Jy blaai in die argief vir 2011 Mei.

A forgotten speech

Mei 31, 2011 in Sonder kategorie

Unbelievable, but the speech below was written in 1899 (check Wikipedia – The River War)


Here is the speech…


“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.


A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.


No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”


–Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 London)

Democracy in a few nutshells

Mei 28, 2011 in Sonder kategorie

A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: ” A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.”


A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.


Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

WINSTON CHURCHILL, speech, Nov. 11, 1947


Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.

OSCAR WILDE, The Soul of Man Under Socialism


The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.



Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.



Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage.



Blikskottel…wonders when the dictatorship will kick in?

10million jobs, no problem!!

Mei 27, 2011 in Sonder kategorie


A Grumpy –
Dear Mr. Zuma, Please find below our suggestion for fixing South Africa’s economy. Instead of giving billions of Rands to banks that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

You can call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan:

There are about 10 million people over 50 in the work force.
Pay them R10 million each severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire.
Ten million job openings – unemployment fixed

2) They MUST buy a new car.
Ten million cars ordered – Car Industry fixed

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage –
Housing Crisis fixed

4) They MUST send their kids to school/college/university –
Crime rate fixed

5) They MUST buy R1000 WORTH of alcohol/tobacco a week …..
and there’s your money back in duty/tax etc

6) Instead of stuffing around with the carbon emissions trading scheme that makes us pay for the major polluters, tell the greedy bastards to reduce their pollution emissions by 75% within 5 years or we shut them down.
It can’t get any easier than that!

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members of parliament pay back their falsely claimed expenses and second home allowances

If you think this would work, please forward to everyone you know.
If not, please disregard.
Grumpies of the World Unite
The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse or Parliament, is this –
You cannot post ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal’, ‘Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery’ and ‘Thou Shall Not Lie’ in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians….. It creates a hostile work environment.
Think about this … If you don’t want to  offending someone —

Blikskottel….It is time for us grumpy middle aged folk of South Africa to speak up

Gobal warming, perhaps a money making racket?

Mei 25, 2011 in Sonder kategorie

Dr David Evans – Address in Perth, 23 March 2011.


Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen.


The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings.

I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, I understand the evidence. I was once an alarmist, but I am now a skeptic.

Watching this issue unfold has been amusing, but lately, worrying.

This issue is tearing society apart, and making fools and liars out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.


The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess which was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the Governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction about carbon dioxide being a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.


Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.


The planet reacts to the extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain?


Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three, so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.


I’ll bet you didn’t know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you’ve never heard of it before.


And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves the climate models are fundamentally flawed and they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.


This evidence first became clear around the mid 1990s.

At this point official climate science stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory. This just happens to keep them in high-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their Government masters.


There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbances, otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.


But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise – surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade, yet they have the gall to tell us ?it’s worse than expected?. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.


One way they cheat is in the way they measure temperature.

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewerage or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official citing requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%!


The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet; you can get to them via the corruption paper at my site, sciencespeak.com. Look at the photos, and you’ll never trust a Government climate scientist again.

They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results ?global? warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but it was only the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners, and certain car parks.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off.


So it’s a question of trust.

If it really is warming up as the Government climate scientists say, why do they present only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results? And why do they put their thermometers near artificial heating sources? This is so obviously a scam now.

So what is really going on with the climate?

The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after WWII, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 – 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.


We are now at an extraordinary juncture.

Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by Government, promotes a theory which is based on a guess about moist air and is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions is to impose taxes and extend Government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government, how exciting for the political class!


A carbon tax?

Even if Australia stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the stone age, according to the official Government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate tenfold, in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Sorry, but you’ve been had.


Finally, to those of you who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.



Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six University degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a sceptic.


Blikskottel…knows that of there is smoke there is fire.

The biggest money lie ever

Mei 23, 2011 in Sonder kategorie

“Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.”-Y Rand

The biggest lies lie was told to the people when governments, became the enemy of their own people.

The lie told by government:

Give us your gold and silver (real money) and we will pay pay for all your needs.


