What is the purpose of a nation’s power network? To provide power to the nation, you reply? Oh, ye of simple mind! Not in the bizarre, anti-intellectual mess the modern-day West’s institutions have now been allowed to become transformed into in the name of ‘progress’. In an advanced industrialised country like Great Britain, the main purpose of the power network has been redefined anew instead as being something actively designed not to be able to provide power to the nation.
John Dee’s Almanac is an obscure blog penned by a pseudonymous former top-ranking UK Government scientist, who once worked performing services like statistical modelling before advising mathematically illiterate politicians, civil servants and the media upon what all his number-crunching actually meant. Given the nature of his prior work, Dr Dee is bound by the terms of the Official Secrets Act, meaning he cannot legally name any names responsible for the alleged scandal which follows. But, as he says it was perpetrated upon an unknowing British public from 1997 onwards – and 1997 was the year New Labour first came to power – I think we can reasonably guess the main culprit responsible could safely be represented here by the steganographically impregnable anagrammatic pseudonym of ‘Bony Tlair’.
According to John Dee’s insider account, the UK Met Office has been forced, from 1997 onwards, to tell the general public an absolute pack of lies about climate change / global warming / planetary boiling / sphere-cooking / orbicide / Greta-bothering / whatever it is being
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Hats off to Steven Tucker— not only for revealing some awkward truths about Margaret Thatcher (to which must be added her decision to shut down the three largest dental schools in Britain, after declaring that there were “too many dentists”!), but for leading to what was, for me at least, an astonishing, unrelated truth.
What was it? His mention of the ages of Shakespeare’s “Romeo & Juliet” led me to look up how he knew that, and that led to the answer to a question I’ve often heard asked: “How could a man like Shakespeare, who never travelled abroad, nor further than between London and Stratford-upon-Thames, have described foreign scenes such as Italy so vividly?”
Answer: Many of Shakespeare’s plays were plagiarized from previous writers, especially Italians. And though Shakespeare’s marvellous skill was in transforming the stories and ideas of others into soaring artistic works, the original ideas were not his, and the authors were not given any credit. This is not meant to detract from Shakespeare’s legacy, but to give credit where it is due. “Shakespeare’s play is based on an older Italian tale called “The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet,” written by Arthur Brooke in 1562.”
Matteo… Read more »
Othello Navigator: Cinthio’s Tale
This is astonishing to me — proof of straight out plagiarism by Shakespeare of the whole story, altering a few minor details. I am shocked.
Ever since the liberal socialists disposed of Mrs Thatcher, their systematic rigging of the public sector agencies to ensure the inheritance of good jobs by their children has become ever more apparent. First, they came for education and dismantled the grammar school system which had provided a ladder out of disadvantage for so many. Thereafter the NHS (graduate requirements for nursing), the police (accelerated graduate promotion scheme) and any safe, lucrative public sector career has become the preserve of the new advantaged and their approved associates as a hereditary asset. Consider the current state of the BBC.
As a result, the hereditary benefits of our new masters are passing in due course to their offspring. It is unfortunate that these children have been appeased rather than directed and encouraged to believe that their opinions and convictions, however immature, are not only right but also of supreme importance. Their parents appear to be scared of them; you could call the results ‘Government by Daughter’. How else can we account for the success of the Thunberg tendency or the Green Party and its associates?
We can but hope that in time, the next generation will rebel against their purple-haired parents in their… Read more »
DIE wilL be the death of us.
As usual, the most fascinating (ie infuriating) and probably most important of the day’s articles, but also the least well written.
Steven Tucker’s articles are extremely well-written and entertaining, providing some light relief in a dismal world.
Colonialism is the new buzz/ shame word since racism has lost its sting.
