An energy revolution has been reported in a joint paper by scientists from Bologna University, Uppsala University and Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, titled “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder.” This is the long-awaited independent validation of the infamous “E-Cat” or “Energy Catalyzer” by controversial inventor Andrea Rossi. Quoting the paper: “Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.”

The pseudo-skeptics have long-ago lost the peer-reviewed independently published discourse and have been completely reliant on the media and political echo-chamber. The significance of this is now outside of academic discourse entirely and threatens the stability of the echo-chamber.

Today Sean Thomas, the Daily Telegraph blogger, journalist and, under a pseudonym, author, posted a piece about the latest case of Moslem Grooming, this time in Oxford.  It was titled “Oxford gang rape: did people ignore this sort of scandal because racist Nick Griffin was the first to mention them?”

The article skips through a little of the history of the offence before arriving, in the last two paragraphs, at the efforts made by Nick Griffin to raise consciousness of it and shame the police into action:

There’s one more figure who played an important role in this saga. As long ago as 2001, Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, was making claims about Asian grooming gangs. In 2004 he repeated these allegations in a speech clandestinely recorded by the BBC for a TV documentary, Secret Agent. He was arrested and charged with inciting racial hatred.

Which is exactly what he was doing, of course. He was making his allegations to stir up ethnic strife. Right-thinking people, aware of the BNP’s record as liars, presumed that these stories were just racist demagoguery. No doubt Griffin feels vindicated today: for telling the truth before anyone else. And yet it was thanks in part to his thuggish intervention that society felt able to ignore the scandal. And thus the abuse continued.

Comments on the article were disabled.  But appalled commenters raised the concerns on an unrelated thread, myself among them.  Thomas let it be known via a tweet that his original article had been doctored by a DT editor but it had since been amended.  It was still bloody awful, obviously.  So I emailed him to tell him so:

READ MORE...

From Nature Communications:

Haplogroup H dominates present-day Western European mitochondrial DNA variability (>40%), yet was less common (~19%) among Early Neolithic farmers (~5450 BC) and virtually absent in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Here we investigate this major component of the maternal population history of modern Europeans and sequence 39 complete haplogroup H mitochondrial genomes from ancient human remains. We then compare this ‘real-time’ genetic data with cultural changes taking place between the Early Neolithic (~5450 BC) and Bronze Age (~2200 BC) in Central Europe. Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of haplogroup H were largely established by the Mid Neolithic (~4000 BC), but with substantial genetic contributions from subsequent pan-European cultures such as the Bell Beakers expanding out of Iberia in the Late Neolithic (~2800 BC). Dated haplogroup H genomes allow us to reconstruct the recent evolutionary history of haplogroup H and reveal a mutation rate 45% higher than current estimates for human mitochondria.

READ MORE...

The final opinion poll is in - in fact, it’s the only council-dedicated poll that has been done - and the British public, or at least that section who will be voting in the local elections tomorrow, are poised to deliver their verdict for real.  There is, of course, huge speculation about the fortunes of the United Kingdom Independence Party.  Will its support be spread too thin to deliver the seats it deserves - the enduring penalty of the First Past The Post system?  Or is this going to be the election when the party jumps forward and announces itself as a truly broad-based, national party of, if not yet renewal, certainly protest?

We will start to find out about this time tomorrow night.  Meanwhile, the smear tactics of the mainstream parties and their friends in the media leaves little doubt that UKIP’s rise is real and significant.  We are in for a very interesting next 36 hours.

A good result for UKIP would be to win 100 new council seats across the areas where voting will take place (mostly Tory shire counties).  The Comres poll in these areas produced a 22% voting intention for the party.  It should be remembered that protest voters are motivated voters, so that 22% could punch above its weight.  But I think it’s wise to temper any such expectations with the knowledge that UKIP is a young party without a political history in many of the wards it is fighting.  Electoral politics, at least in Britain, is not a five-minute packet soup, and elections at local authority level frequently favour well-regarded personalities, and hinge on particular local issues.

But ... if the present, very exciting signs are borne out by the ballot box, we may be at the start of a genuine challenge to the parties of the mainstream - something we might have hoped, a few short years ago, would come from the BNP.  But better UKIP than nobody.

I will post interesting results and commentary on the thread.

Conspiracy theorist David McGowan shows the signs of post-hypnotic suggestion in order to get him to do something: to distract from the crucial White male motive of the Viet Nam era – Dasein.

READ MORE...

In considering this comment by ukn_leo  

“I have learned so much from reading Leon’s posts, Dan. As someone with natural conservative leanings”…

As someone who has natural conservative leanings as well, I thought a discussion might be useful to move toward a better understanding of what we mean by “conservatism”, and to help European peoples better discern the fraudulent “neo-conservatism” being put across to the public: taking the example of David Mamet’s fraud awakening.

