Whack

As readers here no doubt know, James Delingpole has left Telegraph blogs to start up the London operations of the US Breitbart organisation. He has started with a bang.

Breitbart London's new Executive Editor James Delingpole looks at the ten 'best' lefty lies about the UK flooding... then debunks them.

Smashing. Read the whole thing.

Comments

[MyChickensGotNoHead]

Thanks for showing us Deller's new home and an excellent overview of the bollox that is Cameron's Britain.

[G. Watkins]

Good that James has resurfaced so quickly. It will be interesting to see if he gets the 1000+ comments regularly recorded at the D.T.
Publicity from the Bishop will surely help.

[Peter Stroud]

Dellers at his best. But his new venture needs more publicity.

[Phillip Bratby]

Securely bookmarked.

[Stephen Richards]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26153241

Well done Dellers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26153241

This is a classic from the BBC. The great flood of London 1928. AND the clowns still do not register that it happened nearly 100 years ago.

[Stephen Richards]

Dellers at his best. But his new venture needs more publicity.

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Stroud

This is the key to everything. If one assumes that the sheople have an average IQ of around 1 then you will understand why this is also the most difficult aspect of what realists do or need to do.

Until and unless we own a newspaper full of tits and bingo we will not reach the pluvial muck at the bottom of the pile and that will not happen anytime soon.

BUT good luck and best wishes to Breibart and Dellers. I wish you all the success you deserve and that's a lot.

[John Shade]

Well, good old Dellers sure hit the ground running when he started his new job! Solid work, strikingly expressed.

I found some background on this new venture here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/02/16/Breitbart-News-Launches-Breitbart-London-Breitbart-Texas-Verticals

Extacts:

(1) James Delingpole, formerly of the Daily Telegraph, and Raheem Kassam, from TrendingCentral.com, will lead Breitbart London, which will have a staff of 10 with 100 contributors already lined up to grow the site.
(2) Raheem Kassam, the Managing Editor of Breitbart London, said he was "thrilled to be on the ground floor of the Breitbart London team."
"The reality is today’s media establishment and conservative movement in the UK has become obsolescent and fundamentally uninspiring," Breitbart London's Kassam said. "With the Breitbart UK expansion, and a real thirst for making, breaking and shaking up the news, I’m positive we can inject the kind of vigor and buzz that the late Andrew Breitbart himself exuded.”

[A C Osborn]

Great Summing up by dellers.
C£ has a list of Climate related headlines from 1954 that completely smashes the "Extreme Climate/Weather" bandied about today, just take a look at this
http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/02/1954-a-bad-year-of-climate-change-natural-disasters-pummel-large-swaths-of-globe-again-1.html

It just proves that today's "Scientists" do not have a clue of what they are talking about or more likely are just outright LYING.

[Paul Matthews]

Peter Stroud, "But his new venture needs more publicity."

The Guardian is doing a great job.

I wonder if some of the comments below the article are tongue-in-cheek, ("Just look at this nonsense... http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Lefty-Lies-UK-Floods").

[stewgreen]

Looks good, but no where near the number of comments he got in Tgraph.. So audience seems small. 46 likes in 8 hours.

[stewgreen]

Also worth checking Breibart on Facebook

[simon abingdon]

@Stephen Richards

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26153241 - What's not to like?

"AND the clowns still do not register that it happened nearly 100 years ago". Whatever makes you say that?

I found the whole article very interesting and altogether unexceptionable.

[Stacey]

I've registered and tried to post to no avail and this may be why the comments are at about 108. However I remember when he first blogged at The Telegraph the comments were initially in the hundreds.
Lets hope he will seperate the wheat from the chaff in the comments as his blog quickly went off topic with moronic comments.

[Fred Colbourne]

Thanks for this, the site has an RSS feed too.

I don't know why James makes this a left versus right issue, with him being on the right. As I see it the "greenies" he attacks are mostly affluent people who don't have to struggle to make a living.

In my opinion, the extremists in the environmental movement are the foremost threat to the ordinary working people of Britain.

