Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Uncertainties around global warming

With rare exceptions, the press and politicians talk about global warming (ie the thing behind what they call climate change, as the warming's well, not that much) in certain terms. But read behind the headlines and the only few certainties, ie those based on actual events, indicate the opposite. I will present every element and people can make up their own minds. Remember, they aren't my figures, I've just taken the time to source them.

1) By far the biggest element (not normal to begun with the punchline, but it eclipses all the other details almost completely) is global warming has barely happened. The global warming the politicians are talking about is something they want to prevent, ie it hasn't actually happened, and using their own graphs, won't till around 2100. No scientific experiment exists which can't be observed to complete, in the 1990's when this graph was drawn it was physically impossible to know for anyone on the planet except a handful of newborn babies.

2) Before around 1995 current temperatures were depicted on a 10,000 year or so graph showing a cycle, with higher temperatures till 4000 years ago (they still are, which looks like stating the obvious), and then a peak 1000 and around 500 years ago, named the Roman and Medieval warm periods. In 1995 they vanished from new material although of course still existing in older books. At best, it shows their knowledge and ability to calculate past temperatures still leaves a lot to be desired. At worst (as evidenced by their hacked emails rather than inference) they simply altered them.

3) There are two previously little known but genuine cycles. The Milankovitch geological cycles which involve the wobble of the earth and variation in distance from the sun which have decadal and longer oscillations of ocean currents warming then cooling, and the solar cycles of sunspots and total radiation. Put the two together and the temperature graph looks very similar. Observation alone, step one of science, tells us all enough to move on to the next step, and they are a very close fit.

4) Red herrings are always an element in science, the stomach acid in ulcers or the coming ice age in the 70s. The element is something new and unknown happens, and scientists rush to try and explain it faster than their capacity to measure the causes. There is a hierarchy of climate measurements, from the simple and analogue of CO2, sea level and temperatures, to the less or almost impossible to currently measure glacier depth, cloud formation patterns, interaction between CO2 and atmospheric water vapour, and of course the literally hottest potato of all, world temperatures, past and present. They use a variety of methods, proxy for pre 1850, thermometer for 1850-1979, and a combination of thermometer and satellite since 1979. Sea levels are now also measured by satellites as well as bobs and land based gauges and oddly seem to read 2mm higher from the satellites than on the surface, which are clearly less able to double check at the scene, implying something is wrong there. Sew together the three eras of measurement, fill in the vast gaps where nothing's measured at all, and that gives you two figures, the accepted rough averages and the anomalies, which are the differences from an earlier point, intended to iron out the gaps and glitches.

But CO2 is not so hard to count although like the sea level it varies all day long from location to location so more of an anomaly than absolute figure. But it's officially up 50% from 1850-2013. Because, but only really since 1980 or so (oddly the same time satellites measured temperature) temperatures also went up rather sharply for 30 years or so, and as CO2 is supposed to add 1C per doubling at 260ppm then if it also evaporated the ocean, that water lodged at certain levels and didn't form more clouds it could amplify that amount manyfold, apparently (as it's never been observed in the real world before). But, had CO2 not been a red herring and remained stable, the consensus in the 70s was the fall since 1940 led most scientists to expect another ice age. Bear in mind CO2 had already risen sharply and steadily then, but the scientists still looked at the temperature first and literally appeared to assign no significance to the CO2 whatsoever. This is a logical indication of the CO2 indeed being a red herring as had they imagined its role as a deadly greenhouse gas (to quote president Obama, whose science degree is still in the post) they'd never have considered an ice age at all, especially as the added CO2 we were currently doing nothing to attempt to limit should have easily wiped out any natural cooling.

Then the temperature rose (remember those cycles, the two crucial points are 30 and 60 years) and suddenly they noticed the CO2, forgot the ice age and even though the rise was again around 30 years before it petered out, the CO2 is rising steadily and has now become the focus of the industry rather than the perceived current effects, while the future effects have finally been knocked on the head as their 20 year old estimate from the 90s was about to drop off the lowest point of their error bars.

5) Sea levels: Unlike the world temperature, we can record local sea levels and compare them pretty reliably, as regardless of the tides and other variations, over an entire year a tide gauge plus any beaches are possible to record faithfully for centuries. There are no known coastal areas more than a few inches from a century ago, some have not risen at all while the official rise was 7 inches in the 20th century. As sea level needs land ice and thermal expansion in equal measures, both require a fairly specific temperature rise to melt the ice and expand the sea, and can then measure each to calculate the rise per amount melted. Even if the far higher satellite measurements are to be relied upon (although the land based methods have remained at 1mm a year regardless) it still isn't possible to break 12 inches this century at the current rate of rise, which is not significant.

