Traditional values are now evil?

It is very sad that in the 21st century anyone with what used to be considered traditional, even family values is not just considered wrong but often evil by the mainstream. What I mean by this is the simple, old-fashioned way of life before the 1960s (not that I was there, but it only slowly began to change a couple of decades after that when I certainly was), where the ideal way of life (although far from exclusive) was a family of parents and children, where the mother stayed at home and looked after the children before they went to school, and then may have worked afterwards but could normally afford not to if they didn't want to. The cleverest children got a free selective education, courtesy of grammar schools, and if clever enough were then able to take a degree and be paid to do so. Granted immigration only began in large numbers from the 70s onwards, and in Britain (whether or not by coincidence) also came with gradual and then more radical changes in our society. Such changes which are not just celebrated by the left, but actually set out as if they are the only way to live, even though we lived very happily long before any such areas were present.

I suppose apart from the policies which affect everyone, such as flooding London and places around with immigrants from anywhere and everywhere, should really be down to personal choice, and if someone wants to live in a family of two men and a transsexual and their children from various means of production it is entirely their business, but there are also studies which may show the optimum environments for raising children which do not include them. Getting rid of grammar schools most definitely destroyed education from that point on, as now unless they are given the money only the rich can now get a decent education. There were also simple pleasures associated, even in London, with a lower density of population. The queues or waiting times for medical and dental appointments and council offices etc were never as long, (although admittedly my surgery did not have appointments so we just went and waited), parking was normally free outside the centre of London, and the roads rarely got jammed besides the old bottlenecks now bridged or tunnelled. Petrol and energy was cheap, electricity prices were almost negligible and car insurance was in two figures. If you'd earned money and saved enough to invest you could get 5-10% interest, which was normally above inflation and if not still provided enough income to select what you spent it on, as inflation is not uniform so can be partly avoided.

Back then the environmental movement was literally protecting animals and keeping the environment clean, something even I would call givens and something society needs to enforce on the less enlightened areas who give neither area any concern. People saved up for cars and holidays and debt was the exception to the rule for the rare expensive item paid for by working in the same job for so long you could rely on meeting the payments in most cases. Only a small minority of students and sociologists criticised the middle class values of the time, wanting to make the best of yourself and improve on the previous generation's position. The far left were considered a fringe on the extreme, who wanted (usually from the highest positions in society they told everyone else were wrong) to remove the differences in wealth and force all poor children to go to the same schools. Somehow, under Harold Wilson and following governments (including Conservatives) these policies became realities, with 98% supertax and the abolition of grammar schools in the early 70s. Margaret Thatcher reversed the high taxation at least, but by then we were deep into the Common Market and losing more and more of our own ability to make national laws.

The academic London left never stop. Having worked in Haringey and Camden, two of the richest and furthest left councils in the entire world, I saw the beginnings of political correctness in the 80s, following the extreme anti-Semitism expressed by fellow students at college in the 70s. Words and attitudes became gradually outlawed, first racial, then social (like 'backward' and 'subnormal') and medical ('mongol', 'spastic', 'cripple' etc), and then extended to covering up bad behaviour by racial groups, as if a high percentage of rapes or muggings were carried out by a certain group it was actually (and still is) attempted in every possible way to hide their racial origins, and then deny it was relevant if not possible to. You then heard of councils deliberately hiding crimes carried out in the ethnic communities, as they didn't want to create divisions and reactions against them. Of course to them keeping the multicultural dream alive was far more important than protecting society from criminals, including a huge gang of organised child molestors who only just began being prosecuted in 2013 after being hidden for years.

What we are now left with is the left wing view of the only way society must be, otherwise described by me as hell.

We are either in or heading towards a country (and any other where the same policies have been adopted) with no dominant racial group in numbers, but each racial group sticking in tightly knit local communities with a minimum amount of interaction with any other group, an education system where only the rich can make the most of their abilities, and then the degrees everyone does get are devalued as they pass half the population even though till the rules were changed only 5% of all students were capable of completing them. This means a generation or more of professionals mainly incompetent in their chosen fields but let through as the standards had been dropped secretly. We are looking towards swathes of professionals and their employees not understanding much of their subjects, making simple errors, and in the case of science and architecture making extremely dangerous miscalculations. Only the better off can afford to drive and travel for pleasure, while more and more people can no longer afford adequate heating.  And should anyone dare to complain, whether about how their area hardly has anyone speaking English and how long they have to queue for the doctors while the receptionists are using interpreters for many of the patients, or how they can't afford to visit their families as the costs of transport are too high they are called racists or told not to travel to save the planet.

The Soviets or Chairman Mao could not have created a worse society if they'd sent in all their troops and ordered everyone to integrate at gunpoint, mainly as this revolution has actually distorted people's minds as well as their lives. The longer this situation is maintained the more people actually start believing it is the right way to be, and they join the leaders, nagging people to reduce their carbon footprints and calling anyone who makes the slightest complaint against modern life a racist, homophobe and possibly a murderer. The Russians were also not allowed to speak freely, but it is debatable whether many of the citizens believed much of what Stalin or Brezhnev made them say was true, unlike today's herds.

The socialists and greens would not want to have their money taken from the either, and if anyone dared to block the road when they were driving to their family for Christmas as they had exceeded this year's carbon emissions, they would probably try and fight them as much as every other.

What those at the bottom wish for everyone else will hurt them as much as everyone else, the Russian Communist party members did not suffer from the poverty or lack of freedom of the masses, neither do Al Gore or Chris Huhne suffer the same restrictions they legislated on everyone else. None of the Greenpeace elite, UN committee members, climate professors or London council leaders will suffer much of the policies they are imposing on us, as they make the rules they can make the loopholes. So by betting against the market they can own wind farms, collect carbon credits, and basically suck all the money out of society everyone else is forced to hand over for themselves. That is why supposedly left wing green activists will force severe restrictions on everyone else's lives as most if not all will benefit from it directly, otherwise why would they create a hell on earth unless they were immune and exempt from it? Now it makes perfect sense.

Getting in the way

Throughout history, there has been a consistent theme in both spiritual and natural teaching, of the evil enemy doing all they can to stop you from becoming more capable so their tricks no longer work on you. This can be from the simplest level of ignorance of vital knowledge to preventing your enlightenment meaning you are no longer subject to temptation from the dark side. Either way, there are a heck of a lot of people around us the whole time intent on destroying our personal development as it threatens their power over us.

My new blog the Information Revolution deals with as much of the natural political side I can, which basically teaches anyone who cares to read it the tricks our lords and masters use to try and make us believe any old shit in order so they can offer the painful but vital solution to remedy it. Ones which coincidentally make them incredibly rich and successful and paid for by those supposed to be being protected by them. There is a 100% difference between protecting someone from harm, and a protection racket, and these sods are simply running the same protection rackets since day one in never ending variations of 'Pay us and your house won't burn down' type insurance policies.

Spiritual teachings uses the dark side entities which are meant to block every chance we have of developing our senses beyond the physical as they will no longer be able to mess with those who do. Now having practised such abilities for over 20 years they are definitely real, to what extent I can only go by what I have been taught, but assuming they can increase infinitely (as we are infinite in our ultimate nature) some teach that those who are already able to do this do not want the competition and will do all they can to keep every single person back who is working to do so. Whether or not they can is another matter, my area of interest is they clearly want to, in all areas of life, as in running this race they would prefer to maim the opposition than win it fairly. The second point all tyrants miss is other people's success can not stop our own as we are all running a personal race to our own goals, which are not the same for any two people as we are all different. There are enough women for every man, so stopping one person from having one you want does not mean they will want you, or there are not thousands more who would suit you equally. If someone you know makes millions it does not mean there is less left for you or others, but ask any socialist and that is exactly what they believe, so they work to stop you from succeeding financially as they genuinely imagine if any individual amasses 'too much money' (whatever amount that may be) it genuinely takes it from others, as if there is only a certain fixed amount of wealth ever created to be shared around.

Of course every motivation to block the success of others in any way is deluded, but human, and if you believe it, applies to evil spirits as well. Either way they all share one thing, they want to stop their competition by all possible means. Whether it's a mother telling their son their girlfriend rang to say she's dumped you (as she doesn't approve of her), or Al Gore asking you (no, telling you) for your money to stop global warming (which made him a billionaire), they want to succeed at your expense, and believe unless you also fail they cannot complete their own personal mission. Such delusions will mean along your road to success every so often you will come across some of these characters, and what they all have in common is nothing they say or do is motivated by the truth. The entire foundation of their plan is to destroy the perceived enemy, which may be you, and even though nothing they stop you from doing will make a single difference to their actual lives, they believe if you get whatever it is you are working towards it will hold them back as a direct result.

