I will extend my theme of lack of choice on the liberal left of politics, after seeing a post by Jeff Foxworthy pointing out if a liberal doesn't like a TV programme they don't turn over but try and ban it.
swearing alert!
Gay marriage is a single example representing all. It is a matter of opinion. It is not, and can never be right or wrong, people either agree with it or not, like what music they prefer. You can as a technician say some music is better than others mathematically, or art either looks like what it claims to be more or less so, but gay marriage is pretty much a strawberries or bananas situation. But the left say it is right, and if you disagree with it you are wrong, and being on what they (not me) call the 'liberal' side then want the wrong opinion criminalised, like the growing number of activists who want climate change sceptics banned by law.
This is outright Nazism, Sovietism, Totalitarianism or every other ism which has destroyed countries in living memory, demonised Jews, women and any other group blamed for the ills of the world, often supported by God (as who can argue with God?) to remove it from the realm of either discussion or logical analysis. No doubt, as Marx observed (Karl, not Groucho), the antithesis (in the form of people like me who say wog, spastic and mongoloid because we know they are harmless but told not to) ought to grow and eventually wipe out the extreme left who attempt to squash the ability to have the other opinion from them. I was saying to a friend tonight how our multicultural Asians almost unanimously will not date British men, and the few who do are usually ostracised by their friends and family. We did not ask them to live here, they spent thousands moving half way across the world, and then look down on the culture of their host nation and do their best (not our best, it is their choice) to avoid the white man whenever they can, and at best not even learn their horrible language when even the white people working for the state have to either learn theirs or pay a fucking fortune for someone to turn up at a moment's notice and translate.
This is not simply an opinion, it is stating how things are by everyone's direct observations. Join a waiting room for medical or council purposes, you will barely hear English spoken, and even if they eventually learn it they will still tend to stick in their own communities and mix with the British as little as possible and shun anyone within their community who does. Besides observation the Asian colleagues I have tell me this happily as although some are exceptions they observe the same thing directly to tell outsiders like me they are seeing things correctly. The point here being if we dare to question Tony Blair's multicultural Hades were are simply called racist, and rather than even requiring banning the mentioning of it altogether they have already made racism a severe crime only limited by the efforts of the police to squeeze a case they witness into the definition. But if I dared to say this in front of the wrong people they'd take my words and submit a police report for saying immigrant communities do not mix, not because the natives will not tolerate them but because although they love our houses, jobs and health service they clearly are not that keen on the actual residents who were here already.
This is not about any issue in itself though, but they are used as examples of opinions which the left treat as facts which are therefore either correct (multiculturalism) or wrong (limiting immigration and maybe even particular groups specifically). The fact till maybe 15 years ago this always happened in virtually every country in the world and still does in the majority (would you like to try and buy a house and live in Saudi Arabia, America, Switzerland, Jersey, Libya or Iran?) has been conveniently totally forgotten by the beyond the left who treat unlimited immigration (including the criminals fleeing from the authorities) as a given. Well fuck them. The further they go in doing all they can to tell us what we can and can't believe the further I will go showing them up and fighting every single taboo they are creating to keep us down and out.
So although it's not about deliberately raising the issues and words they want banned by law, although the sheer freedom to say them ought to also motivate everyone of right mind to force the survival of them, but recognising the sheer incorrectness and further dangerousness of the trend to polarising opinions as right or wrong. It's totalitarian, nothing like left wing or liberal, but pure extreme fascism. Read this, learn the formulas, and don't let them pervert you.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
The lunatics really are running the asylum
I've worked out the specialists are so good in an incredibly narrow field they've either lost the ability, or more probably never had it to fit their small area of expertise into a large picture in any way, or see the significance of their own little twisted logic. I also suspect a good deal of autism is at play here, as it is a sign of a higher intelligence in many cases but very limited understanding where it all fits together. At top levels of science I wonder how many also suffer from a degree of it- Michael Mann and James Hansen, as well as Al Gore all show very clear signs of mental illness- personality disorder, megalomania, paranoia etc in varying degrees, and they are all in such incredible positions of power very few people would be aware it would be either possible or actual to have borderline psychotics running the world.
But looking the opposite way, how many balanced people would care about running the world, let alone try to? It has always been the preserve of the maniac, look at Idi Amin, Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, I could fill a page or two. Just because their countries are or were so piss poor the people couldn't overthrow them doesn't mean the same people don't rule in the west- they just cover it up far more as the people would kick them out otherwise.
I reckon once people assume their leaders are madder the higher up they go on average it will all fit into place. Tony Blair always had the look of a mental patient, while Barack Obama has no link between his metaphorical head and heart, in fact if purely being metaphorical he simply has no heart. Once you have these things pointed out they become obvious. The signs are a lot clearer than fraud, simply as we are all human and can recognise others' traits as you can cover up theft very easily with help but can never hide your own madness very easily. Blair and Obama only manage as their teams of leaders (yes, the Bilderberg group and Club of Rome etc appoint leaders below them, heads of state are the first public level of government below the private levels) keep their actions heavily regulated, but if you look at their actual policies, such as allowing unlimited immigration into the UK (a few million in a decade and growing) and legislating CO2 as a pollutant although we'd all be dead without it these dangerous criminals have done exactly the same things as Idi Amin and Mugabe but have never had it tied in with their own personalities as officially they form part of a government rather than being individual dictators, which also takes the eye away from the individuals. But if Obama has his executive orders, what does that make him when he uses them? A dictator of course, what else could a unilateral action with no opportunity to challenge be?