6) The atmospheric changes from the added CO2 need to have it located in the relevant bands (which can be investigated online with little effort), along with any additional water vapour which is the actual culprit, as CO2 alone is simply not capable of more than 1C per doubling. The actual results were unknown until NASA's two satellites Grace and Aqua began getting results, showing CO2 was displacing water vapour where it would have been required, weakening the effect, and water vapour itself was not increasing either. Needless to say the press made nothing of it although being the first readings of their kind, and contradicting what they expected, you would have thought whatever their findings they would have been of great significance.

7) Unknowns: It is very hard to currently measure ice thickness beyond a small percentage below the surface, and know the behaviour of added water vapour in either forming humidity or clouds, which do the exact opposite of each other, yet the industry while openly admitting this lack of information, do not let it spoil their predictions despite being a vital part of the picture, for global warming actually the most essential as no water vapour, no humidity, no positive feedback and no global warming. Those are not the only ostensibly unknowns but the two wild cards, plus of course the already mentioned gaps in temperature stations (around 75%) and even the convention of only measuring CO2 at one location in Mauna Loa which seems a little optimistic to me as a lay person at least.

8) "For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

This was from NASA's own website in late April 2013. Did they just let something go they didn't want us to know?

9) Contrary studies: Despite its total exclusion by the collective media, the most comprehensive assessment of the collective temperature data was carried out in 2013 by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, one of the best scientific institutions in the world. They found no man made signature apparent. It even included the Berkeley BEST figures used to affirm Michael Mann's original hockey stick (all they did was repeat the same thing so of course it would) and found it made no difference.

“…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.”

“…our rejection of AGW is not absolute; it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint. However, this possibility is very small, and is not statistically significant at conventional levels.”

"In the past century, each of the two warm periods (1915–1945 and 1978–1998) and each of the two cool periods (1880–1915 and 1945–1977) resulted from cyclic changes of Pacific sea surface temperatures (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation). In 1999, the NE Pacific changed abruptly from its warm mode to its cool mode, bringing the 1978–1998 warming to a close. Projection of the pattern of cyclic warming and cooling over the past 500 years strongly suggests that the climate will continue to cool for the next several decades." Don Easterbrook

"Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. Changes in atmospheric CO2 are NOT tracking changes in human emissions"

Global and Planetary Change
Volume 100, January 2013, Pages 51–69

Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim

And from NASA itself a study by multiple contributors also this year found:
"One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere."

"One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.

There is also a growing series of studies confirming the rise in CO2 is after the temperature rises, which if correct (and each one is finding the same thing) means it can't be man made as well but released by the oceans as a result of rising temperature.

These studies are all from within the first four months of 2013, and given absolutely zero regard by the media, while those supporting the established view circle the globe within moments of release (sometimes before), and makes you wonder why?

10) Blatant errors: When you hear 70 million tons of Himalayan glacier are melting each year you expect it to be based on, well, measurements. When they finally did the measurements of the largest glaciers outside the polar regions they found they had lost precisely no ice at all. No apologies or questioning of the direct proof they had 'simply made it up', although clearly if they have clearly made something up once it may be typical where there are no actual measurements. And if you're going to make them up and make them the most extreme possible rather than moderate it also implies an agenda.
Saying others would melt by 2035, and then claim it was a misprint when it turned out to mean 2350 is something a student would never have got away with.
There are also a number of examples of both satellite and land based stations misreading so high, the US ones alone would be enough to account for the entire world temperature rise for that period. Unlike the massive adjustments I have pages of to show flat temperatures go uphill these were simple technical errors in place for years, and even once discovered they didn't correct the old material which used them despite doing it for the widely accepted Medieval Warm Period which wasn't claimed to be in error.
There are ten elements which even singly would cast doubt on other scientific measurements elsewhere, and if all ten are in place would make a reasonable person (the legal test) have at least reasonable doubts, if not reject it altogether on a balance of probabilities. Our entire world policy dictated by the UN and accepted by most countries to some extent is based solely on this infant and inexact branch of science. Prior to the 1970s when the Climate Research Unit was built at the University of East Anglia, funded in part by 'big oil' (Shell, BP and others) and activist groups such as Greenpeace, the area was called 'meteorology' and involved understanding weather patterns and their causes, with reference to history to predict current and short term future events. There was no reliance or requirement for reliance on climate data so the urgency to learn as much as possible as fast as possible, even without the benefit of satellites, was not required. Suddenly after James Hansen's presentation to US congress billions went into this area, suddenly every scientists became a climatologist and charities began working to collect money to deal with global warming. Of course we kept our other scientists, but looking at the sheer numbers of those issuing papers every single day which get considered by the UN demonstrates how many physics and geology graduates decided to specialise in what had become the biggest boom area since ducking witches.