So, going back to the spiritual, if invisible entities are all around us making our lives go wrong, then being able to see them and communicate with them would stop it happening as we would become aware of it. Whether or not this really happens it is part of the oldest teachings around, and is the identical mechanism whether operated by Al Gore or Satan himself, some would ask what's the actual difference anyway. I am pointing this phenomenon out, in all its variations, so next time you want to go on holiday and you find the flight has doubled in price due to green taxes it's old Satan again trying to keep the masses where he can keep an eye on them and not getting around enjoying their freedom. Yes, it's utterly mental, and many companies end up losing money as it stops more people affording flights at all, but it's in their minds they need to tax you to carry out their mission. There have been so many films made where the police have tried to stop the cars of people trying to stop their girl from marrying someone else in time, or get to a dying relative, and the efforts made by the drivers to avoid them doing so, all based on the imaginary belief that person is a threat to the powers that be and must be stopped at every cost.

Cuba and China, as well as the old USSR did this on a grand scale, and set examples for the EU today. Why else would they be gradually banning cars in cities as well as already limiting the use of commercial vehicles, putting many self employed people out of business. Technically it's far more likely the motivation is they don't want so many people travelling freely (don't try and ask why, you end up going as mad as they are if you try to figure out their actual reasons), but has always been a major part of totalitarian forces worldwide. The London Congestion Charge stops people seeing friends and family, my neighbour can't take his son to stay with his grandma during the day in the holidays as he can't afford it, and this entirely immoral and worthless charge has guaranteed to be a block in the route of everyone now unable to afford to get to where they want to as the added amount puts it over the point of managing to.

That is why I value my freedom over everything else. How many times have you been desperate to get somewhere or get something and the road has been blocked by some pointless road works or the police who have shut the road for half the day after an accident even though it's already happened and working out exactly whose fault it is won't fix it either way? Then you realise many if not most of these blockages were not necessary, as the police could have simply moved all the damaged vehicles out of the way and used their knowledge to pin down the likely causes without hours of dusting the road with fingerprint powder and rubbing it with carbon paper. The road works need not normally cover two lanes when they are either only working on one, or not working at all but don't bother to remove the cones at night even when the roads behind them are usable. After about 50% (and probably quite a bit less), the amount taken in tax reduces as the rate rises, as people leave, work less and find ways to avoid paying. Therefore, by proven economic tests, any tax rate over 50%, as in present day France, is no more than a vindictive act against the very people making the national economy healthy, as everyone in power already knows it will take less than it did when lower.

Our entire lives will be a constant path of dodging people intent on blocking us. But every body and plant grows anyway, and although they can cut off our limbs they cannot shut our minds, so however hard they work to stop you developing both mentally and spiritually, technically if you are prepared for it then nothing they try will have any effect. If you meditate and accept it will work, then any attempts from outside forces will bounce off as you are protecting yourself against them. That would work even if such forces do not exist, as you will still be fully open to everything that could happen simply by knowing there is no force able to prevent it happening. Whether you believe in the spiritual or not, we all have the right to develop ourselves fully, and if not doing it by harming others, then in the very short time we have on this earth then no one should have the right to stop our means of progress. So whether it's stopping you from travelling, being with a certain partner, amassing wealth, finding out information you need (no one has the right to withhold information as it belongs to all of us), meeting your real parents, basically anything and everything some bugger will always try to stop you getting anything you really need or should have, it is both immoral, wrong and of absolutely no actual benefit to the person trying to stop you. What do the police get from seeing people die of a heart attack as the vehicle they were in cannot get to a hospital in time, or the council from slowing ambulances to 20mph with endless road humps? What benefit is it to your parents when they finally break up your marriage to someone they don't approve of? How much better off are the Occupy protestors in France now the rich have to pay 75% tax than they were before?

Answer to all, a big fat zero. But that simple fact has and will never stop them doing it anyway, so be aware, alert and ready to push through the barriers they will put up for you, and tell anyone else you see it being done to as well. No one has the right to interfere with other's lives, not even politicians, as officially they are working to help us do what we want and how we want to live, not how they want us to. Not in a democracy anyway, and if that's not the way it works where you live then it's not a democracy whatever system they use.

Science and politics part 2

This is such a massive subject the trends I've been watching recently mean it deserves an entire new entry. I know for certain, 100%, that a height chart needs no interpretation. You measure a person, you may have to convert it to and from metric, and everyone knows if they'll fit under a door or not. No questions at all. If someone is ill then you take their temperature, again maybe needing to convert to or from Centigrade, and you know if they're well or not, impossible to interpret. Any extension of measurements anywhere in nature is direct or indirect, but only either known or estimated. But not contentious.

Then we get to the climate. It is exactly the same as all above. No difference at all. But the people who believe in global warming nearly all fall into the left wing, and as such both accuse those not convinced and have the compliment returned of being on the other side politically. Just because an ideological group has become enamoured with a theory does not make it a political theory. Measuring scientific data will always be the same, whatever you are measuring. So assigning a political wing to physical data is anthropomorhism, only more so than with living things, but to totally dead lifeless objects. No, the rocks and sky cannot sing, or the sea cannot cry, they are dead inanimate physical material incapable of awareness, life or emotions, so no, what they are doing is not possible to interpret in sociological and psychological terms any more than suggesting a high temperature from the flu is a communist plot.

But this is exactly what the fighters on both sides have begun to do, they have fallen in a trap with absolutely no substance or value to it, and pointlessly expending energy on imagining the climate somehow is a political issue no different to socialism or fascism. So the climate can think, organise itself consciously and be manipulated depending on who is in power? Surely if it is a political issue it can only mean the climate is something subject to societal choice just like wages, taxes and curbing environmental pollution?

I suppose the one clue here is the believers assume (there is no proof as such) that because 'big business' and its offshoots have caused the climate to change, then those against capitalism will literally believe free enterprise has wrecked the climate, so as the guilty party must be curbed and punished, as it now is. But it is not a political issue, either CO2 is dangerous to the climate or it is not. How it got there is irrelevant, if it was from volcanoes or outer space then there would be no way to imagine it was part of the political system any more than the rain is now, but because of the most tenuous of links between big business creating the added CO2 and suggested wrecking of the climate the fly got into the transporter and the science is now tainted irredemably with fly DNA, if anyone has watched the film of that name.

But take the fly out of the equation and imagine CO2 had risen either naturally or inexplicably, and we'd all be observers, curious but only the weaker minded concerned about the consequences, as if the temperature hadn't risen very much after a 50% rise then we could all breathe a sigh of relief and get back to business as usual, as it has. But apparently just because this CO2 has 3% from man made energy usage (that's all that is man made, not much actually) that is enough to cause a scientific issue to have become tainted with the poisonous element of politics despite still being a dead scientific issue regardless of the cause. I am aware telling big business not to do its thing is indeed extremely political, but that is just the knee jerk response of, unfortunately, the left, who have been hooked into this accidentally as for the first time ever the western powers are now using policies they had been advocating from the fringes for centuries. Only the extreme left have made an issue as physical as the weight of their testicles into something designed to destroy western society and its values and use science to justify their existing wishes which could never have come into being without a totally unconnected reason which they now have.

But shift things around in any way you like and climate and other physical measurements can and will only ever be dead science, and anyone who says more should be sent to reeducation camps until they learn better.

Fear and loathing in 2013

I have never held back from speaking my mind, and seen through simple tricks for most of my life, with the most violent reaction being from a magician on the radio in around 1980 when I rang up and explained how he did his trick. No, he didn't congratulate me for being clever, he thought I was a magician and trying to ruin him.

30 years later I have never in my life received such a constant and consistent reaction whenever I point out global warming is totally unproven. They are so paralysed with fear and trust in authority they can't see or follow the data itself, just the generalities without any of the details (or lack of) behind them. This is a psychological assault of unprecedented scale, and one which has already begun to destroy society as we know it.

From children mistrusting their parents as schools teach them about their carbon footprints, friends I've known since childhood questioning and turning away from me, all represent a worldwide phenomenon against people immune from basic stinking bullcrap from the vast majority who suck it up like infinite sponges. Nothing factual gets through, they have a wall of fear and nothing can enter unless from the same people who told them it was happening. But what exactly is happening?

CO2 has risen by 50% since 1850. Temperatures have risen almost 0.8C in the same period. The UN claim at 2C the obvious advantages from warming will be outweighed by the problems, and they have created nothing more than incredibly long term forecasts finishing after we're all dead in 2100. The CO2 can't add more than 1C on its own, so relies on positive feedbacks, mainly ocean evaporation, and the CO2 and humidity has to settle in the specific atmospheric bands to work, or nothing can happen, and if the water forms clouds instead it will be cooling instead.