Now if you got together an entire room or cabinet office of a mix of the rulers (hidden) and leaders (representatives of the rulers) what would that make? The EU and UN of course. The EU is run by the European Commission, a small cabal of professional politicians, who originate law for the entire EU mainly in secret, which then goes to parliament not to be voted on but implemented. Those 'politicians' paid many times more than real national ones do nothing, literally. An MEP is paid to be the front business for the EU mafia, who run drugs and arms like the real ones, as well as mass theft through shadow banking and commodity price fixing etc but make the idiot people think it's a real parliament who make laws we can change when we vote new ones in. But if you call a discussion group a parliament but don't give them any actual power then the people can easily discover they are only a discussion group.
The UN are no different, except they include the rogue states like Libya and Saudi Arabia, who keep women at home and don't allow other religions to practice openly. Add god into the psychotic mix and you have suicide bombers and hijackers whose own life is irrelevant in exchange for killing the infidels. So only being a matter of degree we have nutters ruling most of the world and more so than any other time before as they are now working almost entirely as a single unit using Agenda 21 as the catalyst. And although I don't know enough about the woman to know if she's on the ball or not yet I will say that comparing her with the extremely similar and totally sane Ken Livingstone of London infamy she is as far gone as they get politically, in a way which could be shown as an example of the worst in every politician throughout history. Although her accusations of a possibly criminal past are only in the preliminary stages, proof of guilt is the last thing we'd ever get from a leader simply as you rarely make leader without making damn sure there are no loose ends (look at the lengths Obama went to by wiping the details of every member of his family from the records, yet no one's ever challenged it) what we already know she did is proof of mixing with the dogs, and you rarely mix with a pack of dogs if you're a pussycat. We've had a succession of utter rubbish running many countries in the last few decades- Clinton, Blair, Obama, Mugabe, Berlusconi, and no doubt many more I'd know little about elsewhere, but Julia Gillard is such an archetypal baddie it's amazing enough people (the Australians should be way more savvy than the wet Brits who prefer their tea and TV) haven't seen through her and kicked her out soon after she broke her first promise of 'no carbon tax', and now says she'd have done it even if not forced to by the Greens, just like Ken Livingstone would 'never extend the congestion charge zone' or 'only an idiot would get rid of Routemaster buses'.
Ken only ran a city, this bitch runs a massive country (in size anyway) with theoretically enough sensible voters to see right through her, and only with a massive backup from abroad could possibly survive in such a potentially hostile environment. Someone is clearly protecting her from the fire, and unless like all criminals (assuming she was) left a careless clue or two behind will at worst only suffer a defeat in the next election. I was actually amazed the Americans, previously the most politically aware country in the world, voted Obama back after beginning to destroy their entire way of life, but possibly that was because Romney was such a creepy arsehole even the force of his decent policies weren't enough to overcome his disgusting personality (I read plenty, and I was duly disgusted). But unlike Obama at least he HAS a personality. Or maybe the accusations (hold on, over 100% turnout and 100% unanimous support are real) of election fixing were the real reason. And that would need a greater cooperation than faking a moon landing, but unlike the moon landing is not only possible but rampant worldwide, so maybe the question should be 'If it is common in half the world, why NOT the USA?'. It has truly come to that, with countries now catching up with those we used to colonise and civilise in the opposite direction by all coming down to their level. Soon it won't make a blind bit of difference if Obama or Mugabe ran the US as within a couple of months Obama has already managed to do as much to destroy the country as Mugabe had in his first term. Just hark back to when he regularly raised the debt ceiling in his first term, now he has no need to court the voters he can really do what he wanted (remember the 'one term isn't enough to complete my work' quote?) and has even surprised me in the speed that has happened. The carbon tax is now on the cards as guaranteed by me before the election, notice it wasn't in his manifesto so people didn't have the chance for a clear choice either way, and is sending money to the Al Qaeda sponsored government of Egypt, who are not a country one would normally expect to have good relations with the west, so why is he so friendly to them?
But looking the opposite way, how many balanced people would care about running the world, let alone try to? It has always been the preserve of the maniac, look at Idi Amin, Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, I could fill a page or two. Just because their countries are or were so piss poor the people couldn't overthrow them doesn't mean the same people don't rule in the west- they just cover it up far more as the people would kick them out otherwise.
I reckon once people assume their leaders are madder the higher up they go on average it will all fit into place. Tony Blair always had the look of a mental patient, while Barack Obama has no link between his metaphorical head and heart, in fact if purely being metaphorical he simply has no heart. Once you have these things pointed out they become obvious. The signs are a lot clearer than fraud, simply as we are all human and can recognise others' traits as you can cover up theft very easily with help but can never hide your own madness very easily. Blair and Obama only manage as their teams of leaders (yes, the Bilderberg group and Club of Rome etc appoint leaders below them, heads of state are the first public level of government below the private levels) keep their actions heavily regulated, but if you look at their actual policies, such as allowing unlimited immigration into the UK (a few million in a decade and growing) and legislating CO2 as a pollutant although we'd all be dead without it these dangerous criminals have done exactly the same things as Idi Amin and Mugabe but have never had it tied in with their own personalities as officially they form part of a government rather than being individual dictators, which also takes the eye away from the individuals. But if Obama has his executive orders, what does that make him when he uses them? A dictator of course, what else could a unilateral action with no opportunity to challenge be?
Now if you got together an entire room or cabinet office of a mix of the rulers (hidden) and leaders (representatives of the rulers) what would that make? The EU and UN of course. The EU is run by the European Commission, a small cabal of professional politicians, who originate law for the entire EU mainly in secret, which then goes to parliament not to be voted on but implemented. Those 'politicians' paid many times more than real national ones do nothing, literally. An MEP is paid to be the front business for the EU mafia, who run drugs and arms like the real ones, as well as mass theft through shadow banking and commodity price fixing etc but make the idiot people think it's a real parliament who make laws we can change when we vote new ones in. But if you call a discussion group a parliament but don't give them any actual power then the people can easily discover they are only a discussion group.