To shift from an observational science no one depended on to one dictating world political policies, and extending the accepted 3-6 month maximum ability to see the future to a hundred years or more as if they'd suddenly built the equivalent of a hundred Hubble telescopes capable of refining their measurements in wide screen and high definition, which they did not. The very fact they suddenly discovered whatever proxy measurements they had used for a century or more had been adequate for the many thousands of years earlier, but overestimated the two warm periods since (while not affecting the earlier higher measurements 4-8000 years earlier) is a stroke of magic. Add together the entire spread of both uncertainties, total updates of an area of measurement (including backdating higher readings lower but not the other way round) meaning it was previously inadequate (including the rolling process of reducing the expected rise from a doubling of CO2 per decade or so, mainly as it is rising and the temperature barely is), plus with adjustments to raw data which virtually always make them higher rather than lower and we do not have a certainty about the present or even the past, let alone the future which twenty odd years later has been proved to be imagination.

That is the state of the science, would you rely on it if used for a medical procedure?

Friday, May 24, 2013

What is racism?

Racism is believing another race or races is inferior. Acting on this means direct discrimination, not taking them as tenants or staff, or paying them less. Extremes would be direct attacks, physical or verbal, and now in Britain all covered by discrimination laws.

Outside that not wanting immigration, thinking different cultures do not naturally mix, or any other preference to be with your own people is something inbuilt in all of us, as you see when looking at immigrant communities who tend to relocate a similar as possible replica of where they were to wherever they are should there be enough to do so. This extends to many locals and immigrants alike disapproving of relationships with the others, which could be considered racist as is based on a belief the other people are not good enough to associate with yours. But this attitude is equally shared between both the local people and the immigrants, if not more so by the immigrants who in some cases will ostracise or even kill the family member who mixes with the natives.

Calling people racist who do not discriminate against other races, or believe they are inferior is slander. I'm sure most people who do it know the difference perfectly well, but prefer to demean their perceived enemy of a civilised society who disagree with their policies of diversity and multiculturalism, which includes cultures coming from countries with no sewage system or have such tight communities many will never even learn English as everything they need comes from within their own groups. You can easily import as many willing economic migrants from places earning a tenth as much as here, if they can find work at all, and move from shanty towns to council and subsidised housing, but they won't mix with you except on the fringes, no more than you would if you went to one of theirs in similar numbers.

Tribalism and national and local cultures are an essential part of history and humanity. Trying to claim it is all empty and meaningless is clearly an insult to humanity, so they need to use insults to try and implement it.

Why global warming matters

I have finally realised why global warming is such a vital issue to today's world. Without it the green and leftist movements would be a fringe element considered extreme by mainstream society and in my view rightly so.

Add a belief industry and civilisation are going to destroy the planet, and suddenly all the crazy things they wanted- de-development, going back to nature, reducing first world power etc are now the exact policies offered to solve this 'problem'.

Now the world's mainstream are making it harder and harder to run factories, mine for fuel and even heat your homes. It is taxing both companies and individuals at rates previously unthinkable outside wartime (a 33% tax on British energy for example), making many industries leave the EU through massive carbon taxes, and generally making many areas of personal life previously untouched by government rules subject to new legislation, even to the point of forced recycling where I live, under Agenda 21s local application through ICLEI which my council were one of the first to adopt. Travel is being restricted, with old cars being banned in Paris and old commercial vehicles banned in London, as part of a planned EU ban on all cars in cities.

Does anyone think without the threat of global warming a single one of these policies would have happened? The voters would have kicked any party out going half as far and no other would have dared to follow. Would it have occurred to Barack Obama to ban new oil exploration and pipelines, or the UN to consider banning oil drilling in Africa after lobbying by WWF and Greenpeace? None of this would even have been thought of without a single element, ie the threat of man made global warming. Take that away and the rest would fall away like a dream on waking. That is why I work hours a day, probably for nothing, to explain and expose this dire situation.

