What the creeping ice age will look like

Whilst the man-made climate change religion persists in telling us that we are all doomed because it's getting warmer because of the evil human race, in the real world, literally, natural climate evolution flips to a 'cooling period'.

The naturally evolving climate is not doing what the highly financed eco-loonies wanted us to believe.  What is actually happening for the immediate future is the complete opposite to what they want us to believe.

Natural climate evolution is cooling. Fact!

A fairly obvious hint is the relative lack of activity on the Sun.  Whenever our star goes quiet, we have extended periods of cold (the Thames freezes over, yada yada).  And, that's what's coming. Cold. Hence why it is criminal that we are not preparing ourselves to survive the cold by getting ready to produce food and other things under extended periods of snow and ice. Instead, the man-made climate change religion is sending us in completely the opposite direction and costing ordinary people a fortune.

Anyway.  Have you ever wondered what the creeping ice age might look like?  Will a version of this be what awaits our towns and cities over the next few decades?  Why aren't we ready for it?

New comment system from today

Ooooh.  Exciting.  When I tried it before it 'lost' all the existing comments, so I quickly switched it back off again.

Time has elapsed, and I think they've fixed it.

Yay!

So, I've switched to Google+ for commenting on the articles that appear in this fine and wonderful award winning ChristopherEngland.com.

That's what I'm talking about.

It means that any comments anybody makes are nicely copied through to Google+ giving them a much wider distribution and nicely integrating with Google+ as a discussion platform at the same time.

If you try to leave a comment (and you are welcome to use this article to 'test' that you can - please write anything you like just to make sure it works) and you find any problems, please email me at aaaaaargh@christopherengland.com

How's it for you?

A spider is a girl's best friend

Aha.  Now I understand.  I've often wondered why I could here screams of 'Oh My God' and very loud whimpering followed by an explanation from a very flushed looking lady that there was a spider in the room.

Feral cats and feral children, disconnected from humans

When the two 10 year old murderers tortured toddler James Bulger to death, all sensible normal rational thinking people didn't 'get' it.  How could these two boys be so disconnected from morals and a sense of right and wrong?

Indeed, during questioning, the horror and enormity of what they'd done seemed to pass them by as they shrugged their shoulders about it.  Some onlookers called this 'pure evil'.  However, it wasn't 'evil', but was the rule of feral existence.  It was a throw back to a very basic stage in our evolution, and was no different to how a cat will typically 'play' with and torture a mouse or a bird to death to relieve the boredom and possibly not even eat the prey once it is finally dead.

They do it because it's fun.

Cats are a very good example of what is happening in the dregs of society right now.  The domesticated cat knows how to interact with humans.  It is cute, and it will exchange apparent affection with the humans it co-habits with.  It will enjoy moments of close contact, and will adopt humans as part of its pride, enjoying their company and respecting them.

The feral cat, on the other hand, having lived its entire life hiding from humans, and without any direct interaction with them, has a very different approach.  It remains as distant and as secretive as the rats, mice or other rodents that live around us.  As with these rodents, the feral cat will have no loyalty to humans, no respect, regardless of how hard a human might try.  The feral cat literally has no interactive 'language' (the cute mewings that domesticated cats will make at humans don't exist within feral cat behaviour) and certainly no actual affection to exchange with humans.  It exists in a state of disconnect from humans, living its own life according to its own rules and the ways of the pride into which it was born.  In fact, it can be quite violent towards humans.

Despite looking cute and friendly, and exactly the same, feral cats are a completely different creature to domesticated cats.

The primary difference between the learning experiences of feral cats and domesticated cats is that the latter are brought-up from birth sharing affection, 'language' and interaction.  There's a natural form of co-dependence.

Affection, 'language' and interaction are what is NOT happening between humans and the recent generations of feral street-wankers and scum kids.  These kids are being allowed to grow-up on their own without proper guidance, away from the important domestic human contact.  This is why they have built their moral grounding from other kids and the school playground and the immature 'street' rule of law.

The school playground and 'street' rule of law goes right the way back to the primal instincts of survival of the fittest, and taking whatever you want when you want, with the weak missing out to the strong.