The UN are no different, except they include the rogue states like Libya and Saudi Arabia, who keep women at home and don't allow other religions to practice openly. Add god into the psychotic mix and you have suicide bombers and hijackers whose own life is irrelevant in exchange for killing the infidels. So only being a matter of degree we have nutters ruling most of the world and more so than any other time before as they are now working almost entirely as a single unit using Agenda 21 as the catalyst. And although I don't know enough about the woman to know if she's on the ball or not yet I will say that comparing her with the extremely similar and totally sane Ken Livingstone of London infamy she is as far gone as they get politically, in a way which could be shown as an example of the worst in every politician throughout history. Although her accusations of a possibly criminal past are only in the preliminary stages, proof of guilt is the last thing we'd ever get from a leader simply as you rarely make leader without making damn sure there are no loose ends (look at the lengths Obama went to by wiping the details of every member of his family from the records, yet no one's ever challenged it) what we already know she did is proof of mixing with the dogs, and you rarely mix with a pack of dogs if you're a pussycat. We've had a succession of utter rubbish running many countries in the last few decades- Clinton, Blair, Obama, Mugabe, Berlusconi, and no doubt many more I'd know little about elsewhere, but Julia Gillard is such an archetypal baddie it's amazing enough people (the Australians should be way more savvy than the wet Brits who prefer their tea and TV) haven't seen through her and kicked her out soon after she broke her first promise of 'no carbon tax', and now says she'd have done it even if not forced to by the Greens, just like Ken Livingstone would 'never extend the congestion charge zone' or 'only an idiot would get rid of Routemaster buses'.
Ken only ran a city, this bitch runs a massive country (in size anyway) with theoretically enough sensible voters to see right through her, and only with a massive backup from abroad could possibly survive in such a potentially hostile environment. Someone is clearly protecting her from the fire, and unless like all criminals (assuming she was) left a careless clue or two behind will at worst only suffer a defeat in the next election. I was actually amazed the Americans, previously the most politically aware country in the world, voted Obama back after beginning to destroy their entire way of life, but possibly that was because Romney was such a creepy arsehole even the force of his decent policies weren't enough to overcome his disgusting personality (I read plenty, and I was duly disgusted). But unlike Obama at least he HAS a personality. Or maybe the accusations (hold on, over 100% turnout and 100% unanimous support are real) of election fixing were the real reason. And that would need a greater cooperation than faking a moon landing, but unlike the moon landing is not only possible but rampant worldwide, so maybe the question should be 'If it is common in half the world, why NOT the USA?'. It has truly come to that, with countries now catching up with those we used to colonise and civilise in the opposite direction by all coming down to their level. Soon it won't make a blind bit of difference if Obama or Mugabe ran the US as within a couple of months Obama has already managed to do as much to destroy the country as Mugabe had in his first term. Just hark back to when he regularly raised the debt ceiling in his first term, now he has no need to court the voters he can really do what he wanted (remember the 'one term isn't enough to complete my work' quote?) and has even surprised me in the speed that has happened. The carbon tax is now on the cards as guaranteed by me before the election, notice it wasn't in his manifesto so people didn't have the chance for a clear choice either way, and is sending money to the Al Qaeda sponsored government of Egypt, who are not a country one would normally expect to have good relations with the west, so why is he so friendly to them?
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Political correctness dissected
I think I have managed to analyse what political correctness has done and how and why they must never be allowed to do what they are doing. Political correctness attempts to restrict the use of words, ideas and opinions, and what I have worked out is they have taken various different things and then treated them all as if they are the same. These are:
Facts
Opinions
Insults
Lies
Insults: Now we already have more than enough laws to stop either incitement to a crime, so any direct statements to cause any sort of harm were never under question as already known to be both wrong and illegal. Normal people in a free country would stop right there. Insults are offensive but do not actually directly cause or incite others to cause harm. Nonetheless if you or I called someone a bloody wog even outside their presence we'd be behind bars a lot faster than any burglar or mugger. There is a school of thought which would claim banning insults makes society a better place but does it stop people thinking such things or just saying them in public? In the Falkland Islands the soldiers called the natives 'Bennies' and when that was stopped called them 'Stills'. When asked why, it was because 'They were still Bennies'. So banning the use of the word doesn't change the attitude behind them, and if you ban one bad word people will either use another or just say it in private. The playground took a set of medical and technical words such as spastic, imbecile, mongol, backward, retarded, handicapped and cripple from hospital and social work unit to the black book of sacking offences, despite the words all having strict dictionary definitions and communicating often an exact meaning required by medical and associated professionals. Ban the words, defile the language and replace them with others firstly people don't understand 'educationally challenged?' 'differently abled', and within a decade have then replaced the last lot and need a new set ad infinitum.
Opinions: Beyond words we have facts and opinions. If you begin with opinions (as how, one would ask, can you ban mentioning any facts?), they are divided in two very clear parts. One is personal preference, not based on a single fact so impossible for any to be right or wrong. This spreads from taste, such as music, food and art, to political and social preferences, where some may be happy living in multicultural Brent where you struggle to hear a single English speaker in the street, while others would feel they had been suddenly swept to the departure lounge at Delhi or Lagos airport and thoroughly uncomfortable. As immigration is one favourite hot potato, this is as good an example as any to start with. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' about who we prefer to share our lives with, and if people could actually choose whether to live in a multicultural area or not then it would never become a problem, but as multicultural tends to follow people rather than lead, it is an issue. But to then claim one is actually the only correct way to be, as if it was a fact, you have become totalitarian. I agree banning foreigners from any areas like in apartheid is also totalitarian, but so is allowing uncontrolled immigration because the government have decided it is right. In reality neither is right and neither can be right as the cultural mix of a town is something people either prefer or not, and always will be, just as some people prefer their local food and others prefer something more exotic. Who is someone else in power to tell them only one is right for food or the people who created it?