Global warming meme

A random just posted this on Facebook which represents the entire basis the believers of global warming believe, based on authority, false premises and paranoia. They are the confirmed 'useful idiots' doing the work for Soros, Rockefeller et al who do know the truth, and are corralling millions of weak minded innocents worldwide to do their dirty work for them as they trust authority 100% and as a result will not listen to a single word from anyone else who can see through them if not better qualified than their source.

""Debating whether climate change is real and caused by increasing greenhouse gasses produced and released by human activity (which it is), is a waste of valuable time to be taking real action to do something about it. It's like standing in a burning building denying the reality when you could get out and get a hose.

You can all slap each others backs and joke about it to buttress up your own self doubts and insecurities about your denialism. After know...95-98% of educated and experienced scientists are probably wrong right? And you, your right wing media sources, carbon lobbyists and the industries they represent, the junk scientists they hire have got to be the experts.
And if you believe that I've got some prime coastal property in the Albany, NY area to sell you cause the coast is where it will be eventually in the world their selling you suckers.
Or maybe it's a global wide wealth distribution conspiracy on the part of evil, godless socialist/communist/atheists. Then they'll take your gun away too.... riiiighht."

As an ex teacher, this contains every possible non sequitur and borrowed meme present in a new student and an example for future pupils of all the basic academic failings in such. Appeals to authority, non-sequiturs, false premises, unsubstantiated claims and repeated lies are simply passed from person to person like fleas until half the world is infected, and without either one of their own being exposed or exposing the entire thing as crap, we would have to wait half a decade or more for the lack of temperature rise to prove them wrong, which would be the only other way to undo it. But the world cannot wait so long with all the harm currently being done in the name of a fairytale.

More quotes from the left

twitter is really buzzing, I may need a third blog to save all these: BBC Question time always brings the yoghurt knitters out of the woodwork.

Paisley Jr and other bigots should be afraid to 'express their views'. If you're racist, homophobic, sexist.. you should stay silent

Why is there only 1 woman on the panel? Aren't there any women in NI?

And that shrinking but shrill minority who cling to homophobic beliefs will not be affected in the slightest by

 such a traditionally troubled group. Also, why are lesbians so absent from the marriage debate? Where's their panel presence?

I finally realized deniers are only bullies. All they have is bullying and fear. Neither will respond to logic. >>>>>>

>>>>>WTF? Tell them, we already have changed the weather. Anti-science law makers are not credible.

My resolution for June: Communicating climate change into terms anyone will understand.

And we do nothing about climate change because of price, and destroy rainforests for corporations to make billions off oil.

The antagonism towards LGBT people is tied up with misogyny because both are based on the hatred of women/femininity.

The armchair racists and islamaphobes are out in full force on twitter and Facebook! Hope they stay there!

Doctors showed little interest in and sometimes questioned its existence.

I  am so excited for the day when there are no labels like "gay" and "bisexual" and when you can just love who you love

There are more states that allow marrying your cousin than that allow gay marriage. Let that sink in.

david cameron's like a dad who tries to buy yr love cause he's been such a dick yr whole life cept using marriage equality instead of cash

That was interesting. If I wasn't 100% sure before I am now. & the majority of its members are sad, deluded, narrow-minded fools.

Re Woolwich murder

When is the Caucasian community going to address the radicalisation of young men via the EDL and the BNP?

still avoiding the issue of disaffected individuals & foreign policy, whilst targeting the easier demonisation of preachers of hate

actually all terrorist attacks in uk have related to uk foreign policy by perpetrators. acknowledged by uk intel

edl born out of bnp and MiG football thugs. funded as it happenes by extremist pro zionist and christian fundamentalists

It never takes them long to blame the Jews, some even use the actual word but the code's not that far from the word itself.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Quotes from the left

I have been coming across so many left wing tweets which normally wouldn't have got past the comedy level I've decided to collect them here. My comments in brackets.

Farage is all about class snobbery you just can't see

You won't get freedom from a xenophobic party - a fine line between xenophobia & racism.

and what ideas have U-Kippers got except xenophobia? They're the "anti-" party

Where do you think BNP have gone? Disappeared? Or just joined the party that most represents their views? #u-kippers

(Global warming): The science is in. There's nothing constructive in denying it. We need to talk about what to do.

it's a waste of time debating with blind faithers,UKIP no different to TeaParty in US
Fighting hate speech against women on Facebook. Overdue and vital campaign

(Response):Not sure what to make of this. I'm going to put it down as an interesting thing which I'm not sure about.