The forecasts were made in the 90s, we've had 20-25 years to see their accuracy, and the simple diagram finally released by the press this year showed we are on the bottom edge of their lowest forecasts. The experiment is half run and removing the existing warming there is zero amplification. Cloud cover has increased and CO2 is replacing water vapour, thus two negative feedbacks have been discovered. Aerosol dirt and cloud cover, both major coolants from natural and man made sources in the case of dirt pollution are not included in the models, not because they are cheating, but the simpler answer is they are too complex to model. So by making models leaving out the coolants and overestimating the warming from everything else, what else could happen except overestimating the warming in real life?

Not content with a physical experiment's results from direct observations, the believers/followers have now reverted to soothsaying, claiming the models say it may cross 2C in 2100 so we can't stop trusting them. They do not know what positive feedback is, let alone what causes it, and they don't want to. They just listen to their elders and betters and when someone like them, ie a peer (peer review in fact) tells them the experiment is almost over and done, they call you a baby killer and racist. Why? Because instead of doing what we were all taught in school to follow the facts, present all the elements and draw a conclusion, they do the same as in North Korea and China and follow their leaders without question, as they are qualified, and 'why would they want to lie to us?'. The fact interest rates are kept low and they tell us it's helping the economy as house prices are rising and they believe that as well pretty well illustrates how colder winters are now caused by global warming.

Intelligence is not even a protection, as many academics believe this implicitly, maybe as academic prowess only partly overlaps with IQ, so does not either always require a high IQ or converted from those with high IQs to excellent results. Therefore we have many hard working not very bright academics, trusting in the same way as 'how could thousands of scientists cheat worldwide?' attitude which allowed Dr Harold Shipman to quietly murder pensioners for years. As long as the heavy bottom of the pyramid remains unawoken, they will not be immune to illusions but immune to facts. The latest trick NOAA, the US official meterological agency have pulled off is altering the temperature data dropping the last 30 years down (after raising the later 20 years up already) to recreate a rise on paper, despite today's actual temperature being identical. Who even noticed?

It would be bad enough if people blindly accepted projections 110 years ahead in 1990 with no evidence you can predict complex systems (as you can't), but to still totally trust them over 20 years later when they were clearly wrong is to me another reason for God to come down and flood the earth, wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah or send Jonah to sort out Nineveh. The world has hit an all time low, with idiots drooling in every continent and taking their knives out for those who dare to question the almighty Al Gore, that great climatologist with so much more knowledge and experience than the rest put together, except, he's just a politician who has used global warming to become a billionaire. But they'll never get it.

Max Keiser's second (?) career

Max Keiser on global warming alarmism

"MK: My interest in AGW is economic. The science debate ended 20 years ago. The deniers lost. AGW is now accelerating and the costs are skyrocketing. Pension costs as indicated in link, climate migrants, insurance market collapse, etc. are out of control. Carbon trading and carbon taxes are just diversions and will never cover the cost of AGW. You never hear me talking about them because it’s too late for either carbon taxes or carbon trading (carbon trading could work by the way, check out the history of sulphur trading and acid rain). If you thought you were poor now, wait another five years. Welcome to the reservation. Buying Silver en masse will destroy the banks and give us a medium of exchange to rebuild society from scratch. Humanity 1.0 is finished."

Max Keiser slates global warming deniers

• "Scientists to directly link extreme weather to man-made climate change

Climate change researchers have been able to attribute recent examples of extreme weather to the effects of human activity on the planet’s climate systems for the first time, marking a major step forward in climate research."

That's one hell of an academic article, worthy of peer review and publication in 'Science'

What's this, has he seen the light? Profiting from climate change

Who knows? He didn't write it

Climate change, more dangerous than terrorism

These are not the work of either a genuine economist, whistle blower or fighter of fraud. And he really can't add up, or quote scientific titles, let alone abstracts and direct quotes from papers.

My trust is melting like the ice isn't.

Max Keiser, an enigma wrapped in a conundrum

I have been following Max Keiser a few years now, and he has taught me all I need to know about 21st century economics, which is absolutely accurate. But in his position, what would I do? I totally agree knowledge in itself is power, and he is indeed, as his programme claims, spreading the truth about markets. But given the privilege for both him and his guests to share a platform internationally to share the details of international organised fraud and not actually do any more than offer a solution than invest in gold, silver, and (spit) bitcoins, and boycott selected companies, is not exactly my idea of power. The gold he tipped for $6000 started well, shooting up from $300 to $1500 before it plateaued, which he claims is by market manipulation, but then again had I been employed in economics I would have realised the forthcoming credit crash I knew would happen would mean cash being diverted to commodities, the first always being gold, with consequent direct price rises through sudden demand.

I will also bring another mentor in here, LBC's Anthony Davis, who firstly confirmed every single person has the right to see through the errors (deliberate or otherwise) of professionals through the higher quality of common sense. He created (with me) the Information Revolution when he asked what we'd do to create a revolution, and that was my response. So to complete the circle he also told me Max Keiser's NYU education was not in economics, which he learned afterwards on the job, but drama. He is not on TV because he is an economist, but an actor. That in itself does not disqualify him, me, Anthony or anyone else from speaking the truth about other professions but does mean maybe his width of knowledge is nowhere near as great as you'd have had he actually been an economist. So, he is not an economist, but at least he has worked in the markets on Wall Street and seen the inherent fraud within and used its exposure to create a unique career.

But his knowledge is focussed like a professionals', narrow and specific. Outside his narrow band of expertise, he is a klutz. A lowest of the low sheep who is no less ignorant as the dumb fucks who both voted Obama in a second time, but call 'racist' every time he is criticised. He is down in the sewers with all the idiots, unless, even worse, he is one of the leaders pretending on TV to be a dumb sheep and poison millions of trusting minds every time he opens his mouth outside his narrow field of market fraud. Yes, I mean science. He and Stacey, Mrs Keiser, are a two person Janus, a two faced monster making claims of the lowest possible quality about the planet heating up, melting ice, frying, and all the other Hansenisms based on data which never existed at all, let alone happened and stopped.

So either they are both as thick as their victims, which doesn't seem right as they are neither liberal or left, he appears to be a centre-right Democrat or thereabouts, a capitalist who is not intent on destroying western capitalism which is all global warming was ever about, or part of the problem. Logic dictates the likelihood anyone capable of such insight in a field not exactly within his own study is unlikely to be so ignorant to doing sums in science which don't add up either? If he is not as thick as two short planks and unable to work out exactly what he worked out is being done to the economy is happening in science it would make little sense. So more likely he is using his power not to sort out the economic fraud, but use it to divert attention from the scientific driven economic fraud. ie don't hand your money over to the Gambini clan, but to the Obama clan. Same organisation, different beneficiary.

Logically there is little other conclusion. Unless he genuinely can't add up 0.7C and relate it to the world ice coverage, and realise the energy involved is unable to do anything anyone can measure with certainty, he knows perfectly well, and wants the 'solution' to be to divert our cash from the bankers to the illuminati, Rockefeller's boys running the biggest game in town. They have more money than their family could spend in eternity, so it's not the cash but making everyone else poor to then control them in slavery. Don't ask me why, as Henry Kissinger said, we need to reduce the population by 80% as life will be so much better for those remaining. Fine as long as you're not the person choosing the 80% and dealing with it. More than that is not needed to know except people have wanted to run the world since Genesis and still do. It doesn't need to be rational as well.

Of course this is only a theory, but there are only two possible answers and I leave it to you to decide. But surely, if I or anyone actually wishing not just to expose the fraud, but remove it, which in five years has not happened, simply standing by and commentating on how much they have stolen and who from every three days is not really constructive. And then (he wouldn't do it much or it would become obvious and detract from his personal field) drop global warming every few months, using the lowest possible standard of claims to do so which no one outside the people who believe it is possible to know what will happen in 2100 (yes, it's many millions, god help us), and everyone else realises is bogus. He can add up. If he can add up he knows his climate claims are bogus as he would be reading numbers off a calculator and quoting others, which is dishonest.

So, to be charitable, let's say he is so blinded by fear of nothing (he won't be alive in 2100 either, fancy that) he can't think right when the climate cloud comes down, he is not fit for purpose and should be retired and sent to learn about science, preferably in the Antarctic, for a few years, so he can also directly experience what he believes is warming and melting.