So my point is, with political correctness, they have taken a growing set of left wing opinions, and said they are right, the only correct ones, and therefore there is no alternative opinion as they have elevated their chosen opinions to the status of facts, and then on top protected them with the status of insults or worse to ban the chance of a challenge. Now once you begin restricting people's personal preferences, and then banning or criminalising their expression, you have become fascists. Forget what people call themselves, if they (like the aptly named 'National Socialists' before them) act like fascists then they are simply parading as left wing freedom fighters and doing the exact opposite. The only freedoms they want are for themselves to rule with an iron hand and for their chosen allies, currently Muslims (anyone know why?), environmentalists and certain criminals such as foreign terrorists and families who mutilate or kill their children ('it's their culture' they say, to justify female genital mutilation, honour killing and aborting female fetuses). Now banning the word 'backward' or 'mongol' which were used by doctors, teachers and social workers right up to the 70s doesn't protect a single person. But justifying the worst known behaviours around the world, including covering the faces of women, or stopping them from driving or going to school as they do in Iran and Saudi Arabia is not only never shunned but rampantly protected from criticism as 'they are only doing what is right for them'.
So political correctness has now shifted from fascism to actually sidestepping the law against incitement to hurt others. After all, if you protect criminals you are promoting their actions by default. But back to my main point, which defuses PC entirely once you realise what it does, is cross the line into personal preference and tells people what they can and cannot think and say. Disagree with gay marriage and you're homophobic? (believe me, no one's scared of gay people, so that's another word they invented wrongly) Maybe you actually believe marriage means the union of a man and a woman, so anything else can't be? That's a technical point, even if you have no problem with men or women forming a lifetime legal bond, it just isn't marriage. But say that and they'll sack you (as it's not yet a crime to prosecute but anyone with the power to fire will do so if you do), meaning a totally innocent act has resulted in a direct hardship with little or no chance of compensation.
The second type of opinions are different, as not based on preference but lack of facts. If you don't know something instead of saying so, most people know a little and fill in the gaps, forming an opinion as a result. Therefore science has various studies on intelligence, genetics, racial characteristics to varying degrees, but besides the basics most people don't know these, and base their views on personal experience and anecdotes. This is not criminal behaviour but ignorance, and the treatment is discovery and education. Simply fighting, arguing and banning disagreement altogether doesn't teach anyone anything, it just stops them saying anything and ultimately stops them learning as if you don't ask you won't find out.
Facts: These can be partially or almost totally known. Global warming, for example, claims to be 'settled', but on further study discover a) the majority is set in predictions for the distant future and b) the present situation has as many studies showing one set of results as the other. Now they only accept one side and anyone disagreeing has been compared to paedophiles, nazis, baby killers and one Austrian professor recently called for the death sentence for anyone speaking out against it. In fact the only Nazism going on here is by the activists, as if you do as Mengele and Goebbels did and politicise science, saying only 'Aryan' science was correct, you are behaving exactly like a Nazi, that simple. Can you imagine a politician or pressure group like Greenpeace before saying 'If you believe there is life outside the solar system you should face the death sentence?'. What's the difference? Neither is known directly, both rely on shreds of evidence to be extrapolated and fill in huge gaps with lack of direct measurement or knowledge of the past and future, and then a general theory be made up until or unless there is enough to know beyond reasonable doubt. Whichever example you prefer, there is no previous scientific proposition where the proponents wanted to ban scientists (or anyone following them) from showing evidence to the contrary. Of course science can't do that as it can always learn more.
Intelligence is another much older bete noir of the left. Those far enough gone believe we don't have an IQ, everyone could be an Einstein given the correct conditions, which actually crosses the next line from opinions to lies, as of course there is well over a hundred years of randomised tests showing twins and close family members score the same when separated as identical twins, and different when together as fraternal twins. Identical twins are genetically the same person, and enough studies have proved their IQs and virtually every other personality trait (now being further affirmed in DNA analysis) are virtually the same, even when divided at birth and brought up in different countries and economies. If similar results could be shown for racial characteristics in even one area it would be scientific proof (repeatable and reliable) but they don't like 'the wrong facts', so even when they have been long backed up by science, they try and ban the mention of them. If a black person commits a crime, they don't want it being mentioned as such, even if on the run as a rapist. Concealing the race of a criminal or group of criminals does nothing except protect and encourage them, something the PC lot seem to love to see, as if allowing immigration already wasn't enough, they want to let them do whatever they did to flee their own countries if they were being chased by the authorities there already for doing the same things. But those are just the consequences, probably inevitable, of the practice itself of hiding and avoiding any facts which do not fit their ideology.
Examples:
Words: spastic backward retarded crippled handicapped
Opinions: Economic equality- gay marriage- immigration/multiracial/cultural society
Facts :(whether or not known for certain now they would be if we had enough knowledge to prove). IQ level, environmental influence on IQ, do races vary in IQ, are some races better at certain technical skills regardless of environment (eg orientals at maths), racial identity of criminals and racial profiling.
So in conclusion, we have:
Some opinions are wrong.
Some facts must be wrong as they are not nice.
Bad acts are good if 'cultural' but good words are bad if they say they are 'offensive'.
Debating a closed issue is not permitted on any single one of these.
Ideally breaching all such acts should be punished, some with greater penalties than those against the person and property.
