SATURDAY NIGHT JEFF WAYNE, HER'S.

Jeff Wayne with The Eve of the War. From his debut album Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of the War of the Worlds (1978).





The voice at the beginning is actor Richard Burton. The singer is Justin Hayward from The Moody Blues. As for the composer, Jeff Wayne, in his youth he was apparently so smitten by H.G. Wells's book that he decided to make a concept album of it.



Her's with What Once Was.





Her's was an English indie rock band from Liverpool, England, consisting of Stephen Fitzpatrick (vocals, guitar) and Audun Laading (bass guitar, backing vocals). Fitzpatrick was also a drummer, but they decided to simply use a drum machine instead. Her's formed in 2015 and they had only one full-length album, released in August 2018. Tragically, the duo was killed, along with their tour manager Trevor Engelbrektson, in a horrific head-on car crash and subsequent fire in Arizona on March 27, 2019. A very tragic loss, given the obvious talent of the duo. RIP and God bless.

Hat tip OutlawDaughter.


Good night.


MFBB.

RECOMMENDED READS: TODD ROYAL'S "QUESTIONING GLOBAL WARMING".

I have a perfect barometer of my own. My hands. When it's getting colder, not for just a day, or even two, but for a prolonged period, I start having chapped hands. To the point that they start bleeding and that I leave bloodstains every time I write something with a ballpoint pen, or even just put a simple signature on some document.

It is now almost the middle of April, and I am having chapped hands. Earlier this week I was slightly embarrassed to shake a customer's hand, for fear of leaving blood on it - not that I got something nasty to transmit, thank God.

But indeed, for some ten days now, temps over here in Flanders are down by at least some five degrees vs what is considered 'normal' for this time of the year. And when I checked out HLN this morning, this caught my eye:



IN THE COMING NIGHT, IT FREEZES ALMOST EVERYWHERE: UNTIL MINUS 4 DEGREES CENTIGRADE. Apple growers in Haspengouw have been working hard for the past nights with fire pots and covers to protect their blossoms from freezing temperatures.

And that is baaaaad news for the left and their newfound heroine Anuna De Wever, mastermind (or so she thinks) of the weekly climate marches of thousands of school children skipping class for the climate.


Over at American Thinker, Todd Royal takes the case of MMGW to the woodshed:

"In January 2012, sixteen eminent scientists published an article in the Wall Street Journal, titled, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming. If mankind is causing global warming then how do you explain:

“Today’s CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2 the Earth should have been boiling.”

It seems more reasonable to be agnostic based upon this fact:


~ According to the Climate.gov website, the current global average temperature is roughly ‘shy of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. About 55 million years ago – just after the age of the Dinosaurs – the era known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) saw average global temps as high as 73 degrees Fahrenheit.”



As humans only showed up about 100,000 years ago how do you account for the PETM era? Supposedly, 97% of scientists agree man is the cause of catastrophic GWCC. When in fact that statement is false. Moreover:


~ “A recent study reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that just 36 percent of earth scientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a climate change crisis. A majority of the 1,077 respondents in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of recent GWCC.”


What if you believe the 97% scientist debate then why hasn’t this information been widely reported?


~ “The media ignore a petition on the Internet signed by more than 31,000 scientists, including 9,029 PhDs, 7,157 with a master’s of science, and 12, 715 with a bachelor of science degree, all of whom dispute the global warming thesis.”


The GWCC narrative also took a hit when a March 2019 NASA study found the famous Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland was starting to grow again “after retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually since 2013,” but is growing the past two years (2016-2018). Past natural variability seems to be the cause instead of vetting the scientific consensus that “demands to prove that rising CO2 is causing an effect like melting Greenland ice.”

Are there other factors that determine earth’s heating and cooling other than CO2? According to Professor A. Balasubramanian from the Centre for Advanced Studies in Earth Sciences, University of Mysore:


~ “The climate of a region (or whole earth) is determined by radiation energy of the sun, and its distribution and temporal fluctuations. The long-term state of the atmosphere is a function of variety of interacting elements. They are: Solar radiation, Air masses, Pressure systems (cyclone belts), Ocean Currents, Topography.”



CO2 is a factor that influences regional and global temperatures, and there are considerable questions about the role it plays in recent warming trends in the 20th and 21st century. Climate scientist Vijay Jayaraj cites these weather facts to make the case the earth is actually in danger of global cooling:



~ “There is poor correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature. Between 2000 and 2018, global temperature showed no significant increase despite a steep increase in carbon dioxide emissions from anthropogenic sources. The same was the case between the years 1940 and 1970. When carbon dioxide concentration increases at a constant and steady rate and temperature doesn’t follow the pattern, we can be certain that carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of global temperature.”