Would you have given up your real money if government did not make a promise to pay for all your needs? I think not.


Surely then we should demand that they do just this. If we, the people have no real money, how can we pay for anything. Banknotes are not real money, but are simply debt notes and all laws holds that a debt cannot be paid with a debt. Everytime you pay with bank notes, you infact add to the worlds debt, even worse, eveytime you get paid by bank notes or credit, more debt get created and added to the worlds debts….and guess who is the master:


The banks as we all all indebted to them.


In the absence of the gold standard there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value without gold. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process that stands as a protector of property rights.” – Alan Greenspan – 1966

Blikskottel…have recently discovered something of real importance and soon will share it with you.

Reserve banks are criminal institutions

Mei 20, 2011 in Sonder kategorie

Some views and quotes on the Federal reserve bank:


I have unwittingly ruined my country. – W. Wilson, upon passage oI have unwittingly ruined my country. – W. Wilson, upon passage of Federal Reserve Act, 1913f Federal Reserve Act, 1913


Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. Theaccounts of the Federal Reserve system have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States. – Barry Goldwater, R-AZ


The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one third (1/3) from 1929 to 1933. – Milton Friedman



Now, how about a bit on the South African reserve bank?


“At the moment the Reserve Bank has the nation’s gold. But when I was the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Durban Municipality, this thought occurred to me: ‘Here is the Durban Corporation with £10,000,000 of real assets over liabilities; machinery, land, buildings and we, its citizens, must borrow from a bank that has not £l,000,000 of capital in the country. We have to pledge our real assets and turn them into a municipal debt.’ I realised the impudence and the iniquity of it and that is why I say that all municipal and provincial finance should be controlled by a State institution.

“I have deliberately not used vague labels. I have not talked glibly of a ‘State Bank.’ If you had a State Bank in South Africa and it was under the present Minister, we would have no more than another branch of Barclay’s Bank.”

Thus spoke Senator Sidney J. Smith (Labour Party) in the Union Senate, April 1944. Senator Smith was the Senate’s youngest member at the time of his election, being then only 38 years of age. A member of the Durban Town Council in 1922, at the age of 21, he was the youngest Councillor in the Union’s history. Elected to the Natal Provincial Council in 1933, at 32 years of age, he was probably the “infant” member at that time.

He was an active member of the South African Labour Party since 1919, having held many Organising and Executive positions within the Party. He gave much of his time to a study of the Financial and Monetary Systems and appropriately enough did at least three terms as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Durban City Council.

Senator Smith’s Senate speeches advocating an Honest Money System for South Africa were considered so important that he found much acclaim both near and far. Many overseas journals published his speeches. His words still hold true today.

Blikskottel…questions the whole economic and banking system. If the bank has the gold(money), what do we then have? Banknotes promising money??


How a bank “loans” really works

Mei 16, 2011 in Sonder kategorie



How do bank loans really work:

The lender goes to Magic Bank in response to the bank’s claim that it is in the business of lending money in accordance to its corporate charter. The lender went to the bank believing that Magic Bank had the asset (money) to lend. Magic Bank never tells its customers the truth that it does not have any money to lend, nor are they permitted to use their depositors’ money to lend to its borrowers.

Notwithstanding the fact that Magic Bank does not have any money to lend, Magic Bank makes the buyer/borrower to sign a  loan application form which is essentially a promissory note that the buyer/borrower promises to pay Magic Bank for the money (what money?) he/she is supposed to receive from Magic Bank even before any value or consideration is received by the buyer/borrower from Magic Bank.


This promissory note is a valuable consideration, a receivable and therefore an asset transferred from the buyer to the bank which Magic Bank enters into its own asset account as a cash deposit. In effect you created cash!

After making sure that the buyer has the ability to pay the required monthly payments (the buyer has credit), Magic Bank agrees to lend the buyer the money (cash) . Magic Bank has no money to lend but it gave the buyer a promise to lend money by way of a commitment letter, loan approval letter, loan authorization or loan confirmation letter, etc., signed by a bank official or loans/mortgage officer employed by Magic Bank.


In effect your promisary note “created” the money, so why should you pay back yourself?