I'm sure those running the show will be quite disappointed someone has spent the time to work out exactly what they are doing, offering others the opportunity to understand their actual methods as opposed to their stated aims of equality and freedom. As always, if someone calls themselves 'Freedom Fighters' and express their aims by killing innocent citizens, it is not up to them to name themselves anything but others to do so. So I am hoping anyone reading this will understand if they call themselves 'Bambi', 'Maurice', 'Politically Correct' or 'Correct' they can only ever be fascists, as restricting personal speech which is not promoting harm to others, and personal opinion, while also restricting the study and dissemination of scientific facts which do not agree with their ideology is only ever present in the worst possible examples of fascism (even if Mao chose to call his something else). Don't look at what these people call themselves, look at what they do and work it out yourselves.
Facts
Opinions
Insults
Lies
Insults: Now we already have more than enough laws to stop either incitement to a crime, so any direct statements to cause any sort of harm were never under question as already known to be both wrong and illegal. Normal people in a free country would stop right there. Insults are offensive but do not actually directly cause or incite others to cause harm. Nonetheless if you or I called someone a bloody wog even outside their presence we'd be behind bars a lot faster than any burglar or mugger. There is a school of thought which would claim banning insults makes society a better place but does it stop people thinking such things or just saying them in public? In the Falkland Islands the soldiers called the natives 'Bennies' and when that was stopped called them 'Stills'. When asked why, it was because 'They were still Bennies'. So banning the use of the word doesn't change the attitude behind them, and if you ban one bad word people will either use another or just say it in private. The playground took a set of medical and technical words such as spastic, imbecile, mongol, backward, retarded, handicapped and cripple from hospital and social work unit to the black book of sacking offences, despite the words all having strict dictionary definitions and communicating often an exact meaning required by medical and associated professionals. Ban the words, defile the language and replace them with others firstly people don't understand 'educationally challenged?' 'differently abled', and within a decade have then replaced the last lot and need a new set ad infinitum.
Opinions: Beyond words we have facts and opinions. If you begin with opinions (as how, one would ask, can you ban mentioning any facts?), they are divided in two very clear parts. One is personal preference, not based on a single fact so impossible for any to be right or wrong. This spreads from taste, such as music, food and art, to political and social preferences, where some may be happy living in multicultural Brent where you struggle to hear a single English speaker in the street, while others would feel they had been suddenly swept to the departure lounge at Delhi or Lagos airport and thoroughly uncomfortable. As immigration is one favourite hot potato, this is as good an example as any to start with. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' about who we prefer to share our lives with, and if people could actually choose whether to live in a multicultural area or not then it would never become a problem, but as multicultural tends to follow people rather than lead, it is an issue. But to then claim one is actually the only correct way to be, as if it was a fact, you have become totalitarian. I agree banning foreigners from any areas like in apartheid is also totalitarian, but so is allowing uncontrolled immigration because the government have decided it is right. In reality neither is right and neither can be right as the cultural mix of a town is something people either prefer or not, and always will be, just as some people prefer their local food and others prefer something more exotic. Who is someone else in power to tell them only one is right for food or the people who created it?
So my point is, with political correctness, they have taken a growing set of left wing opinions, and said they are right, the only correct ones, and therefore there is no alternative opinion as they have elevated their chosen opinions to the status of facts, and then on top protected them with the status of insults or worse to ban the chance of a challenge. Now once you begin restricting people's personal preferences, and then banning or criminalising their expression, you have become fascists. Forget what people call themselves, if they (like the aptly named 'National Socialists' before them) act like fascists then they are simply parading as left wing freedom fighters and doing the exact opposite. The only freedoms they want are for themselves to rule with an iron hand and for their chosen allies, currently Muslims (anyone know why?), environmentalists and certain criminals such as foreign terrorists and families who mutilate or kill their children ('it's their culture' they say, to justify female genital mutilation, honour killing and aborting female fetuses). Now banning the word 'backward' or 'mongol' which were used by doctors, teachers and social workers right up to the 70s doesn't protect a single person. But justifying the worst known behaviours around the world, including covering the faces of women, or stopping them from driving or going to school as they do in Iran and Saudi Arabia is not only never shunned but rampantly protected from criticism as 'they are only doing what is right for them'.
So political correctness has now shifted from fascism to actually sidestepping the law against incitement to hurt others. After all, if you protect criminals you are promoting their actions by default. But back to my main point, which defuses PC entirely once you realise what it does, is cross the line into personal preference and tells people what they can and cannot think and say. Disagree with gay marriage and you're homophobic? (believe me, no one's scared of gay people, so that's another word they invented wrongly) Maybe you actually believe marriage means the union of a man and a woman, so anything else can't be? That's a technical point, even if you have no problem with men or women forming a lifetime legal bond, it just isn't marriage. But say that and they'll sack you (as it's not yet a crime to prosecute but anyone with the power to fire will do so if you do), meaning a totally innocent act has resulted in a direct hardship with little or no chance of compensation.
The second type of opinions are different, as not based on preference but lack of facts. If you don't know something instead of saying so, most people know a little and fill in the gaps, forming an opinion as a result. Therefore science has various studies on intelligence, genetics, racial characteristics to varying degrees, but besides the basics most people don't know these, and base their views on personal experience and anecdotes. This is not criminal behaviour but ignorance, and the treatment is discovery and education. Simply fighting, arguing and banning disagreement altogether doesn't teach anyone anything, it just stops them saying anything and ultimately stops them learning as if you don't ask you won't find out.
Facts: These can be partially or almost totally known. Global warming, for example, claims to be 'settled', but on further study discover a) the majority is set in predictions for the distant future and b) the present situation has as many studies showing one set of results as the other. Now they only accept one side and anyone disagreeing has been compared to paedophiles, nazis, baby killers and one Austrian professor recently called for the death sentence for anyone speaking out against it. In fact the only Nazism going on here is by the activists, as if you do as Mengele and Goebbels did and politicise science, saying only 'Aryan' science was correct, you are behaving exactly like a Nazi, that simple. Can you imagine a politician or pressure group like Greenpeace before saying 'If you believe there is life outside the solar system you should face the death sentence?'. What's the difference? Neither is known directly, both rely on shreds of evidence to be extrapolated and fill in huge gaps with lack of direct measurement or knowledge of the past and future, and then a general theory be made up until or unless there is enough to know beyond reasonable doubt. Whichever example you prefer, there is no previous scientific proposition where the proponents wanted to ban scientists (or anyone following them) from showing evidence to the contrary. Of course science can't do that as it can always learn more.