MIT atmospheric physicist, Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, also believes CO2 is not the main factor in GWCC and figuring out GWCC is a dicey proposition. He questions whether the earth is warming, cooling or somewhere in between – in other words Dr. Lindzen is a skeptic because he doesn’t know if CO2 is the main driver of weather. Climate scientists acknowledge life on earth happens because of the Earth’s positioning in the solar system to the sun and “that the sun is the biggest influencer and driver of global temperature.”

But our moral betters know better of course. Actually, while I wouldn't say I'm scared shitless, I do look forward to the upcoming May elections with more than dread. The ecoloons, i.e. the green parties, especially Groen! in Flanders, stand a good chance to win big, say 15 per cent of the electorate. This is the leading triumvirate of the Flemish Greens:





From left to right Petra De Sutter, formerly Peter De Sutter, but he got his dick chopped off. In other circumstances I would be sympathetic to the guy's plight, however, that dreadful appearance hides a mini-dictator. Then, in the middle, Meyrem Almaci, party chairwoman AND muslima. Don't let her liberal looks fool you, she's all for furthering the ongoing islamization of our formerly Christian countries. Finally to the right Kristof Calvo, a neocommunist who takes econutterism to troposheric heights, and is a proven liar. Some party leadership, huh?

Do these warmists look like clowns?

Yes they do.

But make no mistake, they are dangerous clowns. They are all ideological scions of Jos Geysels, Green party leader in the nineties and one of the leading architects of the cordon sanitaire, which has effectively put my party, the Vlaams Belang, in political quarantine for about a quarter of a century by now. De Sutter, Almaci and Calvo are the kind of people who, if you were living in the German 'Democratic' Republic and they were your neighbors and they caught you listening to Radio Free Europe, would report you to the Stasi.

If they win big enough, they will be incontournable when a government has to be formed, and that will mean carbon taxes, severely curtailing the use of company cars (in spite of the traffic jams, still hugely popular with the working population, even indispensable), enforced vegetarianism, and the installation of a "Climate Czar", yet another completely useless public 'function' whereby some green hack will get dictatorial powers to force all of us big carbon-footprinted chavs to spare Gaia...



It's articles like Todd Royal's that are needed to be brought to attention, for they offer solid arguments with which to fight the reigning climate lunacy.

Spread them wide and far.



MFBB.

RECOMMENDED READS: MARK STEYN'S "THE CRAVEN PILE-ON OF HOLLOW CONSERVATIVES".

As per usual, Mark Steyn nails it:

"~The real problem, in America, Britain, Canada, Oz, NZ, is not the left, who know what they want and are serious about getting it, but the pansy right. It's easy to mock AOC and Justin and Jacinta Ardern, but all they're doing is sailing full steam ahead for their desired utopia. The right, who profess to disdain the final destination, nevertheless follow along, albeit at a more desultory rate of knots.



Sir Roger Scruton


We see this routinely in their urge to "distance" themselves: In Washington, as I mentioned the other day, House Republicans ostentatiously distanced themselves from their colleague Steve King, because in an ill-advised interview with The New York Times he appeared to endorse "white supremacist" concepts such as "western civilization". For some of us, it's hard to see the point of a conservatism that distances itself from western civilization.

The same fate has now befallen the most thoughtful and serious of living conservative philosophers, Roger Scruton. I have a modest acquaintance with Sir Roger, both personal (he's married to a friend of a friend) and professional: We once appeared in a debate moderated by none other than Margaret Thatcher. Mrs T obviously adored Roger and reckoned I was there just for the cheap laughs.

But that was then, and this is Theresa May's Tory Party. So Roger Scruton gave an interview to The New Statesman, which is left-wing but once employed him as its wine critic. But that was then, etc. At the new New Statesman he fell into the hands of one of those lefties whose goal in the interview is to talk to you for two hours and then pluck three partial quotes uttered twenty-five minutes apart that destroy your career and get you banished from public life. In this case, it was various Scrutonisms on China, Islam, Hungary and homosexuality, all of which are worth thinking about seriously.

But, as I say, that's the leftie hack's objective, and you can't blame him for achieving it. Douglas Murray, quite rightly, is more disgusted by the craven pile-on of so-called conservatives:

Within four hours of Eaton tweeting out his misquotations of Britain's most prominent living philosopher, the housing minister (James Brokenshire) announced that Scruton had been dismissed with immediate effect from his role as Chairman of the 'Building Better Building Beautiful Commission'. The sacking from this unpaid, advisory position came because of these 'unacceptable comments'.