I am fed up with heads on sticks, qualified or otherwise, doing the same mock auctions by showing you some really valuable stuff, hooking you in, and then selling you a plastic and glass necklace for £100. If he was really sincere as well as astute, he would genuinely work out a proper set of actions to undo this worldwide fraud which we now all know about (it's because most don't care that nothing happens) rather than simply tell people where to hedge their bets. He did not, however, tell them the guaranteed place to invest out a depression, which everyone with excess cash does anyhow, which is to buy property in London. Gold will go down, houses in London will not only increase many times faster than inflation, but provide an annual income and maturity value whenever you want to cash in.

I am not a broker, economist, or broadcaster, but I could have told you all to do that and the reply I'd have got is 'we knew that already'. Unlike gold, silver and bitcoin, which are ultimately fairly worthless (gold), marginally useful but not scarce (silver) or a mock auction (bitcoin), which may have the real gold ring in the pack or the plastic ones everyone else gets. They are not as random as the stock market, but just swing more slowly over time. And can all go down to where they were at the start, which property does not. So even his risky and sketchy advice not even to reform a corrupt system, but hedge against and profit from it, is not as good as mine. QED?

Practising the higher mind

Great claims require great evidence, so as my own practice at opening the universal mind I have simply opened a box here and see what it provides for me. I have known enough since day one that something was attached to my being, in a way of a pre-loaded library, like a disk drive, which from soon after birth was carrying a large area of information I knew already, and have had no doubt since was totally genuine. What about coincidences? Validation from others in the form of corroboration, when something which just came to you is then mentioned virtually word for word by another, or others? Clearly you are less likely to be making it up, or they, if something that specific and often fairly obscure became obvious to you both in the same way. Plus the feeling of certainty, the stability you get when you simply feel something is right in your entire body and being.

My next step is to do anything I can to expand this ability so it opens up and eventually becomes as natural as thought. As with my psychic readings, the first level, it's simply a matter of doing it. The higher level of psychic readings is active, where you are asked specific questions rather than just unloading everything which comes to you. Full discovery should then involve asking questions and letting the answers come. My own sensing works pretty well on strangers and bogus claims. Once you get the feeling of bad, unfortunately with me at least that is the strongest feeling of all, so can sense a bad atmosphere and anything else apparently positive or neutral but I can see straight into it. And never be put off because you can't prove it to others. You can tell them, they may discover later on but will always know you knew first. And don't allow anyone to make you doubt.

There is a lot of traditional spiritual teaching here, simply as the truth never changes. God itself if nothing else exists as a frequency, so when I sense bad vibes, literally, you can also sense good vibes, and at the highest known level is called god. I can't answer much more than that on god as I haven't got any further, but all frequencies are common, and also affect groups and entire societies, blowing in like a dose of flu and hopefully clearing again as flu. That affects those caught up in it, sadly again currently the vast majority being negative, as if they are the same person. So global warming victims (as in mentally), anti-racists (ie obsessively seeing it everywhere as a paranoiac would), immature rants, whatever the current possession by evil expresses itself as, mean these affected individuals are interchangeable, switching one for another is barely noticeable if only in writing and often in speech as well. They seem to actually represent that person as an individual, but although they are susceptible to mental invasion when it wears off then they can carry on as before without whichever delusion has taken hold of them. Basically all aspects of mental illness being woven into otherwise weak but normal personalities as if affected by poison gas.

The upside was the hippy movement, when a vast section of society gradually fell into a higher level in the mid 60s, and expressed (without the need for drugs) visually in the psychedelic art and designs which have not been matched before or since. Having lived through the middle of it at my most formative period, when life shifted from home and school alone to the outside world around the age of seven, I was personally swept up in it and the energy (as stated on my biog here) has never left. That has kept out the bogeymen of bad thoughts ever since, and allowed me to see others drunk on the spiked punch of political correctness and divide and rule which cults use to separate victims from their families.

The universal mind must have helped me to identify these areas, as no one told me, it is simply directly from my own experience. I counselled people from the age of 13, and knew exactly what to say as to me it was so obvious there was no conscious method required. And I never offered the service, I'd be talking to someone about other things and out came their deepest problems, and the gratitude, for an hour or so of talking, was the reward in return. No weekly sessions and deep therapy, just hearing the problem and offering the solutions. I qualified in order to validate my natural abilities, make them reliable and conscious, and get paid to do it. I regularly hear about unseen third parties in my client's lives, and can tune in to the people so well I may as well have them there, and the times I have met them they were pretty much as expected. I also speak about them in ways many are amazed by as I am talking about their detailed personality as if I knew them better than they do. That is partly simply using the information but added to the tuning in to the people directly.

I do the same with news stories and any information presented in the media, and for example the Dutch study which claimed people became more racist when interviewed in poor areas than nice struck me as so bogus it represented everything wrong with 21st century science. Then a year or so later it turned out by pure chance (some students saw the figures were too regular and ran them through a test algorithm finding they must be deliberate not random) the entire study was made up, as were most of the head of department's other studies, he wrote them at home while taking months off for fieldwork, and simply invented the subject matter and interviewees and their responses. As peer review includes implicit trust they don't challenge if a study is bogus as they assume they are all genuine. Then up to half become retracted at a later date as they are spotted by sharp eyes, as reported on Retraction Watch.

So my current aim is to shift from level one (basic) to level two (total), there are no other levels as either you have a loose connection or a good one. I know it can be done and explained many examples. I now need more as my personal success to now has been so far below my early plans something extra is required. I can see the potential, and spoken to people who have already reached it, although the one difference is many gifted people don't understand the gifts as they have the power but not much knowledge or control of it so let it come and go as it wishes, and do little with the information they bring in. I was trained since 1991 to make the most of any little ability I had, and can drag it out of others who have already reached the higher levels but many are not even aware they can. Once you cross a line and set a precedent, like having an out of body experience, you have evolved to a higher level knowing there is more. It's like a film with other dimensions, even if only a few people are using them and the rest have no idea they exist, in that universe they do and could become apparent at any time.

So I will keep opening the door to the universal mind and see what comes in, there isn't any direct way of raising vibrations and the ensuing results or we'd all be doing it already.

The universal mind

Of course you can already read everything you need to know about the universal mind elsewhere, so this is my own personal experience of it, from the earliest memories onwards. My recent lessons and experience also indicate two levels of connection, the partial and intermittent we all get at times, and the open channel we develop. I doubt anyone doesn't have it as we are all made with the same equipment, but most don't recognise or believe it so dismiss and worse still block it if it does come along.

I've described my early experiences before, so just say a few things I was drawn to and then could tune in to over my first twenty years proved all genuine when I could discover the real evidence, so have a basis for my current acceptance. The evidence has to be found not usually by you, but the others who can't accept any other way of discovering any knowledge besides the direct way of physically learning it. No, that is the secondary way, as all the teaching says. Direct information, like the names and places I am given in dreams where I clearly have never been to or read, but are very easy to look up and prove real, are a bypass of the critical faculty, as if you are fed not just one, but a bunch of obscure names you find are collected together on a map and usually only have a single internet mention (another great task to find deliberately) are direct messages clearly from intelligences (how else would you be given so much connected information?) leaving little or now doubt they must be genuine.

I believe I should be able to open this pretty naturally now, and when other lessons talk about the power of will then it does not have any reason to think otherwise. One lesson says to breathe in xi energy, as if you don't decide to you just breathe in air. That means the power of our will is above every physical action, ie thought is above the physical. It is just a matter of harnessing and controlling it, and believe it or don't the UFOs are often said to be biological and piloted by thought alone. If we aim our bodies in a direction we get there, so why not use it to control everything else?

So the next stage is seeing the results. But when I go on these sites and offer my opinions, there have been times I'd been asked about an issue and first off I had no interest or opinion either way, we don't really need to, but when asked they came to me, I checked them to see why, and realised it was correct. I didn't spend years thinking about it, or even minutes. The opinion was felt, then I thought about it to see why, and it all fit together. Of course some are so trivial (like the new two child benefit proposed before the next election) no opinion is required (although it is logical it's hardly world changing) but on more major issues it can be if nothing else a good test of our connection to ask what the right opinion is, and see literally which feels right for you. That feeling is a feeling of comfort, of being right, from your intuition. Then you can spend as long as it needs following it up to see the facts behind it, while others may never be able to gain enough evidence you are right as some things will never be discovered in our lifetimes.

It is possible rather than me choosing to open the channel fully the decision was a response to it being opened and feeling it. They are two sides of the same coin really, but the stage of testing is now here, and have written this as a first statement of intent to see myself let alone for others whether anything has changed in any material written after this point. Secondly I mentioned it as a reason to let it flow, as you can't channel information without something to communicate it. It is surprising when you want to test a system you can't think of much to do with it, all that came to me was to show me another old road sign (it did this for me already much of the time, but more quickly if possible now), it pointed me in a direction and well over an hour looking and nothing so far but have a day or two left before I won't have a chance to look there this week. These answers tend to come either as answers to questions or on their own, I'm not used to testing myself without a helper, but am working on it now to stretch the abilities.