Intelligence is another much older bete noir of the left. Those far enough gone believe we don't have an IQ, everyone could be an Einstein given the correct conditions, which actually crosses the next line from opinions to lies, as of course there is well over a hundred years of randomised tests showing twins and close family members score the same when separated as identical twins, and different when together as fraternal twins. Identical twins are genetically the same person, and enough studies have proved their IQs and virtually every other personality trait (now being further affirmed in DNA analysis) are virtually the same, even when divided at birth and brought up in different countries and economies. If similar results could be shown for racial characteristics in even one area it would be scientific proof (repeatable and reliable) but they don't like 'the wrong facts', so even when they have been long backed up by science, they try and ban the mention of them. If a black person commits a crime, they don't want it being mentioned as such, even if on the run as a rapist. Concealing the race of a criminal or group of criminals does nothing except protect and encourage them, something the PC lot seem to love to see, as if allowing immigration already wasn't enough, they want to let them do whatever they did to flee their own countries if they were being chased by the authorities there already for doing the same things. But those are just the consequences, probably inevitable, of the practice itself of hiding and avoiding any facts which do not fit their ideology.
Examples:
Words: spastic backward retarded crippled handicapped
Opinions: Economic equality- gay marriage- immigration/multiracial/cultural society
Facts :(whether or not known for certain now they would be if we had enough knowledge to prove). IQ level, environmental influence on IQ, do races vary in IQ, are some races better at certain technical skills regardless of environment (eg orientals at maths), racial identity of criminals and racial profiling.
So in conclusion, we have:
Some opinions are wrong.
Some facts must be wrong as they are not nice.
Bad acts are good if 'cultural' but good words are bad if they say they are 'offensive'.
Debating a closed issue is not permitted on any single one of these.
Ideally breaching all such acts should be punished, some with greater penalties than those against the person and property.
I'm sure those running the show will be quite disappointed someone has spent the time to work out exactly what they are doing, offering others the opportunity to understand their actual methods as opposed to their stated aims of equality and freedom. As always, if someone calls themselves 'Freedom Fighters' and express their aims by killing innocent citizens, it is not up to them to name themselves anything but others to do so. So I am hoping anyone reading this will understand if they call themselves 'Bambi', 'Maurice', 'Politically Correct' or 'Correct' they can only ever be fascists, as restricting personal speech which is not promoting harm to others, and personal opinion, while also restricting the study and dissemination of scientific facts which do not agree with their ideology is only ever present in the worst possible examples of fascism (even if Mao chose to call his something else). Don't look at what these people call themselves, look at what they do and work it out yourselves.
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Current review
Having sat here over an hour waiting for a call to go out (clearly not coming, I was happy to stay in) it was time for a general report again for a change. It does seem the principle the truth will out is beginning to take place, with the greatest analysis of climate data of all finding pretty much nothing (Hebrew University last week, no known media reports), although the infinitesimally less important Met Office revision of their decadal prediction of temperature being revised down with a new computer (I suggest the sale at Staples if they want a really good one) being all over the world, even the BBC! This is a step in the right direction, but reporting the major study would have been vastly more useful. I've callled and tweeted local radio all afternoon (they were discussing it) to no avail but won't give up, in over 10 years this is the best piece of research to come out and won't stop till people know about it.
Generally I am still working through all sorts of tests and theories around life, learning the odd new lesson along the way. If I have been given a mission (if so then we all have, and it's just a matter of noticing) then I'll carry it out and hope there is more of a reward at the end of it than knowing more useless information than I did before. There's no point having a journey if you end up where you started. Meanwhile my internet life has used the global warming war (their words, not mine) to learn about psychology and politics, as the vast majority of debate on it is personal and political, the data is ignored at the expense of a feeling either of personal superiority or abject terror for those weak minded enough to actually believe it. Regardless of the fact no catastrophe has ever been predicted in history, by scientists or anyone else, when the fear kicks in any brains that were present head towards the arse.
My first lesson was not to be patronising to these empty minded wankers. Of course the lesson now means I say that about them rather than to them, and we are only affected when the proportion is great enough to drive world policy and opinion, which sadly is well over the line currently. But in actual engagement keep to the facts and do your best not to introduce any personal superiority regardless of how much you are aware of. That is a challenge close to not showing a woman you like them as when they do they won't want you. The upside is my own certainty of my position as I've had the time and interest to research in the background long enough before going public to know enough to have the confidence to take on all comers. It's expanded my own mind if nothing else and as always the problem was not the knowledge side but the presentation.
Otherwise the spiritual quest ploughs on interminably. My angel project is a few months old, and apart from the relative smoothness of my activities with a few exceptions no requested prizes or results have materialised so far. I suppose the climate study is the closest but that's got a long way to go before anything actually results from it. No actual women, meditation results or much more than usual, but can't give up as it's the only direction to go in with a chance of improvements. It keeps me busy if nothing else.
Generally I am still working through all sorts of tests and theories around life, learning the odd new lesson along the way. If I have been given a mission (if so then we all have, and it's just a matter of noticing) then I'll carry it out and hope there is more of a reward at the end of it than knowing more useless information than I did before. There's no point having a journey if you end up where you started. Meanwhile my internet life has used the global warming war (their words, not mine) to learn about psychology and politics, as the vast majority of debate on it is personal and political, the data is ignored at the expense of a feeling either of personal superiority or abject terror for those weak minded enough to actually believe it. Regardless of the fact no catastrophe has ever been predicted in history, by scientists or anyone else, when the fear kicks in any brains that were present head towards the arse.