James Brokenshire, "Communities Secretary" and Fake Conservative. With rightwingers like these, who needs wet floorcloths?


What's the point of James Brokenshire? He is the so-called "Communities Secretary" and was formerly a most undistinguished Northern Ireland Secretary. But, more importantly, what's the point of the Conservative government in which he sits? Roger Scruton is a humane and decent person: He wrote a novel about the girls of Rotherham, which none of the more fashionable literary types could be bothered with. He thinks seriously about everything from "Islamophobia" to social dancing. If there is "no place for the likes of Scruton" in public life, then there is no place for conservatism either. Douglas Murray again:

Even today the chances are that when you show up at any institution which has a position in the gift of the government the person still in charge there will be someone who used to write press releases for Tony Blair some two decades ago. And in nine years what have the Conservatives managed? Nothing. Or almost nothing. They pat themselves on the back for their heroism in a single successful appointment, only then – as Brokenshire showed today – to reverse and retreat when a left-wing magazine pumps inaccurate quotes onto social media.

There are many reasons to feel contempt for the modern Conservative party. Personally I can see no reason, after the fiasco they have made of Brexit, to ever vote for them again.

Indeed. I wish Douglas were correct that in nine years the Tories have managed merely to accomplish nothing. On everything from Brexit to Scruton to their new Internet clampdown they are making things worse."

Don't miss Douglas Murray's take, in The Spectator, on the scandalous sacking of Sir Roger Scruton:

"So the New Statesman decided to interview Sir Roger Scruton. Perhaps there are those who think that Scruton should not have agreed to be interviewed by the New Statesman, the left-wing magazine being unlikely to conduct a fair interview. But Scruton was the magazine’s wine columnist for many years, and under the editorship of Jason Cowley the magazine has been a slightly fairer and less battily leftwards publication than it was of old.

But today the magazine’s deputy editor, George Eaton, took to social media to announce the results of what he is parading as a ‘gotcha’ interview. The interview – which Eaton conducted himself – was, he promised, positively crammed full with ‘a series of outrageous remarks’. Eaton later posted a picture of himself drinking champagne to celebrate the fate of his interviewee, with the caption “The feeling when you get right-wing racist and homophobe Roger Scruton sacked as a Tory government adviser.” Eaton has since deleted the picture. Here it is."



George Eaton of The New Statesman, Deputy Editor of that rag and asshole superdeluxe. Sir Roger Scruton made the mistake of thinking leftists can be reasonable and trustworthy. I am no world class philosopher, but that's an error I would not have made.



"So what are the ‘outrageous remarks’? It appeared that Scruton had said that Islamophobia is ‘a propaganda word invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to stop discussion of a major issue’. Which is true. He also said that ‘Anybody who doesn’t think that there’s a Soros empire in Hungary has not observed the facts.’ A fact which is also true. Obviously since the British Labour party became a party of anti-Semites it has become exceptionally important to pretend that anti-Semitism is equally prevalent on the political right in Britain and that to criticise any of the actions of George Soros is in fact simply to indulge in anti-Semitism equivalent to that rolling through the Labour party. A very useful play for the political left, but wholly untrue. Anyway, I say ‘it appears’ that Scruton said this because there seem to be a few journalistic problems here.

Though Eaton says that Scruton said the above I am not confident that this is so. For Eaton – who used to be the Statesman’s political editor – appears to have a somewhat Johann Hari-esque way with quotes. He claims, for instance, that what Scruton said about Soros was somehow a comment ‘on Hungarian Jews’. As though Scruton had attacked all Hungarian Jews, rather than one very influential and political man who happens to be a Hungarian Jew."

To get back to Iowa Republican Steve King, who got a James Brokenshire treatment at the hands of American 'conservative' Mitch McConnell in that he was removed in January from the Judiciary and Agriculture Committees for having committed the unspeakable crime of asking,

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”

... for the caravans of hundreds of thousands of Latinos, heading to the United States of America from every crime ridden dirt poor hellhole in Central America, and the mass movements of Africans and muslims from African and islamic shitholes, heading to Europe, the issue seems clear: for them, White societies apparently seem immeasurably more superior to their own. And I will now give you a chap who sheds some light on how that superiority came to be:






MFBB.

NEW YORK POST HAS A MESSAGE FOR ILHAN OMAR.

I guess most readers heard about Omar's latest gaffe.

