. In presenting you with links to my own detailed articles pointing out a larger disservice Gore is doing to science with his apparently unsupportable corruption accusation, I leave it to you, as a scientist trying to pursue proper overall analysis of the global warming phenomenon, to decide whether you feel it is necessary to point out this larger problem.

Al Gore, anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, and most recently IPCC Vice Chair van Ypersele, say skeptic scientists operate in a tobacco industry-like conspiracy with fossil fuel companies. If you yourself cannot readily find proof that such a conspiracy is actually taking place – money given in exchange for false fabricated climate assessments, how do you react this problem?

Ignore it, or describe how it is not good to make conclusive statements without supporting evidence? This seems to have been exactly what you did with Gore’s extreme weather overreach, and is entirely the reason why I’ve written to you.

Dr Curry used a quote from someone else in her email response to you about “misinformation is being actively promoted by the fossil fuel lobbyists and their growing multitude of dupes and minions.” What assurance do we have that enviro-activists, along with their ‘dupes and minions’ are not the ones skewing the AGW issue, considering their portrayal of skeptic scientists as crooks while oddly refusing to show their central bit of evidence – those 1991 coal industry memos made famous by Gore and Gelbspan – in their complete context?

It’s the terrier-like tenaciousness of amateurs like Russell Cook which is ultimately going to win the Climate Debate. That’s because, much as men like Myles Allen might be loath to admit, this debate has long since ceased to be about science. It is about politics, spin and arguments from authority. The Warmist establishment has the bluster, the money and the big institutions, that’s for sure. But ultimately, these are going to be no match for the little guy with a lap top and a ruthlessly polite regard for the naked truth.

Related posts:

  1. Wind Industry Big Lies no 1: fossil fuels are more ‘subsidised’ than renewables
  2. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil
  3. Money Well Spent
  4. Climategate: the whitewash continues

20 thoughts on “My incredible Big-Oil-funded life”

  1. OctoFisty says:11th October 2011 at 7:35 pmI want my diamond encrusted codpiece meself. Complements my six boxing gloves nicely, methinks.
  2. mackintosh says:11th October 2011 at 7:50 pmwill have to read this excellent post a few times to absorb it all.Thanks James
    1. commonsensemajority says:11th October 2011 at 8:14 pm+1, great post JD.
  3. cremaster says:11th October 2011 at 8:59 pmYou can always tell quality, even if you are not entirely au fait with the details. As mackintosh says, this article repays more than one reading, and it’s clear this Russell Cook is one sharp-minded fellow. It’s no wonder that the professor was so intimidated.
  4. BenfromMO says:11th October 2011 at 9:02 pmVery well said. Great read and worth the time. Although I would find it hard to believe that Dr. Allen is not “a team player” so to speak, his frankness is appreciated. Indeed, this became a political arguement after the IPCC became political starting at IPCC v. 2. (1996)Ever since then, scientists have been removing themselves from that process and going in other directions since the science was taken over by people who had political agendas so to speak and as such rather…and as such most of the other scientists just went their own directions into things that mattered to them. The science is anything but settled today….I should note here that most scientists involved in CAGW are probably unwitingly only doing what their “patrons” want them to do, in this case studying the “effects of warming”. This means of course that most scientists who put out work do not make a claim on CAGW in general, but just make studies that say this: “If we warm by X, this is the effect on this aspect of the planet.”Nominally, we all realize that if we do not warm by X, then this research means nothing as it is predicated on that assertion and as such if we only warm by what we did in the 20th century, or if we do not warm at all, or if we cool, this research is worthless and a giant waste of time.

    But the real problem with science in general (which is where corresponding with the team scientists so to speak is so important..) is that without this team being dis-lodged and an end to this pointless political back-talk going in both directions, none of us should do anything but question every aspect of the science and read it carefully and inbetween the lines.

    The politicalization will only get worse as more sceptics get involved and realize what is at stake. If it was only a couple billion a year on research, well that is not the end of the world if it focuses on how we can adapt. Sure, that research can be used in the future if we do ever warm up.

    But the fact that our society is going to be forced to be changed to such a large extent due to this research, we should all be very very concerned.

    And this is why this correspondance is important. The talking to scientists involved in “detecting the human-footprint” will make them realize over time that this argument over CAGW will be over in several years as the warming fails to materialize. Even convincing people of small things works over time to show people that there can be science after the end of CAGW. Science survived the piltdoown man fraud, and I hope it can survive this.