Normal humans were shocked by the video from the riots of the hurt and bleeding teenager surrounded by other teenagers who appeared to be helping him to his feet.  Within moments and without a real care they were helping themselves to the contents of his back-pack and just strolling away leaving him on his own. It's a video that made some people cry.  That's because they don't understand the rules of the street.

He was an innocent and frightened victim, not a looter or a rioter, but had he been part of one of the gangs he would have been treated in exactly the same way.  In the feral gang world he will be considered a 'fallen soldier'.  His property is to be distributed to those who hurt him or within his own gang.  After all, a 'fallen soldier' has no use for his stuff any more, has he?

Yes, it is the way of the street kids.  They form into postcode or estate based 'gangs', or 'packs', and will regularly roam about attacking the weakest from other packs.  They actually consider that it is a right to have anything somebody else might have, and so taking it is to them 'normal'.  Even in their own pack there will be the regular mugging of the weakest.  Most of their lives are spent growing in an environment where the stronger within them will take from the weaker.  It's all they know.  It's how life at school works, and it's how post-school life works.

Nobody is immune, and virtually all kids will have been mugged by others, and most will have mugged.  That is how they live.  It's their way.

The reason why large numbers of teenagers have rolled back to this very basic stage of evolution is because nobody has given them any form of guidance or boundaries.  Usually, this is because of the culture of no consequence born of the climate of fear of punishment for taking any stand.

The madness of legislation, the madness of the liberal wet do-gooders, the madness of political correctness, the madness of stupid trends and ignorance of the results, and the resultant state of fear, have given us a society in which parents are not allowed to properly discipline or try to control their children.  Teachers are not allowed to discipline or try to control their pupils and students.  The police are not allowed to do anything beyond a very basic level of intervention for fear of repercussions. 

Courts, worrying about the human rights of the criminals rather than the human rights of their victims, don't impose any form of deterrent sentencing, or do anything to protect normal people by keeping offenders out of society.  Neighbours are not allowed to complain or to object to damage done, and all too quickly even self-defence inside one's own home is unacceptable and likely to be rewarded by a prison sentence whilst the robber gets to go free to enjoy a huge pay-out for being hurt.

Instead of parents, teachers, society and authority giving the children any form of leadership, structure, feeling of 'point' and 'worth', and role-modelling to grow towards, they only get this from the leaders of the gangs they are forced to be part of.

And, as with all things feral, the gangs are usually controlled by the most vicious, most disruptive, most frightening and psycho teenagers from the estate or postcode.

That's why, like the killers of James Bulger, they just can't see the bigger picture or the moral perspective of how it's wrong to attack and hurt people and their property, and, as they know there's never any real consequence for them doing what they want when they want, they just do it and laugh about doing it.

Unfortunately, we now have multiple generations of feral families that have only ever lived this way, and so even today's feral parents just think it's fun and exciting that their kids are out burning and looting, such is their lack of moral values or care about other humans or consequences.

The culture of no consequence

People seem to have been surprised at the tactics used by the scum kids (the feral street-wankers) as they destroyed people's homes, people's cars, people's jobs and people's businesses during the civil unrest of a few years ago.

It was an outrage of destruction which will be repeating itself this coming Autumn.

But, the tactics the used are nothing new.

The basic principle of 'swarming' (or 'steaming') has been in regular use for a few decades or so by the scum kids.  Indeed, I have encountered it twice personally; Once when they decided to swarm over me in the street as part of my own personalised mugging experience, and once when I just happened to be in a late night shop as they decided to run in and steal booze and cigarettes but not do anything to the customers or shop workers.

Until recently, they used 'swarming' for quite a low level of crime.  They would usually build their group up to about 20, swarm and attack and then quickly disperse, leaving the victims dazed and confused.  Victims were most usually children and teenagers from other postcodes or the wrong gang, next came random people in the street who were worth stripping of money and mobiles, and lastly came off-licences or convenience stores.

Then, for some strange reason, the penny dropped and the scum kids realised that they could up their game.  Gangs put aside their postcode rivalry, a bit like feral tomcats in sniffing range of a female cat on heat, and massed together to do what they've always done, but to do it bigger.

Hence why hundreds and hundreds of scum kids were able to gather, swarm and attack far greater prey than usual.  Smashing into shops and instantly stripping them of their goods, grabbing people out of their cars so they can set fire to them, and completely outnumbering and outsmarting any resistance from police or innocent members of the public.