Only, she's no Biden. Her 'gaffes' ain't gaffes. She means it. I'm talking, of course, about her remarks at a CAIR banquet in LA on March 23, during which she stated that the 9/11 terrorists were just 'some people who did something':






The New York Post had a fitting response to that:




... they only should have added 'islamic' before the word 'terrorism'.




9/11 is not even twenty years ago and here we are, with one Ilhan Omar (D-MN), notorious antisemite, on the pic above in the company of Linda Sarsour, being a Congresswoman. HOW-ON-EARTH is such a thing even possible???


MFBB.

JEWISH AND MUSLIM AEROSPACE ENGINEERING, A COMPARISON.

First Jewish aerospace engineering, with a modest lunar lander:






Then the glowing, promising muslim effort:






Nuff said.



MFBB.

RECOMMENDED READS: DENNIS PRAGER'S "ARE WOMEN MALCONTENTS?"

A must read by Dennis Prager over at Townhall:

"I have decided to finally read what is widely regarded as the literary work that unleashed the modern feminist movement, Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique."

I am halfway through the book, and I find it to be a well-written cri de coeur (cry from the heart). Historically speaking, there was always much to lament regarding the status of women. Though I have none of the contempt Friedan has for "housewifery," her description of women who felt they had no sense of self because they were only someone's wife and some children's mother is emotionally compelling.

But a big and troubling thought hit me while reading the book. In the 56 years since "The Feminine Mystique" was published, every complaint Friedan made regarding the situation of the American woman has been addressed. Few American women are forced into "housewifery." The few women who choose to place marriage and home over career have truly chosen to do so; it is the rare young woman for whom marriage and family are greater goals than a successful career. Nor do women any longer go from high school to the wedding chapel. They go from high school to college and often graduate school. In fact, far more women go to college than men.

Yet, if you were to listen to many American women today, you would think nothing has improved. Every women's group and millions of individual women say women are "oppressed" despite the fact that virtually nothing remains of the "feminine mystique" described by Friedan.

In January 2017, between 3 and 5 million American women took part in the Women's March, widely regarded as the largest number of Americans to participate in a single-day march in the nation's history. A year later, millions of American women again participated in the Women's March in marches around the country.

Feminist groups describe the state of American women in dire terms. Young middle-class and upper-class women, many attending the most expensive universities -- paid for by their parents -- are among the greatest malcontents in American life.

In fact, women today, including young women, who lead lives the very opposite of those described in "The Feminine Mystique," are about twice as likely to be depressed as men. And that statistic is true for women across all economic, racial and ethnic groups.

So, then, what was my big and troubling thought?





If women are as likely -- perhaps more likely -- to complain about being oppressed today when they aren't oppressed as they did when they were oppressed, and if women today are nearly twice as likely as men to be depressed, and if women at elite colleges -- where they are pampered and more assured a financially successful future than most men living now or who lived in the past -- are particularly angry and malcontented, simple logic suggests two choices: Either women remain as oppressed as in the past, or women tend to be malcontents.

Given that the reality is that American women -- especially the ones who do the most complaining -- are not oppressed, we are left to conclude that the female of the human species may tend toward being malcontents. The simple-minded will respond to this exactly as they were indoctrinated to respond -- not by asking, "Is it true?" but by accusing the person who offers this suggestion of sexism and misogyny.

So, allow me to respond in advance: This is no more an attack on women than describing men's nature as aggressive is an attack on men. Each sex has built-in issues that an individual has to overcome in order to develop into a mature and good person. Men have to deal with aggression and the sexual predatory aspect of male nature in order to develop into mature and good men. Women have to overcome the power of their emotions and their chronic malcontentedness in order to mature into good women. But in our disordered society -- a society that has rejected wisdom -- in raising their children, two generations of Americans have told only their sons, not their daughters, that they had to fight their nature. The feminization of society has brought with it the destructive notion that only males have to suppress their nature. Feminists really believe females are superior, so why would women have to fight any aspect of their inherently beautiful nature?

Finally, this helps explain why one would consider the left feminine and the right masculine. Though life in America is a blessing for the vast majority of its citizens, the left constantly complains about America. Indeed, the better America gets, the louder the left's complaints about America -- about its racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, bigotry, xenophobia, inequality, systemic bias, etc. The right, on the other hand, regards life's difficulties as inherent to life, not inherent to America's flaws, and doesn't much complain. Like men, conservatives complain less than liberals. And just as male and female feminists demand that American men complain more -- that their lack of complaining is a form of "toxic masculinity" -- the American left demands that Americans complain more.

All these women's marches and angry women at colleges probably tell us more about women's nature than about American sexism."

Amen, bro. It was about time one of us male 'oppressors' came forward with this message.



MFBB.