Freedom is the key

Having just seen Italian riot police joining in with the anti-EU demonstrations they were working at, they demonstrate what is with every single animal at birth, the wish to be free. Animals never lose it, but people can be convinced they are still free even when their oppressors are taking advantages of them like parasites, and persuading many of its victims to ask for more.

With its foundations of burning and burying food, not because they produced too much, but to keep the prices up, it could have never grown into anything else but a political cancer, sucking the lifeblood out of all the member states, who willingly join thinking the tumour is genuine healthy growth. There really is a difference, as the Eurozone crisis is now highlighting, as with decades of recession and record unemployment ahead, how could a single affected country ever be worse off had it never joined in the first place? As for the bank 'bail-in' (negative account entries, ie removing the money you put there to be safe) in Cyprus, whose fault exactly was it when the banks went broke and the others were bailed out (still with our money mind you) in the first place? The depositors? Hardly. Now this law applies across the EU, so any more bank failures will simply be allowed to get the losses back from innocent depositors. Like the Mafia would. Does anyone expect this to be possible in a civilised country? I certainly don't.

The modern trend of restricting opinion, demonising anyone against gay marriage or abortion, despite something even an atheist like me believes in (most anyway), breaking most of the ten commandments. Opinions are just that, unless criminal then they are equal, some are not nice but we all have the equal right to have our own, and in some countries like Hungary the not nice ones like anti-Semitism are the majority, and there is absolutely nothing anyone outside can do about it when they elect parties who support it, as unless they begin acting on it, in which case they would be breaking the law under most countrys' rules, it is their opinion, like it or not. The same for the Russian anti gay promotion laws- we had the same in Britain a couple of decades ago and no one tried to boycott our products, as it was a democratic choice. Note, neither target gay people, as that would be illegal, they just do not allow encouraging it in schools. That reflected the current collective opinion of society and implied they could continue freely on their own merits without any promotion from society.

So, by taking some extreme examples and demonstrating how no one opinion can ever be held above another, as they are all founded not on any facts (rhubarb stalks are good, but rhubarb leaves are poisonous for instance) but choices, (I prefer rhubarb to strawberries). You don't usually see laws favouring one fruit over another, but many people would make it illegal to criticise things like gay marriage nowadays, because their opinion is held as more important than others. That led to the fall of empires throughout history, when the authorities didn't allow their citizens to think for themselves, but like Maoist (and present day) China, even wrote a little red book telling them exactly the only ways they could think.

You cannot have a free society where opinions, or opportunities to speak freely or own property are restricted. The excuse or ideology of equality simply extends a truism, every person's life is equal and must be treated a such, to the level that every person is equal in every way, when clearly each is unique. This twist in logic has led to some of the worst atrocities throughout history, by stealing the land and property of those who worked for it and returning it to the people. Now using the laws of physics, Newton's laws, power is directly related to the work put in. The more work, the more power is created. You do not have the masses sitting on their backsides complaining about their lot, and simply letting the small group of excellence collect wealth through their own efforts to remove most of it and give it to the rest who have not earned it. That is not equality as the worker's rights have been attacked as their wealth which they put more work into to collect has simply been returned to the pool who had not worked for it. If everyone took that approach no one would bother to work more than the bare minimum, and everyone would simply wait for someone else to do more so they could get the benefits for nothing, except no one else would as what would be the point?

That is the crux of communism. If there is no incentive to work more, no one ever will. Shops and manufacturers will go broke, as who can buy luxuries if their incomes are capped by taxation so could never amass enough for luxuries? Yes, the people would all have the basics, but never more, as work and work forever their wealth would always be cut at the same level and all growth would return to the state to spend as they please.

Combine the restriction of opinions, speech and wealth and however kind hearted you may be for those worse off than yourself, you can never help them through telling their enemies what they can think or taking money from the rich like Robin Hood, if you do it enough they will either leave or try and kill you. Nature's will for freedom will always overcome man's attempts to restrict it sooner or later. I doubt many London socialists championing the policies of Cuba would enjoy being sent to live there after the first day or two, but are happy to try their best to create it here.

Teaching the babies

In education and development there are various stages everyone passes through. Most do it steadily throughout their lives, maturing to a general extent maybe in their 30s-50s and then as their bodies decline so their wisdom and experience grow, and for example are no longer affected by offers of something for nothing or speculative scare stories from the media and politicians, as like each new generation, they have to learn by experience, and have learnt what is true and what is false. But this process never ends as the combinations are almost infinite, so it is a matter of what level you have got to. This level is adequate and will protect you against all but the worst surprises and new situations no one could really prepare for.

However, despite managing to pass degrees, raise families and earn a fortune, it means nothing regarding maturity. You can do all these things and still (as the papers report regularly) invest thousands in wine which doesn't exist, or help out a friend in dire straits abroad who turns out to be an African who has hacked their account. The greatest trap of all is the lure of authority.

Let me paint a picture. If you start with the Wizard of Oz, where using a microphone and massive set, a little old man convinced an entire land he was a powerful wizard, until at the end when the wall is torn down and the little cheating liar behind is exposed exactly for what he really is. Unfortunately this is a film and real life is not as tidy in its discovery of fraudulent behaviour, and sometimes the sheep being led by the nose are never sure the leader was really bad even when they have been deposed and tried for war crimes, they have developed Stockholm Syndrome and still have a place in their heart for Uncle Joe (Stalin) or the Great Chairman (Mao). These extreme examples require being programmed from birth, and should stand as examples to others of lesser ones in the west, where the tyranny is far more subtle, but as a result much harder for many to see through.

Every now and then we complete a mission where the wrongdoers are exposed, however long it takes, such as the Libor fixing and 23 year delay in exposing the fixed police statements ordered from the top at Hillsborough. A few people wake up, as some did after the Climategate hacked emails proved the great and good doctors were as confused over global warming as the politicians and public. But as long as the babies remain fooled and are in the majority lessons cannot be learned and wrongdoing cannot change. The innate trust in the authority of others is the key to that. The first lesson being that as children there comes a point around 10-13 when children realise their parents don't know everything. This usually comes as an initial shock, but then they realise firstly no one knows it all, and secondly to have some confidence in what they know themselves as well. It is a major stage in the process of maturing. When the odd pupil picks up a teacher for making a mistake, either quietly or openly, they lose confidence in their teacher's authority, but gain far more in their own. This is the key. Your own discretion must overrule literally every single other person. Why? Because sooner or later, two people of equal status will tell you opposing things. In the end who can you believe? You have to make your own efforts in research and work out which is more likely to be right, as people are people first and professionals second, hence doctors guaranteeing second opinions.

On the surface I know it sounds absolutely potty- how on earth is a lay person expected to know better than someone who has spent years studying a subject at college? But however complex and technical their work can be, they can still get sums wrong or get above themselves in their own ability to carry out their job. That is why we have lay juries and magistrates, fully qualified to judge the guilt or otherwise of every single criminal in Britain because they have eyes, ears and minds.

Therefore only a scoundrel hides behind their authority, and only a baby accepts it blindly, and refuses to acknowledge their own natural intuition. Until someone grows up they will simply allow anyone and everyone 'better' than them to take total advantage, as unlike brains ethics are not higher with intelligence, the cleverest and stupidest people are no more or less decent than anyone else, and hand power to an expert with no ethics and watch your back.

The two ways these people normally take advantage is blinding with science and making impossible claims. The first requires patience and effort to tease apart, but can normally done, as if in the end either the books don't balance or their peers disagree with them you can write them off as probably bogus, but the impossible claims break the rules of logic directly.

The best example is your long term weather forecast. The short term ones are bad enough, and if you pay them instead of getting the free ones you will see each is given a probability percentage. In America, especially inland, they are incredibly accurate, as they are a stable climate with little oceanic influence beyond the direct. In Britain the major hits are the exception, and it may just as well have hail, sun and rain in succession where none were forecast. Look deeper and you normally see however many raindrops are on the TV map it may be a 50-50 chance, ie you could have guessed it just as well. That is the easy end. Long term extends maximum 3-6 months, as being a complex chaotic system it simply is not prone to be predicted, and explains why every summer and winter for about the last five years our Met Office have got nearly every one wrong, but because some idiot still pays them to do it they carry on, but the results are of absolutely zero value as how could anyone change what they were doing months ahead on a completely general estimate, but they still do it every time.