    1. Anonymous says:12th October 2011 at 6:01 amIMO they already know the game is up. But the longer they can string it out, the fatter their pension pots will become, and the more speaking fees will be collected. And some paymaster players have sunk so much time and money into trying to convert enormous wealth into dictatorial green political power, they just don’t want to let go.
  5. OF says:11th October 2011 at 10:34 pmBig Oil – in the shape of British Petroleum and Shell at least – does fund one side of the climate debate (see foot of this page):http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
  6. Russell Cook says:12th October 2011 at 1:47 amMyself, I simply thank James for listening to a guy who is nobody in particular. In case anybody needs more reading material on my narrow focus, I have my online blogs and articles at this ‘borrowed page’ link: http://climategatecountryclub.com/profiles/blogs/the-96topresent-smear-of
    1. Russell Cook says:10th July 2012 at 4:47 pmTalking to myself now…. but I must, because the link I refer to in my comment above for the Climate Gate Country Club web site has gone non functional, so I had to borrow another site’s page to place my articles and blogs about the ’96-to-present-smear: please see http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1939-post-11632.html#pid11632
  7. NC says:12th October 2011 at 10:03 amBig oil won’t fund or do objective climate research or publicity, any more than the nuclear industry will research and publicise the dose rate effects in radiation. They have the big budgets that could resolve the problems, but there are “conflict of interest” problems. People in charge of big industry are intrinsically greasy pole climbing political expedients who can’t organise unbiased research, and don’t want to get involved in it for fear of being accused of a conflict of interest. This is illogical, because it’s in their interests to commission research into the fact that we don’t live in a “greenhouse” with a glass ceiling that prevents evaporated water turning into cloud cover with negative feedback on temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space. (All IPCC models assume that water evaporation has a purely positive feedback from wideband absorption of infrared by water molecules, not reflecting droplets!)
    1. Anonymous says:12th October 2011 at 11:51 amThe biggest joke is the same Greens who accuse opponents of being in the pay of big oil themselves discussed taking money for research from oil companies.Climategate Email 0962818260.txt… Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
      agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
      partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
      conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
      after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
      asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
      etc. By email? In person? …

      1. powerplant says:13th October 2011 at 2:59 amThe very first carbon trade of all was conducted by BP under the direct tutelage and guidance of Lord Browne, and he helped to craft the present framework of the IPCC and the system of derivatives trading known as emissions reduction marketing which in turn was based on the work done to craft same in the making of the Clean Air Act of 1970, part of Nixon’s legacy beside nifty cameo appearances while President on the “Laugh-In” Show.Odd how the following site has had only 80-odd hits as these satellites are the only real quantifiers and empirical behaviour trackers of climate related phenomena in existence truly covering GLOBAL phenomena at all levels of that Zombie cocktail we call our atmosphere.http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/a-train/a-train.htmlAmazing that those doing the real work are completely ignored. If you read the mission statements, this is the ONLY way the issue can be resolved one way or the other. Hansen, BTW, has no part in the conduct of this set of missions. There is a scientific conflict-of-interest clause in his contract that keeps him light-years away from these workers which works in the same way that prevents bankers from proposing certain types of tax legislation directly.
  8. Anonymous says:12th October 2011 at 2:48 pmMagnificent piece. Wish your editor would allow you to include this much drilldown on the DT site.In any event, the green movement and global warming will not even be on the radar screen in a year’s time, folks. They still debate outing themselves to see if they can aspire to popular hero status; the Rob Wall Street At Camera Point bowel movement was just testing the waters.
  9. powerplant says:12th October 2011 at 3:06 pmThis is how Al Gore and Paunch Awry and other greentards would have edited the earthquake in DC if given the job to do so.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qupH0qiWQgE&feature=relatedNo pressure LOL!
  10. powerplant says:13th October 2011 at 3:03 amThe satellite OCO-2 is the one tracking the carbon in the atmosphere for the VERY FIRST TIME IN HISTORY EVAH. And it ain’t even been launched yet. :>phttp://atrain.nasa.gov/intro.php
  11. Gordonrear says:14th October 2011 at 11:45 amNot to worry Mr D, nobody believes you are funded by big oil. You’re just a useful idiot for them.
    1. Octofisty says:14th October 2011 at 2:47 pmGordon’s arse, you are simply a complete idiot of no use to anyone.
  12. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:12 pmJust came to your website to say that you are the lowest form of life. Lying and over exaggerating without even understanding the basics. Dont read anything this man says people he only wants you to go to his website to get some click, he is what we call an internet troll and does not deserve a second of your time. Please die so that the world can be a better place.
    1. Petunia Pig says:21st October 2011 at 12:50 amI’ll bet you say that to all the girls, tee hee.
    2. Russell Cook says:2nd November 2011 at 3:18 amMr Fourie – we have a blog here a bit over 2600 words in length, and the best you can come up with is “don’t read anything this man says”?L’il bit of advice: If I was you, I would not quit my day job for a new career in proselytizing.