Everything became excitingly possible, and the adrenalin rush was far greater than when running innocent people over and killing them in Grand Theft Auto.

Just as it is impossible to protect oneself or one's property from a swarm of locusts or wasps, so too is it impossible for society to protect itself from swarming scum kids.  They know how long they've got before they need to dissolve into the background again, they know how long they've got before anybody even knows what they are currently wrecking.

Most importantly, and this truly is the main point I'm making, they know that they can do what they want and nothing will be done to inconvenience them.  They live completely in a culture of no consequence.

Just as with any swarm, like the locusts blighting a farmer's crop, the farmer might be able to beat off or stamp on a few, but the numbers stopped are completely insignificant compared to the whole swarm and the damage being done.  So too with the swarm of scum kids.  A few might get caught or arrested.  This won't stop the remaining swarm going about its business of destroying everything.  Nothing can stop that.

This is especially the case when the scum kids also know that nothing will ever happen to them, even if they are actually caught and arrested.

Firstly, if they are actually arrested, they are not removed from the streets for more than a few hours.  They are back out again, carrying on with the crimes, the very next day, no problem. Usually this is after a pointless 'caution', but sometimes (very rarely) they still have to go to court and will be sentenced to an hour of hand-wringing or something equally ludicrous and then let back out to carry on where they left off.

This is the culture of no consequence.  The scum kids know that the chances of getting caught are tiny, the chances of then going to court are even smaller, and certainly the chances of getting any meaningful sentence are nil.  They can do what they like because there is never a consequence.

The culture of no consequence was slowly introduced by the middle-class mamby pamby liberal wets and millionaire socialists who ruled the judicial system whilst Blair and Brown were in power.

The Labour Government-sponsored culture of no consequence is what the scum kids grew up with, and it has now exploded like the timebomb it was intended to be, maiming all of us normal people forever.

I have no sympathy for 'bedroom tax' suicide

A lady called Stephanie Bottrill killed herself by stepping in front of motorway traffic.  She left a suicide note blaming the government.

Yep, it was their fault.  And, all the seething media that loves nothing more than an anti-government story, hyped up the tale of this distressed lady.

The truth about suicide is that it is rarely any single event that drives the person contemplating ending their life.  It may be that a single event becomes the final straw, but the event alone is rarely the cause.

According to Ms Bottrill's note the government's 'bedroom tax' was to blame.  Apparently she was going to lose £20 a week because she lived alone in a three bedroomed house.

In other words, she thought she should have a right to have two empty unlived-in bedrooms for free.  She didn't care about the families with children who the house would have better suited.

Indeed, how many struggling families have had members commit suicide whilst waiting to be housed in the three bedroomed property they needed, but couldn't have because some selfish single woman taking up an entire house wouldn't downsize to a single bedroomed property in order to release the family home to, well, a family?

Of course, we don't hear about them.  They aren't news.  The leftie journalists controlling the news we hear about, only want the stories that depict the government as being in some way mean and nasty.

Surely it's mean and nasty to keep a family out of a family home, and so giving the single person less money if they are rattling around in a huge property all on their own, is completely fair and justified.

The problem with those occupying social housing is that they somehow think they have a god-given right to free and completely paid for housing, and it should be theirs for life.

Er, no!

Social housing is a temporary fix and is assistance for those who can't be bothered to live within their means or to get a job in order to afford housing like normal people have to.

So, sad as it might be that Ms Bottrill decided to kill herself, she did have plenty of other options.  Neither she, nor the media hyping up her family can blame the government for her choice.  If they had really cared about her they'd have done something to help her when she got into her fragile mental state in the first place.

Holding girls captive in your cellar

In all the articles I write, I never ever use the given name of those who have done a serious wrong.  Instead I name the victims.  This article is about the plight of Michelle Knight, Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus.  Those are the girls who were all taken and held for about a decade inside the 'dungeon' of their captor's house in Cleveland, Ohio.

At the time of writing, the fine details are sketchy and subject to a lot of rumour and speculation.

However, it does appear that the guy kept them in different rooms, chained or tied up, and systematically used them as punch bags and sex objects as and when he pleased.  Some of the details are quite horrendous.  In fact, more than horrendous.  They are beyond what anybody can imagine.