Unless you are aware of these phenomena, behind some of the oldest teachings on the planet (eg 'know thyself' being the highest aim), you will get taken for a monkey, and worse still, become the 'useful idiots' working for these cheats supporting their utter bollocks and lies. Extending the principle, another motto is don't learn from your own mistakes if possible, but try and learn from others'. Given the preparation above, here is a test. The background being that after a vast rise in temperature predicted by the UN in 1990, we are now 80% below that spot, and now solar activity is reducing and the traditional (non CO2 driven) modellers are now coming up and noting this influence, while the modernisers (CO2 driven) are claiming all the fall is doing is masking the rise. Some have even said the pause may last another 30 years (which is another bogus guess, but is based on past regular cycles of that period at least), but the point being  we have been given three totally opposing predictions so we can only now use our own intuition as all the experts disagree so no one else is left but yourself.

Here is today's summary from the internet, and now armed with my tools how would you analyse it?


Will temperatures on Earth be dropping until the year 2100 to Little Ice Age levels, as Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, a scientist at Germany's Saarland University, predicted last week? Or will the temperatures only plunge until 2060, as Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of Russia's Pulkovo Observatory, recently predicted? Or has the cooling already begun, and might it end as soon as 2030, as claimed by Anastasios Tsonis, head of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at the University of Wisconsin? --Lawrence Solomon, Huffington Post, 10 December 2013

I already mentioned the fourth set, not included here, who say the length of pause is not important as it will still get warmer eventually, so please include that in your deliberations, and try and decide the true picture. No answer is better than any other, I have my own, but the main thing is it has taken four different views of equal standing into account, and only you can decide the most likely outcome.

Social vs economic left

This is not an academic essay but just my own observations. The old fashioned, working class Labour movement were just that. The employees, many uneducated academically but many vocationally, who fought for their rights till eventually through the trade union movement, inspired by Marxist theory, but I don't think the majority of the white working classes in Britain when the party first won an election would be that keen on mass immigration or gay marriage.

Wind forward to the 2000s, possibly the 1970s onwards, and we have what can only be called the champagne socialists. The middle class super-rich academics living in North London who not just believed somehow they should take money away from people exactly like themselves, but bring about a social revolution, not based on economic equality, which is a utopian fallacy which goes against a free society, but social equality where everyone is treated the same. Logical as far as it goes, why should women be paid less or black people banned from renting houses? These laws went through around the 70s, and despite women still earning less and older people being rejected for work (how did that happen exactly), evening out the playing field as much as physically possible, plus some swinging too far by positive discrimination, where some ethnic minorities gain more protection than everyone else, which is just a glitch in the system, the middle class left have not stopped, but now want complete social engineering.

Now to me, looking at the reasons for and reactions from the Labour movement after the industrial revolution, giving equal rights should be part of all civilised societies, but this does not include open borders, allowing protection for immigrants who attempt destroy our values and society, redefining marriage, and worst of all repressing free speech by claiming some topics are not up for discussion, eg EU membership, whether global warming is a threat, whether gay marriage is real marriage and restricting immigration, even when the same arguments are by older immigrants. This is crossing the line from socialism which is essentially an economic movement to allow equal power for the majority, the workers, with social equality on top so no minority or other group was treated badly.

I would suggest following Britain's Labour movement and subsequent laws, this mission was completed, and any further efforts besides some fine tuning are fighting for more power than is required for its own sake.  The modern intellectual 'metropolitan liberalism' movement espoused by wealthy academics, the ultra-bourgoisie detested by Marx (despite being a fairly good representative of it himself), with little or no similarity to the early working class movement led by indigenous poorly educated and paid white men. I say men specifically, as despite personal economic hardships, the wider economy meant once in a steady job the majority of married couples were able to buy and run a house on one income, so the woman, again, had a socially separate role and most until the 60s were quite content to do so, taking jobs as and when they chose, until forced to work more and more since as house prices took off from 3-4 times income to over 10. I expect many women (and men) today would prefer to choose which partner worked, as well as the children who rarely spend any time with their working parents compared to when one was usually at home when they were. And ask the average coal miner their opinion on the environment? Do you really think the white working class, who formed the vast majority of the workforce in the 50s, what they felt about their impact on the environment and they'd probably have tarred and feathered you. The working class were not and are not environmentalists, without generalising too far most are not particularly concerned with rain forests, global warming, and wouldn't be likely to know or care where the rain forests are besides Hampstead Heath.

So, as stated somewhere yesterday, the working class Labour core voters now are so far away from where their party has gone, some who bought their council houses or did well under Thatcher in the trades have turned, while the others solely on ideology rather than what would be best for them feel obliged to vote Labour. But besides already having what they needed in the way of worker's rights, there is absolutely no historic record of the 'liberal' social attitudes of the modern age. Spinning off from righting social and economic disadvantages to try and engineer society to reflect your own personal ideology is not left wing but pure totalitarian madness. Imagine Bevan, Rowntree, Elizabeth Fry and the entire Quaker movement, and the founding fathers of the union movement giving half a damn about whether the form for housing benefit was in Hausa or Aramaic, or whether the BBC had enough black people in a Question Time audience? As far as they were concerned if everyone, equally, had a roof over their head, food in their bellies and decent working conditions the rest was up to them, as long as they didn't want too much more as the state would simply remove it in taxes.

So my suggestion is there is nothing left wing or socialist about today's liberal movement to engineer society the way they don't just want it to be, but like tyrants before them, exactly how it must be. Yes, if you have ten shops in a row one must be owned by an Ethiopian if that is the local population division. You must have people with one leg in the workplace and will remove the other one if they disagree with gay marriage. Homophobia will become a capital offence. Marriage can include as many consenting adults as they wish, as otherwise you would be discriminating against alternative sexuality (that's coming, trust me), and the latest abomination under god, nature or society depending on your beliefs, being able to replace your birth certificate if you disagree with the sex you were born as. We have sunk to a level of decadence now below Sodom and Gomorrah, they were just the blueprint and I think this latest travesty has finally surpassed anything they were capable of imagining. Just do a DNA test and count the X and Y chromosomes if you disagree with me. None of this is economic or pro-working class or poor, it is a hideous destruction of every part of a civilised society brick by brick, and now by entire walls. Soon there will be nothing left of it at all.

To the Coalition, your slip is now showing

If everyone missed it (as few have our LBC local radio on where they are), at around 6pm yesterday Vince Cable told the presenter the coalition had used a Keynesian policy of deliberately creating a deficit.
Now besides not being official Tory policy (although it may be the minority Lib Dems), Cameron and Osborne have always claimed (unsuccessfully, as it hasn't happened) they were working to keep the deficit down through austerity.

That is neither Keynesian or honest, as the deficit has indeed increased, and now we have openly been told why, it was a deliberate policy. I could see they were doing it and have been saying it for years, but we were not officially supposed to know it. Now we all do, and if you think anyone else in Britain who voted Tory for what could laughingly be called right wing economic policies share this to let as many others know as a throwaway comment on a local radio station which is not podcast will not make the dailies so as usual we have to do the dirty work getting this muck reported. And forget Labour, they are Keynesian and advocate these policies, the twist being if you actually wanted them you would have voted a Labour government in and cheered while the economy crashed and burned. But the majority did not so should not have been deceptively inflicted such policies till it was too late and they admitted it.

Vince Cable should get the sack at least, not for speaking the truth today, but lying till today by joining the Tories and pretending they were in favour of deficit reduction. You have just seen a rare example of politicians dropping their masks. It happens maybe twice in a lifetime, so make a note of it.

How many Indian snooker players does it take for equality?

Why are there so few ethnic minorities in professional snooker or golf, no Indian professional footballers in the league, so few women directors, so many black men in prison, so many Indians running shops, so many black boxers, athletes and footballers, and any other curiosity of numbers?

The answer, for me, is why does anyone care? Because there are. Unless there are no rules preventing them from joining, which would now be illegal (although some golf clubs in London apparently still ban Jews, so it's not a perfect law) that is the only answer you need and should want. A free society sorts itself out. Laws prevent injustice, outside those limits people are free to take on the ambitions they have, and ought to succeed on their merits. Anyone insulting my intelligence asking why are there so many... ought to think if they really are so stupid they have to ask such obvious questions, it only reflects on their own total absence of insight, and thus by asking such questions they are actually patronising themselves, as only a small child would actually hold such a level of naivety, so really they are not even insulting my intelligence, but their own.

On a tangent to the same people, who genuinely challenge grammar schools as they don't want anyone to do better than anyone else unless they now have to pay for the privilege, as grammar schools actually allowed children from all backgrounds and incomes to do well, they also assume all jobs should be homogenously divided amongst the general population.