Notice in the clip provided below, the slick, Jewish deception that Mamet, via Hayek, makes with the idea of constraint - to focus on limiting government.

To limit and constrain government is Not a big problem for we true conservatives, but it is not the fundamental point.

The fundamental point of true conservatism is constraint on demographics.

READ MORE...

It seems that four bombs had been planted.  Two exploded at the finishing line, killing two and injuring one hundred.  A third bomb at the finishing line did not explode.  A fourth exploded in a library that was closed, causing a fire.  Why bomb a library (if the report of a bombing is correct, of course)?  Doesn’t seem a very bright thing to do.  Did they think it was an IRS office?

As for the marathon, Patriot’s Day does celebrate the freedom of the nation - a pretty hollow idea for a lot of people.  So ... a “far-right” attack on a “melting pot event”?  Not really.  Three hours after the first of the elite athletes cross the line, most big city marathons are “implicitly white” events.  Anyway, why bomb marathon runners instead of the government?  A target for Islamicists, then?

Looks like a lone psycho job to me.  Of course, he will have “links” to far-right groups, probably a copy of Breivik’s manifesto on his hard-drive ...

I thought I should replace Graham’s somewhat florid reflections upon the passing today of Baroness Thatcher with something more considered.  There will, of course, be hundreds of thousands of words written and spoken about her in the media over the next few days.  Much of it will reflect the divisive impact upon British and international politics that this extraordinary woman had.  I am not going to tell the story of her life, but I will offer some personal reflections upon the person and period - she was Prime Minister for eleven tumultuous years from 1979 to 1990.

She had four characteristics that set her apart from the politicians about her.  She was restlessly energetic, dominant, courageous, and ideological (which she called principled).  All the really important moments of her career in Downing Street were expressions of one or more of these.  She galvanized millions of us to admire or to hate her for it.

Personally, I couldn’t bear her public mannerisms and speech because it was all so plainly produced and inauthentic.  But I found her enemies to be deeply repellant, and therefore took her side in most of the battles she fought - and there were many, for she was nothing if not an agent of change.  Few people had no opinion of her, and those who hated her the most, by and large, were the revolutionary socialist left and the Europhile right who expected their agendas to be followed by government without serious challenge.  In her, however, they found an implacable foe, and this tendency to stand up and fight for a different, non-authorised vision in a world as cravenly pragmatic as British politics is what most ordinary folk will probably remember her for.

There are several moments of her career that, while not particularly important in themselves, have stayed with me.  In particular, I remember her visit to Poland in 1988 as “the Iron Lady” and an icon of the freedom of the West.  She was invited to the church of St.Stanislaw Kostka in the north of Warsaw.  It had been the church of a priest who inveighed against state repression from his pulpit until, in 1984, the Security Services abducted and murdered him.  Hundreds of people, including the parents of the murdered priest, packed the church and the street outside to thank her for coming.  When they broke into a spontaneous rendition of a Polish hymn she was unable to hold back the tears.

This image of a leader moved by the sincerity and heart of the people is a near perfect figure for a true nationalist politician.  Margaret Thatcher came to the door of No.10 in 1979 wittering away about harmony and St Francis of Assisi.  But she was too much the courageous warrior leader and the ideologue caught up in the battle with the Labour Party, with union power, with the machinery of European integration, with the Soviets, with the Argentines, with the miners and, finally, with her own scheming ministers to understand that such unity and faith is even possible.  She was no intellectual and no visionary.  She used ideas that roughly fitted into her political rubric, the foremost of them the Friedmanite and Hayekian nostrums that were introduced to her by Keith Joseph in the years immediately after her accession to the leadership of the Conservative Party in 1975.  She never understood that the petty freedoms she gave people were insufficient for a truly rich lived life, for she never saw people in their social context, only as putative “individuals” awaiting release from an overbearing, over-socialist state.

There was a moment I recall when, early in her premiership, she used the word “flood” in relation to immigration.  I thought she might actually be listening to the sentiments of her own party supporters.  She did, for example, stand up for the white South African government against the diatribes of governments and international agencies everywhere.  But no, the immigration issue was scarcely broached again throughout her remaining years in power, except in the context of protecting national sovereignty from the dictates of the European Commission.  The battle above all others that I wanted Margaret Thatcher to fight she assiduously avoided.  It is a battle which, as things stand, must be fought on the streets one day.  The inevitable, existential conflict of race was something else she did not understand.

Of the battles she did fight, she only lost two: to the Europe integrationists and, eventually, to the grey-suited assassins around her.  We are now witnessing the slow, ineluctable coming apart of the European process and also the arising of an anti-politics which disdains the careerists of the political class.  Margaret Thatcher will be shown to have been on the right side of history on most matters.  She will not, I think, be remembered as the great national heroine or as the vile hate object which she succeeded, by her relentless and divisive political energy, in fashioning herself as.