Heck, ten hours bound and raped and tortured by a maniac would be awful.  Ten weeks would seem like a living death.  Ten months would be beyond normal comprehension, let alone ten years.  How these poor girls will ever recover from that, I have no idea.  I would imagine that they are scarred for life.  Some of them physically as well as mentally.

Now then.  I was in a cafe eavesdropping on a conversation between three or four 'men'.  To my amazement they were talking in slightly hushed excited tones about how cool it would be to have a girl captive in their cellar, whilst they were mulling over the details of the three girls as depicted in the tabloid newspaper they were passing around.

Somehow, the absolute living terror those girls had faced meant nothing to them.  Instead it would be 'cool' to have a girl chained up in the cellar.

Actually, there's an elephant in the room here.

There's a sad truth that makes men not think of the reality, because of the power of the fantasy.  Men won't admit it out loud, but the idea of having sex slaves chained up in the cellar is extremely appealing and a sex fantasy for almost all males.

Yep, despite being frightened to admit it out too loudly, 'submissive females' are a recurring male fantasy.  Indeed, a considerable amount of porn depicts sex slaves tied up in dungeons and being subjected to spanking or somewhat more aggressive sexual contact.

Watching this kind of porn turns men on.  It demonstrates a living fantasy that they have. Instead of their 'vanilla' girlfriend or wife, they want this nymphomaniac on a leash waiting for them in the cellar.

Sadly, the fantasy trivialises the horror of what these three girls have just had to live through. What has happened to them shouldn't be taken lightly.  And yet, there are men, those men in the cafe, and maybe men reading this right now, who find themselves turned on by the story of the three girls.

However, what happened is not in any way what happens in the Bondage-Domination-Sadism-Masochism (BDSM) 'scene'.  Those men getting turned on by the fantasy, yet never having read-up on, or been a part of the BDSM scene, are missing one vitally and critically important aspect of the difference between being 'kidnapped' and 'held captive' as part of 'a scene', and what happened to those poor girls.

It's called 'Informed consent'.

The BDSM scene tends to be bound by rules.  Sometimes those rules do seem a bit odd to people like me, but the one crucial rule that makes sense to me is the 'informed consent' bit.

In the case of a girl being captured and held in a dungeon, then it can and should only be done as part of a BDSM sexual encounter with the 'informed consent' of the 'victim'.

That sounds odd, but the whole encounter has to have been agreed to beforehand.  There may be rules about what must not happen during the encounter, as in, the 'limits' of the victim have to be respected.  These will have been agreed and established before the 'scene' commenced.

You've probably heard all about 'safe words' and so on which are used to distinguish a 'YOU REALLY MUST STOP' from the 'in character' cries of 'no' and resistance to what is being 'forced' upon the victim within the confines of her original consent.

A girl held 'captive' in a cellar, having given 'informed consent', whilst being scared (in usually a very horny way) about what might happen next, or being turned on by pain which she turns into pleasure, is a billion miles away from a girl who has really been taken and is really being held captive in a cellar.

Probably what men enjoying the fantasy of having a girl in their cellar won't cope with is knowing the 'victim' is actually the one in control because she has given 'informed consent'.

Yep, that's not as exciting as the fantasy of really capturing a girl, is it?

The trouble with this is that so much sub-dom porn films depict a man overpowering a girl, who tries to resist him until she slowly has succumbed to his sexual prowess and not only stops resisting but also actively enjoys what he is doing to her.

However, the trouble with that fantasy is that it never happens like that.  It's just a fantasy in the minds of men who so want it to be real.  Hence why they have a disconnect with the actual horror the Cleveland girls faced.

When the girls were taken in Cleveland and subjected to rape and assault, there wasn't a point at which they started to enjoy it.  There was never a point when 'limits' were agreed and safe words established.  Nothing about what was happening had their consent.  Nothing about it was a turn on or exciting for them.

Frighteningly, those men being turned on by the thought of these three girls being held, used and abused are missing the point that it is wrong.

However, many cultures and religions, including the stricter versions of Islam, effectively treat young girls this way.  They 'hide' them within the family until they can 'sell' them to a random man for a 'dowry'.  Without giving any informed consent, the girl becomes a slave wife, having to obey her enforced husband's every whim, whether that's to administer beatings or demand sexual relief.  In most of these cultures, girls can be 'married' off at the age 12 or 13, and nobody sees this as being wrong.