So technically such boundaries and differences could be extended, to pensioners and children having to work (as many do in the third world), and as Peter Cook and Dudley Moore pointed out in the 60s, a one legged Tarzan. I almost feel I am demeaning myself by bothering to explain something which to me should not need explaining, like why is it warmer during the day. But just one example and then I will have to have a shower to cleanse myself of the opprobrium of lowering myself to such a level.

Why are there so many Indians running shops? Because they fucking want to and are clearly very good at it. If other races want to run shops they can, but the Indians are clearly very happy to do so and have cornered the market. If anyone doesn't like it then write a law making them having to be owned by all races equally, like the Soviet Union or Uganda may. If not then just leave society to shake out exactly as it does and assume it is because that is how things are naturally and there is absolutely no need for anyone to question it if discrimination is already illegal.

Law vs science

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have the cross examination for the defence of the esteemed expert, Dr A.N. Cliematologist, who is a prosecution witness for the whole of mankind. (barrister speaks in capital initials)

Your name is AN Cliematologist, a professor in cliematology, who is proposing to convict and punish mankind for emitting CO2

correct

How is this exactly going to happen?

it is very simple, man has emitted so much fossil fuel that the CO2 levels are so high as to raise the temperature, possibly to a dangerous level.

Please could you explain the mechanism by which this may happen?

currently our atmosphere makes the planet 33C warmer than without it, and the 260ppm of CO2 in 1850 and before added 1C. Doubling it may add more than 1 more C as when it becomes warmer the oceans evaporate more, releasing the far more powerful gas water vapour.

How far, exactly, has this process gone on for?

actually quite a long way, the CO2 is now a whole 50% higher than it was in 1850, while the temperature has risen almost 0.8C

Is this dangerous in itself?

no, the official turning point, where the benefits (gasps heard from the court) are outweighed by the problems, is 2C.

Although I am not a mathematician (titters from the court), if CO2 has risen 50% and the total temperature has risen 0.8C, if you double that, is not a doubling under 2C? (audience cheers)

correct, but as Al Gore says...

Objection, he is not a scientist

(Judge) Upheld

as James Hansen says, we may suffer runaway climate change at the tipping point where it is impossible to turn back. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 the amount already in the air would make the temperature rise uncontrollably.

What, exactly, would cause this tipping point? Is it in any literature

I have to say, 97% of scientists agree on this, the topic is no longer up for discussion

The witness has operated the right of silence, if this happens it is not an admission or implication of guilt. Tell me, is the existing 0.8C all down to the rise in CO2?

no, around half was deduced by the models, as since the end of the last little ice age the temperature has been recovering.

So, this means if you doubled the amount your models claim is from CO2 alone, it is surprisingly close to the exact 1C figure when doubled, is this correct or have I missed something?

is it time for lunch yet?

(Judge)- I am the only person in the court authorised to adjourn, and the answer is no, continue.

this is only a temporary natural effect, the warming is still continuing in the background and may shoot up at any point.

Is there a scientific principle behind this sudden rise?

if the poles melt the reducing ice will reflect less heat making the sea warmer, as will the increased water vapour, increasing the stronger greenhouse gas.

That is a valid theory, when was it expected to begin to happen?

I do not quite understand the question?

Am I speaking in a foreign language suddenly? It is a very simple question, we have established the lack of positive feedback after a 50% rise in CO2, so what was the predicted mechanism for the delay in the corresponding runaway rise in temperature?

it is partly due to natural causes, many of which we do not fully understand (more audience gasps), while it is possible our twenty years of action has worked to keep the temperature down.

Without wanting to sound patronising, what is the nature of this action?

incentives and taxes to reduce CO2

And what exactly was the result of this?

sorry your honour, I did just answer that question?

Excuse me, I will rephrase my point. How much has the CO2 reduced in order to reduce the temperature exactly?

it has not reduced, it is rising faster than ever before since the carboniferous era.

(chattering from the court) Silence!

So, you are saying the feedback has not begun because of unknown factors, but using my legal training, I may suggest to the jury if the CO2 is rising so fast, then the measures are clearly not working, and therefore would suggest your theory of positive feedback may be flawed.

the cliematologist faints, the judge calls for an adjournment.

Before we retire for our lunch, I must point out to the jury without a further interview, which may or may not follow, the lack of a response from our witness again is not an indication of truth or attempts to hide the truth. The right of silence, from any cause, is absolute, and you must only decide on the evidence given. However, I must point out the fact that evaporating water can both form the greenhouse gas, water vapour, or clouds, which block out the sun. I can tell you now the models are unable to factor in cloud response so is currently absent from their models. I intend to raise this after lunch should our witness be fit to testify but it is an essential fact the jury must know to complete their deliberations.

Tomorrow's case. Who kidnapped the invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden?

Ed Miliband, the heavyweight

I had technically used up everything I can about Ed Miliband, but his tutors have clearly been spending many hours on presentation skills, and he is now presenting his utter bollocks in a far more convincing way. Yes, he now talks like he means business, but if you read the words rather than listen the standard Labour party regime cannot ever change with either New Labour (they just screwed you from behind instead of in front) or any other, assuming you are not either a union member or one of the small groups (like Muslims currently) who gain actual benefits by default.

Just in case anyone is wavering following recent articulate performances, it is only the same polices reiterated in a stronger voice and fewer tangents, although no one is likely to produce a worse election result for them current or past, I'd rather it was a disaster than a close one, especially as I don't want too much of the new government majority to be lost to dead Labour MPs. On the background, his own views going back in history have been coming out in reports, and his own admission he was going to bring back socialism should be enough for everyone who does not actually want it that however he learns not to talk like Timmy from South Park (apologies to the disabled to be compared with Ed Miliband) he is set to make us the people's republic of whatever he wants us to be. Imagine, should you be able to experience it locally, the London borough of Haringey or Islington on a national scale. As he also added, his version of Labour is not that of the tough, anti Europe and anti immigration working class Labour movement of the 60s and earlier, it is 'Metropolitan liberalism', ie the middle class intellectual movement of the 70s since, of the richest few percent of London professionals who in total seriousness believed in redistributing wealth, and equality and diversity which has strangled Britain in the 21st century, along with the open door immigration policy sucking resources like a tumour.

Admitting you made a mistake when in power when it's too late to fix it is like offering to decorate the house you burnt down for a discount. As with the energy prices. This is his trademark, fuck the country as a minister, then either apologise as it's too late, or offer to fix it a bit if he gets back in but leave it as it was eventually. That's some offer, exactly the same principle as losing a pound and finding a penny. That is all he can offer and that is pretty much the best he can do, seeing as he's had long enough to sound almost normal and stop making childish remarks about the government rather than serious challenges. His presentation is picking up, but he and his ideas haven't changed and are based on a toxic cocktail of multiculturalism, diversity and green policies that have already made much of London into a third world open prison, and spreading even under a coalition government mainly under the Liberal Democrats and EU legislation which are both pretty much the same.

So basically whatever the mask, it's always Ed behind it, and behind the weird body is a far weirder mind which will only get weirder and weirder. Never let yourself forget that whatever they do with the presentation. Higher income tax, inheritance tax, mansion tax, carbon tax, more immigration, pro-perpetrator rules, deeper into a federal Europe, more diversity and multiculturalism (except for the national culture which they claim never existed as a single entity), accusations of racism and sexism, positive (ie enforced) discrimination, massive energy costs, huge travel restrictions (will he follow Paris and ban cars?), pay per mile, more quantitative easing, more foreign aid, more restrictions on the press (privacy law as well maybe?), lower requirements for exam passes, lower standards in all state schools, no referendum on anything, ever, and an ultimate surrender of virtually all power to the EU.

Yes, Miliband is definitely a heavyweight, a heavy weight of total shit dumped on our country if he ever wins an election. Never forget what he stands for, however well he smartens up his image.

Greenpeace, without global warming

I know it is hard to imagine, but think of what Greenpeace would be like minus the cause of global warming to take over their policies. As they were set up long before such a thing was thought of, that was their original position, and their major aim at the time, on paper at least, was protecting the environment.

There is an element of politics involved here, but only to stop the legal and illegal abuse of the environment worldwide, rather than wider left wing economic policies of general wealth redistribution, which besides being outside their remit and not charitable, are already covered by specialised political groups. So sticking to their original aims, what can we see from day one onwards?