Excellent analysis thank you, it would be funny if it wasn’t true. Charles Dickens wrote about the Office of Circumlocution whose aim was how not to do it in Little Dorrit. This Office was full of bureaucrats who were well paid and in control. That was in 1860. How desperate the situation is now. Yet so many either have no idea or refuse to realise what is happening. Overturning this inertia now is crucial. Slash the bureaucracy and change the mantra to how to do it!
Death is far too good for the lot of them, but perhaps we could dry them out and use them for fuel.
MUCH much more needs to be written under the topic/title of this article. In particular to ask why this disease afflicts the public sector, and the contrast with business organisations where failing leadership is ousted or goes down with the ship.
NHS: Truly bizarre behaviours. Hospitals are full so put patients in corridors rather than build winter wards !?*! Then with patients in corridors decide to install oxygen and power and services into corridors for use by patients on trolleys in corridors. Thus creating unofficial winter wards by the back door. (The leaders of any private hotel chain up to such utter nonsense would be gone within a week.) What DO they think they are doing ?
Border Forces/Immigration: Now rescue, assist, feed, home, clothe, issue mobile phones, free health care, translators, and cash to illegal immigrants.
Police: Now assist offenders e.g. shoplifting now unpoliced, while making intimidatory and threatening visits to UK nationals in their homes. Practice 2 tier policing. Film rather than arrest or actually stop trouble makers.
Judiciary system: Lenient treatment of bad people, jail the innocent, politicised sentencing. (Free Lucy !)
Prison Service: Release prisoners, and likely pressurise courts to give non custodial sentences only.
Universities:… Read more »
Not forgetting Ofgem which was supposed to protect customers but under Tony the Liar was changed to doing everything against the customer.
I saw the John Dee post about a month ago and was sceptical of the policy he postulates, namely that the climate change hoax is a long-term convoluted ploy (also very expensive and destructive) to show that renewables won’t work and thereby pave the way for nuclear. However when the author lists so many institutions with inverted purposes, I suppose anything is possible in today’s mad world.
A couple of points against: Why did the whole world go the same stupid way? Why did Gordon Brown not get the memo and sell off the UK nuclear power industry?
It’s classic “follow the money” by the Met Office chief admitting that “we have to give the customer exactly what they want”, otherwise no job.
The whole world, or, in particular, the so-called developed world, or governments thereof, have signed up to the UN’s Agenda 2030 for “sustainable” development.
“Actually, citizens can do something about it – they can vote against those things.” With no effect if in a “safe seat” or the candidates agree with each other.
Outstanding article, Stevie Boy!
“Inverted Institutions: The Purpose of Most UK Public Bodies is Now to Do the Precise Reverse of What They Were Originally Set Up to Do”
A bit like every government for the last 30 years!
I do t believe what is said of Mrs Thatcher. Her directness over policy was renowned. I also do not think the, already, left leaning civil service would have done her bidding and certainly not in silence.
Would you kindly confirm what you mean by: ‘I do t believe what is said of Mrs Thatcher.’ Is there an ‘no’ missing before the random ‘t’? For my part I find it all too plausible. Not so much that she meant ill by it but the sheer hubris. After the 1983 election she probably allowed herself to imagine that she would be PM for at least 20 years.
Global warming was such a niche “scientific” subject in the early 1980’s that I doubt Thatcher had even heard of it during her first, and probably second, terms as PM
The main reason why all the coal mines started closing was that before Thatcher came to power they’d been heavily subsidised. The vast majority of coal in the UK is deep underground and therefore a lot more expensive to mine than in other countries that can produce it from open cast mines. The only reason why the Cumbrian mine would of been profitable is because it would of produced coking coal for steel production. This contains far fewer impurities than thermal coal used in power stations, is far less abundant and therefore, presumably, a lot more expensive.
Presumably using gas, even if some of it had to be imported, to produce electricity was cheaper than using imported coal. This is partly because there’s large fluctuations in electricity demand during a 24hour period and it takes a long time to massively increase or decrease the amount of heat that a large furnace produces. This means that a lot of heat and therefore coal is wasted during periods of low demand for… Read more »
It should say don’t.