My first lesson was not to be patronising to these empty minded wankers. Of course the lesson now means I say that about them rather than to them, and we are only affected when the proportion is great enough to drive world policy and opinion, which sadly is well over the line currently. But in actual engagement keep to the facts and do your best not to introduce any personal superiority regardless of how much you are aware of. That is a challenge close to not showing a woman you like them as when they do they won't want you. The upside is my own certainty of my position as I've had the time and interest to research in the background long enough before going public to know enough to have the confidence to take on all comers. It's expanded my own mind if nothing else and as always the problem was not the knowledge side but the presentation.
Otherwise the spiritual quest ploughs on interminably. My angel project is a few months old, and apart from the relative smoothness of my activities with a few exceptions no requested prizes or results have materialised so far. I suppose the climate study is the closest but that's got a long way to go before anything actually results from it. No actual women, meditation results or much more than usual, but can't give up as it's the only direction to go in with a chance of improvements. It keeps me busy if nothing else.
Sunday, January 06, 2013
Media preferences exposed
This could go in my fraud blog, but as a work in progress rather than a lesson of any type is fine to go in here.
In the last two years, in amongst the speculative and inductive studies repeated endlessly by all known media, two massive studies surfaced, one well over a year ago by none less than part of the Japanese government, whose sole satellite measuring CO2 worldwide had released its findings, and unlike the expectations showed the more populated an area was generally the more CO2 it absorbed, while emissions came from deserts and forests. Now the mechanisms behind this can be left to the scientists, but the findings were so drastic you'd think the media ought to have mentioned them as they pretty well changed the game. 18 months later there is a sole report tucked away online if you look hard enough. Otherwise the Japanese Ibuki satellite findings remain a very badly publicised elephant. If David Copperfield can hide the Statue of Liberty the papers can hide an elephant like this very easily.
Now this week possibly the best news of 2013 and maybe even the 21st century altogether was released. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem put together the largest known collection of parameters and found little or no evidence of man made warming. The world isn't going to burn or the oceans boil, it's not happening. Music to the ears of every single citizen of the world, as even if you don't believe it if it was happening everyone would have been affected. But it isn't. OK, this was only yesterday, but although a few websites have picked this one up if it's not in the papers by Monday it never will be.
Now this is interesting, as last year when the Berkeley University BEST study reran the Michael Mann hockey stick using solely temperature records (the same ones I think) amazingly they came up with the same results, and within a femtosecond The Guardian and BBC were giving it more welly than a royal wedding. Add to that a final paragraph added (paraphrasing) 'But there is a possibility this may be due to natural causes such as the multidecadal oscillation'. The major difference between law and science (or journalism) is the attention to detail. Lawyers write such long contracts as every word (let alone paragraph) counts. Therefore by missing a paragraph anyone reading would use to neutralise the remainder of the article (like the Wayne's World style addition of 'Not' after a claim) the media have added subterfuge to irrelevance. Just like a chancellor announcing new giveaways in the budget he actually gave away months earlier (standard PR methods), using someone else's material to run an equation and find the same result they did is simply putting garbage in and getting it out again. But merit or not, the media picked this up like a naked photo of Al Gore (or would they?) and cut the ugly foreskin off which would have otherwise ruined the picture.
So we have a far greater piece of evidence here by combining the three phenomena (four if you include the partial reporting of BEST).
A physical measurement demonstrates populated countries do not emit CO2
A study (possibly the largest of its kind) concludes there is no anthropogenic sign of warming
A team recheck someone else's data and find it is what it was, except it may not be.
Which gets the coverage?
And the main question is actually 'Why?'.
When people work out the why, then they will no longer rely on the media to tell them such vital material, but do their own investigation now we have it all available on the internet. If newspapers want to become redundant, this is the quickest way to make it happen.
There will always be people who don't believe words alone so here are the links:
Ibuki Satellite
Full climate analysis
Believe me, you won't need my help for the BEST material, but it was included in the second study and made absolutely zero impact. That's called 'discrediting' I think in science, or superseding at the least.
In the last two years, in amongst the speculative and inductive studies repeated endlessly by all known media, two massive studies surfaced, one well over a year ago by none less than part of the Japanese government, whose sole satellite measuring CO2 worldwide had released its findings, and unlike the expectations showed the more populated an area was generally the more CO2 it absorbed, while emissions came from deserts and forests. Now the mechanisms behind this can be left to the scientists, but the findings were so drastic you'd think the media ought to have mentioned them as they pretty well changed the game. 18 months later there is a sole report tucked away online if you look hard enough. Otherwise the Japanese Ibuki satellite findings remain a very badly publicised elephant. If David Copperfield can hide the Statue of Liberty the papers can hide an elephant like this very easily.
Now this week possibly the best news of 2013 and maybe even the 21st century altogether was released. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem put together the largest known collection of parameters and found little or no evidence of man made warming. The world isn't going to burn or the oceans boil, it's not happening. Music to the ears of every single citizen of the world, as even if you don't believe it if it was happening everyone would have been affected. But it isn't. OK, this was only yesterday, but although a few websites have picked this one up if it's not in the papers by Monday it never will be.