In so many ways, the difference for them and what happened to the three kidnapped girls in Cleveland is tiny.  It's a slightly different route to the same outcome, where woman is the unconditional sex slave of man.

Hey, that might turn men on, but it is wrong.  Very wrong.  If we as a species are to mature and progress, then we have to encourage informed consent.  If a woman wishes to 'play' in a dungeon, there's nothing wrong in that, go and enjoy.  If she doesn't wish to play in a dungeon, leave her alone.

If a woman doesn't want to be 'given' to a man as his property, then give her respect and equality.  Leave her alone.

A Universal Truth

If we had no war, we wouldn't know how to appreciate and value peace.

If we had no hunger, we wouldn't know how to appreciate and value being well fed.

If we had no poverty, we wouldn't know how to strive to enrich ourselves.

If we had no killing, we wouldn't know how precious life is.

If we had no evil, we wouldn't know good.

All planets with life on them will have evolved in this way.  They are the essentials for the early millennia following our dragging ourselves out of the slime.  Without them we would not have survived.

Learning how to be better than this is the next phase in our evolution.

Socialists versus Freedom Lovers

(A guest article by Andy Richards)

Since Margaret Thatcher died many Socialists, Socialist supporters and even Socialist deniers have come out of their caves to sprout obnoxious propaganda, lies and half truths.

I haven't actually seen any real Socialists on Facebook. These people are serious, know there stuff, are evil and dangerous and have no time for "frivolities" like Facebook. But there are many ill informed Socialist supporters on Facebook.

These people are what the Socialists refer to as "Useful Idiots". They spew the party dogma without thinking. They have certain views and opinions, have looked quickly across the political spectrum and decided that Socialism is the caring party they will support, without looking at facts, history or using their own minds at all.

Then there are the "Socialist Deniers". These are people who spew forth Socialist dogma at every opportunity, yet when accused of being a Socialist deny it!  "What me? A Socialist?"  Of course you are.  You fell into their trap without even realising it.  Let's look at a few facts here.

Socialism is not about freedom. Socialism is a negative politics. Socialism has no faith in the human race.  Socialism believes that "the State" (Socialist State) knows best. They will control everything and all will be well.

Freedom Lovers believe in freedom of the individual.  They also trust humanity.  "The State" serves the people. Not the other way round as the Socialists believe. And we trust the inherent "Goodness" of human beings. This is positive politics.

Both ideologies have problems. The Socialist one is obvious. Who takes power? Who says they know best?  The Freedom Lovers problem is that people can get things wrong. But when they suffer for it and have the power to change things, will learn quickly and adapt.

I trust people more than I trust Government.

By far the biggest lie touted by Socialists is that they are "The Caring Party".  They "care" about the ordinary man in the street, the poor, the old and the disabled.

No they don't!

Why would a "Caring Party" allow so many of its own citizens to lead unfulfilled lives on benefits whilst importing masses of immigrants to take all the work, leaving their own people with no sense of pride and a dependence on "The State"?

Cynical political motives: The people on benefits will vote for the Socialists to keep their benefits, the immigrants will vote for the Socialists so they can stay in the country.

But most of the people on benefits would actually prefer to be working.  Think about it.  Imagine if you lost your job, could no longer afford your mortgage or rent and two "Samaritans" came to your aid.  The first offered you £20,000 no questions asked.  The second offered you a job at £20,000 a year. Which would you take?

I think most people have enough pride to say to the first "Samaritan" thanks, but no thanks.  Because they would feel guilty and indebted to that person.  Instead they would take the job.

This is a fundamental that The Socialists do not understand:  Human pride.

If you don't understand that idea of human pride,you are probably a Socialist and beyond saving.

The second big lie Socialists use is that "Businessmen", "Entrepreneurs", "Innovators" exploit the workers to make huge profits for themselves.

They do not "exploit" the workers. They are taking a "big cut" in the profits because it was their idea and they risked their money investing in the business!  The workers have a choice.  They can work for him, not work for him, or go off and start their own business!

Without these companies being formed what else would these workers do?

The third big lie Socialists use is the disparity of wealth argument. The gap between rich and poor.  What does it matter if the rich got 20% richer last year if the poor got 10% richer?  Socialists would prefer the rich to become 20% poorer and the poor 10% poorer, in the interests of equality.