Blikskottel…is diving into some deep banking evil.


Banks are thieves

Mei 13, 2011 in Sonder kategorie

The banks operate under a system known as “fractional reserves”. This allows them to actually have only a fraction of their “reserves” in cash and this fraction can be as low as 5%. It works as follows:


Mr Blue deposits R1000 and this now serves as the 5% reserve that the bank is required to keep in its vaults or some other place of safe-keeping.


With its 5% fractional reserve secured, the bank may now lend out R19 000 to other clients.


Because it has not got R19 000 in hard cash, it creates it out of nothing by making book entries when they “lend” to borrowers or the bank will give a client or two an overdraft facility (the right to draw more than you actually have) and allow these clients to write out cheques which the bank will honour.


The minute the loan (for a house, car, holiday) is granted or the overdraft facility allowed and a cheque written, the money has been created and will now start earning the bank interest (usury) at a healthy rate.


As can be seen from this the bank has to pay interest on the R1000 while it is not earning anything on it, BUT it is earning interest on R19 000. Using our previously mentioned example the picture now looks like this:


The bank is earning R2 850 on the R19 000 and has to pay R100 on the R1000. A neat profit of R2 750 or 275% on R1000 that does not belong to them in the first place. Even after allowing for expenses, this amounts to a very lucrative business. No wonder the banks consistently report earnings in excess of 35, 40 or even 50%.


Even these earnings have to be adjusted because banks have the habit (the right) to show their depositors’ money as if it is their own, i.e. as assets and not as liabilities which they in actual fact are.


In all this one can see that the bank has not as much as made one pair of shoes or one jacket from a piece of leather or a piece of cloth. They have merely provided a service. And it is a service which our government can be and indeed, should be, providing at no cost to us the citizens of South Africa.


Blikskottel…is not the brightest boy around, but if I can see it, you should be able too as well.

Computer cheats at elections

Mei 10, 2011 in Sonder kategorie


Computers the weak link (Acid tests)

Discrepancies in Pretoria figures  (1999 election)
The first acid tests was the Pretoria News printout, when the figures were finalised a week or so after 2nd June. This printout gave the voting figures at all the 206 polling stations in the Pretoria area, that is, the actual physical count. The computer gave its total in three separate groups: Pretoria, Verwoerdburg (now named Centurion) and Akasia.

If there were no cheat, the totals for the 206 polling stations in these three regions should naturally be identical. And they are not ! The shortfalls are similar for all Opposition parties, while there is no shortfall – in fact, a slight increase – for the ANC.


  Physical sum of Computer sum
  206 polling stations of 3 areas
ANC 238,974 240,998
DP 112,529 88,950
NNP 30,721 25,018
FF 14,726 10,949
UDM 10,051 8,379
ACDP 8,744 6,790
FA 7,558 5,687
AEB 2,875 2,130


Now the other acid test. The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), who organised everything, were astonished to find the computer giving a total of I5 977-million voles, and they checked thoroughly before announcing that only 14 257-million voting papers had been given out to voters, and that this was the maximum number that could have been counted at the polling stations. In fact, a conservative estimate of spoilt papers would be 57 000 (0,4%), implying a maximum, count of 14,2-million.


We find therefore that the Opposition parties got a true total of 6,8-million of these, or 48% of the 14,2-million; the ANC some 7,4-million, or 52%. However, the computer gave out the figures as: Opposition 5,315-million (33,65%), and ANC 10 601-million (66,35%). Now there is no question here of “merely somebody’s opinion”, or of any “maybe – maybe not”. It is simple solid scientific fact. The ANC barely scraped a simple overall majority. Indeed, there are two reasons – one of them rather nasty – suggesting they did not morally get a majority at all.


Blikskottel…found this on http://www.aitup.org.za/ and have no reason to believe that this party would open itself up to being sued.

…….next installment coming soon…

Reserve bank man with a plan..

Mei 9, 2011 in Sonder kategorie

If Capetown people have any sense, they will vote for this man in the up and coming elections.

Blikskottel…knows that is this the sort of action and thinking we need.