So although James is right about the dangers of the green policies to the British people, I wish he would describe them as the pseudo-left, fake-left or ersatz-left.

[David Waugh]

I agree with Fred Colbourne - this is not a left v. right issue. All the political parties, with the possible exception of UKIP, in this and other EU countries pay lip-service to AGW - only in the USA does this issue divide mainstream political parties. Those interested in the history and underlying political tendency of environmentalism should have a look at the website Environmentalism is Fascism.

[Sherlock1]

Good old Dellers. I hoped he wouldn't just wander off into the sunset (?) still spitting feathers...

[Robin Guenier]

There was a time when the Left in Britain (unsurprisingly) championed the interests of the less well off. Here’s a senior Labour Cabinet Minister in the 1964-1970 Labour government warning of environmentalism’s hostility to growth and indifference to the needs of ordinary people:

Its champions are often kindly and dedicated people. But they are affluent and fundamentally, though of course not consciously, they want to kick the ladder down behind them … We must make our own value judgment based on socialist objectives: and that objective must … be that growth is vital, and its benefits far outweigh its costs.

Anthony Crosland: A Social Democratic Britain (1971)

Alas those days are long gone. So perhaps Dellers’ categorisation is accurate.

[Jimmy Haigh]

I yhink all if Dellers' trolls will soon reappesr when they find out where he is. They need him.

[Robin Guenier]

Further to my comment above, it's remarkable that so many people who regard themselves as being on the left (or “progressive”) side of politics are passionate advocates for policies that damage the poorest and most vulnerable people in society: e.g. increased fuel costs (especially harmful to poorer people for whom energy is a higher proportion of their household budget) and increased risk of power outages (especially disastrous for poor, elderly and disabled people). And that’s at home. Internationally the position is arguably much worse: e.g. the diversion of resources from growing food to making biofuels (causing food riots, political instability and death) and the denial to people suffering from lack of clean water, proper sanitation, fresh food, adequate health care, better education, etc. of the affordable, reliable electric power that comfortable people in the West have long taken for granted.

How has this dreadful transformation of the “left” happened?

[Grumpy]

Bookmarked too. Dellers also explains why he has gone to Breitbart - worth reading

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Delingpole-Why-Breitbart

[Recovering Leftist]

Leftwing and rightwing are emotionally loaded terms used to destroy rational debate on issues such as AGW. We have to adopt more sophisticated tactics against the hysterical hatemongers who try to discredit sceptics. For instance the GWPF Board of Trustees is cross-party, centrist and establishment. You don''t get that impression from the mainstream media! It would be more effective if Lord Lawson was substituted as a spokesperson sometimes to help correct the misleading impression (butwould the BBC allow that?) . As has been stated before there are plenty of critics of the AGW idealogy from the "left" (to use the annoying shorthand). There is healthy skepticism among the general public but among young liberal metropolitan types we have been successfully smeared as "nut jobs" who are anti-science and probably creationists. That and the "big Oil" meme sustain the nonsense. There is no point in getting angry - it is better to undermine the stereotypes. Dellingpole is very effective but will have less impact as he is now confirming the narrative of the smear, It is better to get under the defences - not to set up trench warfare.

[It doesn't add up...]

Meanwhile dissembling from Peter Kellner:

Minsinterpreted survey on opinions about climate change

[Lewis Deane]

I love old Del and I hope ‘brietbart’ huffs and huffs and blows Huffington down but he’s wrong on the ‘Watermelon’ theory. For he confuses this miserable ‘Left’ with the Left. What did Marx say about Capitalism and all those canaille who wished it didn’t exist? Capitalism is the most liberating force that has ever existed and anyone who puts spokes in it’s wheels is no true ‘Marxist’ (A term Marx himself famously dis-abused!). Marx might have said all modes of existence have their historical end and we hope they ‘end’ because we are going towards something better. But that is the future. And all the best things that we have gained from Capitalism – impossible to count – but to name a few, rational thought, engineering, technology etc etc are always at risk from parasites and liars who wish to drag us back to a ‘putative’ nature. Canaille, all! (PS I’m not a Marxist!! Just saying!)