Now this is interesting, as last year when the Berkeley University BEST study reran the Michael Mann hockey stick using solely temperature records (the same ones I think) amazingly they came up with the same results, and within a femtosecond The Guardian and BBC were giving it more welly than a royal wedding. Add to that a final paragraph added (paraphrasing) 'But there is a possibility this may be due to natural causes such as the multidecadal oscillation'. The major difference between law and science (or journalism) is the attention to detail. Lawyers write such long contracts as every word (let alone paragraph) counts. Therefore by missing a paragraph anyone reading would use to neutralise the remainder of the article (like the Wayne's World style addition of 'Not' after a claim) the media have added subterfuge to irrelevance. Just like a chancellor announcing new giveaways in the budget he actually gave away months earlier (standard PR methods), using someone else's material to run an equation and find the same result they did is simply putting garbage in and getting it out again. But merit or not, the media picked this up like a naked photo of Al Gore (or would they?) and cut the ugly foreskin off which would have otherwise ruined the picture.
So we have a far greater piece of evidence here by combining the three phenomena (four if you include the partial reporting of BEST).
A physical measurement demonstrates populated countries do not emit CO2
A study (possibly the largest of its kind) concludes there is no anthropogenic sign of warming
A team recheck someone else's data and find it is what it was, except it may not be.
Which gets the coverage?
And the main question is actually 'Why?'.
When people work out the why, then they will no longer rely on the media to tell them such vital material, but do their own investigation now we have it all available on the internet. If newspapers want to become redundant, this is the quickest way to make it happen.
There will always be people who don't believe words alone so here are the links:
Ibuki Satellite
Full climate analysis
Believe me, you won't need my help for the BEST material, but it was included in the second study and made absolutely zero impact. That's called 'discrediting' I think in science, or superseding at the least.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
2013 report already!
David's 2013 blog:
My visitors have now left and catching up on the second life online as usual. Odd and interesting things are happening already, ie more than usual. In life we are all equally given the freedom of our own opinions, and unless someone's go against me directly then it's their business not mine. Opinions being where it is a choice like food or music or books, not on facts where some people choose to guess one way or another where either no one really knows, or worse still they do yet they choose to stick with the idea they prefer as the reality freaks them out. Like whether intelligence is innate or not. There's enough evidence for that to fill a library, but those on the left who believe we're all a blank slate all with the potential to become Einstein if given the right environment and we are all equal will ignore it as they prefer their opinion of the world.
Anyway, you like a person first and their opinions are simply part of who they are. I've met loads of people who share my ideas and are absolutely nothing like me and not worth hanging out with at all, like the women on dating sites who are perfect on paper. As his parents are in touch with me I wonder what the outcome will be, as it's not so easy to cut and run when there are still connections.
After I predicted Obama would avoid the fiscal cliff by minutes yesterday he delivered as I virtually guaranteed, not because I use a crystal ball but because these things are planned in advance and staged to mould public opinion. So it wasn't really a prediction as based on a decision made long ago I just worked out as I know how politics operates behind the scenes. Unlike the Greek non-default this was announced so close to the event (rather than non-event) no one had the time to forget and had it in writing clearly enough to remember. I hope it will make a few people think how politics isn't a random set of actions but an engineered choreographed sham which gives the impression of two sides working for the common good but really one side working for their own good. You need examples, I have now offered two.
Along with the bad and the ugly, here's the good. It's also bad and ugly, but the outcome is good. I just discovered a major political pressure group (no time to look up the name) run by scientists (what, did someone say 'What's politics got to do with science?') claimed the acidification of the oceans by 2050 would make coral die out. Coral is over 400 million years old, and the CO2 levels then were in the 1000s of parts per million, so they have both exposed themselves as idiots, and then when they continued the claim (it was first made in 2009) after someone pointed out it was impossible, as liars. I have never made claims about nefarious activities before I knew they were enough to convince a jury, as that is my own training, rather than science. Like the Crown Prosecution Service really. If people want someone caught red handed before they will believe any wrongdoing then here it is, QED.
My visitors have now left and catching up on the second life online as usual. Odd and interesting things are happening already, ie more than usual. In life we are all equally given the freedom of our own opinions, and unless someone's go against me directly then it's their business not mine. Opinions being where it is a choice like food or music or books, not on facts where some people choose to guess one way or another where either no one really knows, or worse still they do yet they choose to stick with the idea they prefer as the reality freaks them out. Like whether intelligence is innate or not. There's enough evidence for that to fill a library, but those on the left who believe we're all a blank slate all with the potential to become Einstein if given the right environment and we are all equal will ignore it as they prefer their opinion of the world.
Anyway, you like a person first and their opinions are simply part of who they are. I've met loads of people who share my ideas and are absolutely nothing like me and not worth hanging out with at all, like the women on dating sites who are perfect on paper. As his parents are in touch with me I wonder what the outcome will be, as it's not so easy to cut and run when there are still connections.
After I predicted Obama would avoid the fiscal cliff by minutes yesterday he delivered as I virtually guaranteed, not because I use a crystal ball but because these things are planned in advance and staged to mould public opinion. So it wasn't really a prediction as based on a decision made long ago I just worked out as I know how politics operates behind the scenes. Unlike the Greek non-default this was announced so close to the event (rather than non-event) no one had the time to forget and had it in writing clearly enough to remember. I hope it will make a few people think how politics isn't a random set of actions but an engineered choreographed sham which gives the impression of two sides working for the common good but really one side working for their own good. You need examples, I have now offered two.
Along with the bad and the ugly, here's the good. It's also bad and ugly, but the outcome is good. I just discovered a major political pressure group (no time to look up the name) run by scientists (what, did someone say 'What's politics got to do with science?') claimed the acidification of the oceans by 2050 would make coral die out. Coral is over 400 million years old, and the CO2 levels then were in the 1000s of parts per million, so they have both exposed themselves as idiots, and then when they continued the claim (it was first made in 2009) after someone pointed out it was impossible, as liars. I have never made claims about nefarious activities before I knew they were enough to convince a jury, as that is my own training, rather than science. Like the Crown Prosecution Service really. If people want someone caught red handed before they will believe any wrongdoing then here it is, QED.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)