Makes no sense.  Divide and rule is what that is about!

I could go on for hours, but I know I'll bore you all to tears, so let's cut to the finish.

I don't trust politicians or governments of any colour.

What would you prefer?  Big government that taxes you heavily and promises to supply you with all you need?  Or small government that taxes you less, allowing you to have enough money to supply yourself?

Andy Richards
(Guest Author)

My So-shell Meeja Strategy

I have been considering what I should be doing and where, when it comes to my use of social media or social networks.  But, alas, I'm confused.  One of my main sources of confusion is the incredibly handsome James Cridland.

Not only does James know a lot about soshell meeja, almost as much as me, but he knows a lot about radio, almost as much as me. So, that's double the respec' innit.

I don't know how many social networks James uses.  But, from my central observation platform I manage to spy him on Google+, Twitter, and Facebook.  I'm pretty sure he's on LinkedIn and Quora too.  Probably many other places, places I've not visited for eons, places that are far away on the 'dark web', places that I can't even hint at knowing about.  Plus of course there are those places he owns and runs like Media UK, and beyond.

Some while ago I realised that he will post on each network subtly differently.  This slightly annoyed me.  I mean, under what criteria did he decide what was to go where?  And, when it was the same, but with maybe a tiny wee difference, what drove him to make that tiny wee difference?

I didn't lose many weeks of sleep tossing and turning trying to fathom his raison d'être, but I got an inferiority complex.  This is odd, because normally I just know I'm superior to him in so many ways.

Unlike James, my social media strategy as Christopher England (I have involvement in other non-Christopher England strategies, to be fair) is somewhat basic and designed to minimise effort.

You can tell can't you?

Probably this is because I don't really 'use' social media that much, and I do spend a lot of time offline in quite large lumps of, well, time.  Lumps big enough to mean that I lose continuity with those who might live every waking moment on social media (not that I'm dissing that).

However, this is followed by me having near 24 hour sessions online as Christopher England.

That's when I write stuff.

If something is long, it goes on me blog.  If it is short, it goes on Google+.  Simples.

Then, by magic a few hours later, the lovely ifttt.com copies whatever I've written on me blog or Google+ across to Facebook, Twitter, and I think LinkedIn.  Maybe somewhere else, too. I can't remember.  (I really must find out.  But, it's so much effort.)

So, I only have to write whatever it is I'm writing once.  People stuck in the world of Facebook without realising that there is a much larger internet out there, get to see what brilliance I have unleashed onto the world.  And Twitter people get a teaser and a link.  Lord knows what LinkedIn folk get.  (I must go and find out.  Sigh.  When I can be arsed.)

LinkedIn is far too real and sensible for me to inhabit, so I tend not to go there.  As for Quora, well it's lots and lots of words, innit.  Too many words.  Brain ache.

Anyway, so what I do do is snoop across Twitter and Facebook, and always respond on any platform a person responds to me on.  That's because I'm a good boy.

I might write 'Bottom Burps are green' on Google+, and because it is copied across to Facebook and Twitter, then find I'm engaging in a thread of a conversation about 'Bottom Burps' on Facebook, and maybe a slightly different thread of conversation about 'Bottom Burps' on Twitter.  You get me, innit?

Yes, it's lazy not to think ahead and to customise content for each platform, and I have failed my audition to become the controller of adverts and localness-pretence on a Borg radio network.

So, here's the thing.  Maybe I should be more like James.  Maybe I shouldn't just be imitating a quasi-national Borg radio network.  Maybe I should consider my audience on a platform by platform basis.  Maybe I should craft my art on a more professional level, treating people like people rather than a bunch of sheep that I can treat the same wherever they may be.

But, unless I suddenly become James Cridland, this is going to take effort on my part.  Effort from which I am so easily distracted.  I mean, sometimes just putting up a blog post a day is an effort.  Sometimes I am a very busy (and important) man.  Other times, as I said I am far too easily distracted.

However, I am going to make an effort.  No more distractions.  Starting right this minute, nothing will distract me!  I will profile my differing audiences, and I will learn their needs.  I will concentrate my efforts on this and only OH MY GOD, A CUTE KITTEN !