You may imagine all the worst things you want but her record of plain speaking and doing what she said, within the limits of a Tory party that was as mysoginist in the early years as the left were throughout. She also had to battle with Cabinets of wets, Trades Unions and the IRA.
My basic point is what she is accused of 30 years after she left office and 12 years after she died is not well evidenced and seems more a general attempt at click bait or character assassination.
Thank you for responding.
I don’t ‘imagine all the worst things you want’ of Thatcher. I accused her of hubris, which I didn’t think was in the least controversial. It is, after all, a common failing of successful politicians. Consider her determination to push through the Community Charge, aka the poll tax. The point is not whether it was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but that she did it against the advice of many, and that it had to be undone after she was toppled from office. It was one of the reasons that she was toppled from office. Some may propose that her hubris dated from before the 1983 election, some from later, but she assuredly fell victim to it.
Yes, I find that hard to believe. She did initially believe that global warming was real as she thought the scientists were honest. In her memoirs she recanted as she realised she had been misled.
It is the Progressive Left and the Woke Right who are responsible for people like Ahmed being in positions of power and influence. They deliberately ignored the evidence of their own eyes and ears in their rush to be woke.
Both political factions are guilty of treason. They simply *must* be fully exposed and driven out of the fabric of our institutions.
if not, we are all effed.
Surely “woke right” is a contradiction in terms?
Now critical theory (Marxism) has redefined oppression as rooted in perceived cultural more than economic disparity, a swathe of Britain’s more affluent and enbubbled middle classes are free to buy into (or at least tolerate) it as an opportunity to signal virtue (or cower from their purple haired children) without worrying too much about the impact on their wallet.
This isn’t the same sort of ‘woke right’ identified by commentators like James Lindsay (who identifies an axis of identitarian Christianity and libertarianism), but it might be a reasonable application of the term in the UK.
I guess it depends on your definition of “right”. To me, right is the opposite of left. The left stand for collectivism over individualism – wokeism is about trying use coercive measures to force people to go along with some defined set of beliefs, however insane. That’s not any “right” I recognise.
From AI:
…and so the social conservatism of the Establishment turns into the social progressivism of the Establishment. Some charities turn from doing worthy deeds to being vehicles for the employment for the sons and daughters of the elite. On a more mundane level barter becomes money becomes credit cards.
So institutions becoming opposites of themselves is not unusual and is to be expected unless they are firmly brought back to their original purpose, or struck down and created again. Good luck with that.
But to end on a positive note, institutions that have ‘gone bad’ will eventually turn again into their opposites, if we are patient enough (and help things along).
With charities, they go from providing a service as the Spastics Society used to do, to becoming a campaigning charity now known as Scope, which is much less work and leaves more money for big salaries.
W.r.t. The Met Office, remember that it’s HQ was relocated from Bracknell to Exeter, and was hived off from the MoD and has migrated to various departments since. No doubt there were quite a few changes on account of that; not everyone wants to relocate, after all.
Whut? Not even from Bracknell?
Bracknell consists entirely of car parks, last time I looked.
And at the top of the pile, the British Establishment is dedicated to dismantling and destroying Great Britain. And has been doing just that for decades.
Ahmed has written, “need to recognise that western education is a threat to our beliefs and values” and will prevent Islamic children from entering Paradise after death, by turning them into well-integrated citizens
“re-centre our focus” on preparing them “for the akhira, everlasting life after death.”
This is the thing I do not understand about Islamists, they are so focused on death rather than life, and everything it seems they do is all about death.
Why don’t they then just commit suicide? then they can achieve what they want. Why do they have children at all, when all they pray for is that childs death so they can go to Paradise.
Simple solution surely is to not have children, and if one is an Islamist and unlucky enough to be alive, surely the answer is to end it all in order to achieve the bliss they so desperatley crave.
The rest of us infidels can then be left to the hell of this life.