Bear in mind the saving the whales and anti nuclear policies are their foundation, and neither connected with either politics or economics directly, only on the margin when vested interests become involved such as the huge national trade in whales and nuclear arms. So they were not attacking capitalist industry per se, only its unregulated results which threatened the species and humanity itself. Nothing wrong with that. As they developed, to cut a long story short, in the words of its own founder "They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986."

He then goes on, as a scientist, to explain how all the other directors were only political activists and followed one after another campaign against issues which ignored known science and attempted to ban various products causing no known harm. His scientific knowledge was dismissed by alarmist activists more interested in fear than reality. This means, directly from its source, by 1986 at the very latest, they had changed from an environmental group using politics as a defence, to a political group using the environment to attack. Looking at their own policies today, one comes across as particularly significant. "No new nukes". Remembering events like the Rainbow Warrior, where the French government murdered a member and blew up their ship campaigning against nuclear testing in New Zealand, where they were prepared to challenge entire governments and do all they could to prevent nuclear weapons, they have now passively accepted the world's entire nuclear arsenal, as long as they don't add any more. That's a bit of a difference isn't it, one hardly even possible to implement as if you accept them in principle you can hardly expect them to stop dead in their tracks if in principle you accept their existence?

Coming to the present, it is actually very hard to pick apart many of their current policies from the global warming, as it appears to be the most important issue to them now, but will do my best. On their website it is the first policy on their list (little surprise there), and the next two issues, forest and ocean are not much different as now the emphasis is not saving them for their own sakes (there's plenty of sewage and waste in the ocean which someone needs to deal with for a start) but connected with (see above, climate change). It is getting harder but will plough on. Agriculture, nope, move on. Eliminate toxic pollution and nuclear power. Well they need something from their roots, and some supporters still need the old causes to bring them in. Except the caveat I mentioned earlier, "No new nukes", which tends to water down their plan severely. Those are their major policies, but although I promised to avoid the global warming entirely, it forms such a large area of their list I must now go through it eliminating the global warming parts which point to stand alone policies, which may require global warming as a reason to carry out, but which many people even including those who believe in it (as it's not yet happened to an extent to be concerned about) would not want as a response to them. In fact they are far more like the extreme left/Green movement of the 60s and 70s who promoted these policies on their own (and were marginalised as a result), without any cause requiring them as the solution. Context makes all the difference:

1) Zero carbon. Guarantee that emissions from the UK power sector will be near zero by 2030, as recommended by the UK government's Committee on Climate Change.

This means no fossil fuel, the very means of world industrialisation and economic development. Surely this is only to avoid what they believe as a far worse alternative though? In practice they are campaigning to stop drilling for the new finds of oil in Africa. Surely they would benefit more from the wealth they desperately need there now, rather than lose everything for a cause only supposition says may be a problem at a far later point when technology may well have sorted it out anyway?

2)  Properly fund reseach and development, develop new training programmes and support the manufacturing supply chain to help Britain compete in the global low carbon economy.

Oh dear, economic policies now, because 'they've got a reason to'.

3) Bank on green. Set up a green infrastructure bank that would lend to major low carbon projects and harness the expertise of the financial sector.

And what does this have to do with the environment exactly?

4) Issue green bonds. Give investors and savers a secure new way to help fund green projects through government backed bonds.

5) Reform taxation. Refocus taxation onto pollution so that it can support new green industries and drive down emissions while strengthening the UK’s finances.
 
See what they've done with the last two? They've taken an ostensibly environmental issue, and seamlessly shifted to major economic policies. I cannot see any organisation supporting these policies even if they are scared of global warming unless they see some merits in them per se. Otherwise most moderate groups would consider the costs and benefits in the present as well, for example the immediate losses to the African economies in relation to an unknown future in a century or so ahead they may be preventing but can never prove it.

In fact these policies are being carried out by most western governments already, while CO2 rises regardless, but they simply work for even more of the same and no stragglers. But where do they cross the line from the environment (their reason for existence, however many scientific errors they have been accused of basing their work on), into politics and economics? To strip out the global warming element again two thirds of their current policies would either vanish altogether, or be returned to their original aims. They also want to ban expansion of airlines (why would they want to do that again?), protect the Arctic (from oil drilling), but every time I look deeper into the remainder of their policies they return to global warming. They are making it very hard. I am not alone, Canada and New Zealand have removed their charitable status, one as far back as 1989, as they were considered a political organisation so not worthy of it.

Following the money, it's always relevant to see who pays for any organisation, as it indicates the likely interests of its supporters who clearly agree the organisation must share them in common.   £1.4 MILLION DONATED BY ROCKEFELLER ALONE 1997-2005
The Rockefeller Foundation runs the Club of Rome, Bilderberg Group and the various other cabals of world leaders who insure world policies are homogenous regardless of where you live or how you vote (quantitative easing and carbon tax for example). And of course Rockefeller became rich through oil. Then the co-campaigner, the one who bought and sold hundreds of millions of stock in the Brazilian oil company Petrobras last year, George Soros, who funds at least three environmental groups himself, including MoveOn.org and Environmental Media Services.  Funding details

They have also joined forces with Soros and the ultra-left Sierra Club in the Democracy Initiative, totally divorced from the environment and created to limit donations to political parties. That cannot in any way be part of their official aims but still one of their campaigns. George Soros donated $32 million to the campaign alone. $250,000 from the far left Tides Foundation, who in turn received $7 million from Soros. One of the Officers for Tide Soaps is Tod Hill, Who is the Senior Strategic Advisor providing strategic consulting to Greenpeace. Then to officially blur the line between science, environment and politics they made the statement by a project of the Tides Center is the Apollo Alliance, a group “designed to bring together the elements of organized labor with the community organizers with the green groups, the environmental groups, and to access all of the big foundation money that’s been supportive of those causes in the past,” according to Phil Kerpen, director of policy for Americans for Prosperity. Apollo Alliance leaders claim to have written both the stimulus bill and the Cap and Trade bill.
Wheels within wheels indeed.
 Funders of green policies worldwide

On balance, had they been the pure Greenpeace, even the scientifically ignorant but possibly well meaning group Patrick Moore left in 1986, I would have given them the benefit of the doubt as whatever they were about protecting the environment should stand or fall on its own merits. But read their website and less than half the issues, quite a lot less, are now free of global warming/climate change, meaning they are no longer who they were, but just another political group pushing policies guaranteed to destroy both the industrial and third world economies alike. Believe it's worth it or not, the cost is phenomenal both financially and physically, and the benefits? What are the benefits?

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

Ed Miliband, guilty as charged

I have been told I am too hard on Ed Miliband, so must defend myself.

1) He is an advocate on tough action on global warming, to the extent of putting it into the most severe law on the planet.

2) Then, after causing the problem he claims will avoid worse problems around 2100 when no one will ever know if it worked, he want a cap on the same energy bills he made as high as they are.

3) Every single coalition speech and policy is responded to in the identical way, in the vein of 'You're stupid and you smell, I can piss higher than you without even holding it!'. That is his limit.

4) In an interview with Ann Robinson on Watchdog he was twice asked about what about green taxes in reducing energy prices and he answered something totally different as he couldn't answer it honestly.

5) He and his shadow chancellor said the coalition cuts were 'Too deep and too fast', and when finally cornered on his alternative budget admitted he would not spend any more than the coalition are currently.

6) He spent days getting David Cameron to bring in extra clauses prior to invading Syria, and then after being reminded a vote for invasion would lose him the next election voted against it anyway despite personally already saying he wanted to.

7) If he actually manages to freeze energy prices for 20 months the industry will just adjust them to return the lost profits before and after as no short term action is able to alter the actual market overall.

Meanwhile here are his list of major policies on arrival in office. Truly stunning, aren't they:

• 50p tax rate made permanent

• New financial transaction tax

• Five year plan to remodel the economy by creating a broader industrial base

• Mutualise Northern Rock

• Narrow the gap between rich and poor by putting limits on top salaries

• Graduate tax to enable tuition fees to be scrapped

• Living wage; right to request flexible working for all workers

• A third to half of shadow cabinet to be women

• Against ID cards 

My responses:

• You cannot tie the hands of future legislators, fail.
• EU policy already
• Five year plan? Where did he get that from, USSR? Theirs didn't work though.
• That'll make a lot of difference without mutualising and reforming the rest of the banking system will it?
• That's called socialism.
• It would have the identical result as graduates don't pay up front now, only when they are earning enough, ie it is the same as it was already.
• The random good idea present in all totalitarian regimes
• More social engineering and positive discrimination, which is discrimination with a qualifier in front of it.
• We don't have ID cards anyway?? 

If this is the best positive material he can offer we have nothing at all to gain from his official manifesto, let alone the total magnification of existing atrocities currently present and causing widespread suffering.