[Roy]

Fred Colbourne wrote:

I don't know why James makes this a left versus right issue, with him being on the right. As I see it the "greenies" he attacks are mostly affluent people who don't have to struggle to make a living.

In my opinion, the extremists in the environmental movement are the foremost threat to the ordinary working people of Britain.

So although James is right about the dangers of the green policies to the British people, I wish he would describe them as the pseudo-left, fake-left or ersatz-left.

I agree, and I think that the subject of climate change ought not to be a left/right issue. It did not start that way; Margaret Thatcher was the first internationally known politician to take an interest in the subject. The Labour Party and LibDems took up the idea and therefore, in Britain at least, it could have remained a bi-partisan issue.

Unfortunately politicians embraced the idea for the wrong reasons. Margaret Thatcher, although she had an interest in the science and had been a research chemist, regarded cutting CO2 emissions as an additional reason for her policy of closing supposedly uneconomic coal mines (not all were loss-making), thereby weakening the unions. Labour and LibDems thought that combatting climate change would provide them with a sense of purpose and an excuse for bossing people about.

When Tony Blair and Gordon Brown established "New Labour" it ceased to be the party of the working man and woman. Instead it became the party of bureaucracy. The Liberal Party had, to some extent, been representative of the working classes up until the time of Lloyd George but ceased to be so once the Labour Party rose to prominence. It now appeals to the same people as no-longer-new Labour.

The Conservatives have on rare occasions attempted to attract working class support, notably in Disraeli's time. One of the few Tories leaders since then to attempt to do so was, ironically, Margaret Thatcher with her policy of selling off council houses to their occupants, and some of the early privatisations. In contrast David Cameron, the self-proclaimed heir to Blair, has attempted to appeal to the same middle class pen-pushers as the modern Labour and Lib Dem parties.

[Albert Stienstra]

Feb 17, 2014 at 4:42 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier:

"How has this dreadful transformation of the “left” happened?"

A comment from one of the affluent "progressives": "In 2013 the poor have used more energy than ever before". I deduce the "progressives" want to stop that.

[Pharos]

James must have opened some eyes at the Telegraph. The latest 'Telegraph View' article about the climate politicising on the current floods is decidedly sceptical

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10642659/Ed-Milibands-climate-lectures-ring-hollow.html

[Tomcat]

The time has surely come to describe the activities of the Environmental Agency and the EU in terms like sabotage and vandalism.

[Marion]

Excellent article by James Delingpole, and one of the very few to identify one of the main culprits in all this - the insidious reach of the UN's Agenda 21.

Anyone wishing to find out more about this would do well to read the article by E.M.Smith (Chiefio) and particularly the comments!!

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/foia-agenda-21/

And then type into google local agenda 21 and your local council name to see just how much it is already affecting you!!

[Jeremy Enigma-Machine]

Even though the comments are "powered by Disqus"
there were already some 653 Comments at the time
of posting this message.

We see that the site is a "Partner of FOX News",
but we all hope that Dellers will not go the same way
as Glen Beck then, if he oversteps the predetermined
mark, and upsets the "establishment" too much.

Beck was fired for revealing how the Federal Reserve
Ponzi Banking Scheme operated, yet the FIAT system
was described in a book, years before, by G. Edward Griffin,
"The Creature from Jekyll Island." Don't stray into that
territory, if you wish to keep your post at Breitbart.

For the "Anoraks" :

http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/0912986212
( an internet search may also find some "free" copy for educational purposes )

Griffin himself regularly lectures on the matter, again available Free of Charge.
eg. Recorded in 1994 The Creature From Jekyll Island

[Tim Bromige]

Interesting quote from Crosland there. Given that he was the chief architect of the destruction of the grammar schools, thereby pulling up the educational ladder, probably the most important of them all.

[Jon]

I remember very good Gro Harlem Brundtland stating in the late 80s and early 90s that the more classic liberal free marked and capitalism that Reagan and Thatcher was responsible for could only be countered or limited with ubernational government motivated by UNFCCC or agenda 21.
Look at the solutions they have and its very clear to me that the true basis we are up against is international marxism?