 I'm unfollowing you since you are the kind of person who can't see why this is an important and vital campaign.
My view is 5Live in general is part of BBC tory agenda not you individually. Why BBC so silent on NHS sale?

I hope its a fantasy! I really don't think sane people would vote UKIP/Farage into any real position of power.

This is what happens under Tory govts. They know the cost of everything & value of nothing. No compassion.

Where there's a will .. As we know, austerity in 2013 is an ideology-driven excuse for cutting State & keeping wages low

I'm proud to be part of today and proud that we're one step closer to in Britain.

Imagine if you will Farage led group of MPs & their position on Equal Marriage. Only Labour can be trusted & has will to see it through.

Tories on at each others' throats over same-sex marriage while the non-homophobic population care far more about economic issues

Here's something positive. The science deniers will b dead soon & then maybe we can reverse what they've done.

(no, you'll be dead as well, stupid)

BBC News - Climate change 'spurred modern human behaviour'

(yes, mass hysteria)

Meg Hawkins@MEGatronn___ 19m
If you don't believe in climate change you are an idiot
(this bright spark deserved a name check)
TheSnewtyOne@Isissosnewty 23m
I'm not feeling to good... Climate change always messes me up man
Soph.@SophieDenty 27m
Cba to revise the evidence for climate change topic so I'm sleeping with 'the inconvenient truth' DVD on in the background
Some members of Congress still won't listen to the scientific consensus on change. Call these deniers out:
The Telegraph@Telegraph 7m Britain’s enemies want to destroy not just our lives but our values – and that is something they will never do

6m wouldn't be surprised if this was orchestrated by or to incite anger and mass defection to their cause.. FML

(re Woolwich Muslim terrorists beheading innocent soldier)

I'm actually disgusted watching the tonight. There are no logical arguments against equal marriage

SO ANGRY it's not a perversion of marriage you sick fuck!

equalmarriage !!! Not 'gay' marriage!

What I don't understand about is why it has anything to do with straight people?!

Because if equality is genuinely your concern you would have backed the equal marriage bill.
orlando100388 If you wear a T-Shirt people be in fear of your life because is far too busy with gay marriage to protect you--------->

---------> We call it equal marriage over here. But you're 2 hard hearted.The only protection we need is from people like u.
i honestly dont know a single person that likes what the EDL are or stand for (you must get out more)
Muslims is trending on Twitter... Let's hope that this isn't the death of multiculturalism in Britain, but the racist culture.


Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Fixing the country- direct means.

Sometimes when people moan and whinge about how things are they are asked what they'd put in its place and can't answer, well I can.

I believe we are all designed to want the same things, so only disagree on how to get them. That aside here is my view of a country (I can't tell anywhere else what to do) as it would be under my control.

Government would be a safety net only, to keep up with existing law to protect the people, deal with foreign challenges and arrangements, and look after those unable to look after themselves. Otherwise people can look after their own business perfectly well without state interference. Laws would be designed to stop any group having an advantage over another, landlord/tenant owner/worker etc, as technically everything has to be played fair, and today's world is almost the opposite with small groups controlling almost everything. Therefore the majority of effort would go into infiltrating and countering organised fraud among banks, scientists (50% of papers are currently withdrawn for fraud, see and any other currently powerful group taking advantage of ordinary people. This includes the current policy of reducing the grades needed to pass exams and make sure everything is marked the same way it was before and a degree is only possible to pass for the top 5% or it loses its entire value and employers just ask for the equivalent of what they had before they were debased.

I would then dismantle all economic advantages of banks and property businesses etc, who exploit their positions to fix interest rates and house prices way off their free market levels. I would nationalise public services, as you can't have a market where there is no competition and all the gas and phone calls use the same gas and pipes as do the railways and lines. All it does is add in the shareholders profit to something which should break even as for everyone equally.

The collusion would then be dismantled internationally, cutting all ties with the corrupt EU, who after all are only a conglomeration of the fourth Reich and the Mafia, just as Hitler and Mussolini who failed to do the same thing by military means at the previous attempt to dominate Europe as they now do. It would be impossible for politicians and academics to own businesses or work for any connected with their own work areas, so all the MPs with directorships of renewable companies would be sacked if working on those areas in their political areas, as would scientists. Whistleblowers would gain state protection and rewards and incentives similar to any for major crimes to encourage it as part of the culture. Anyone found threatening one would be subject to severe punishment.

The people would get to vote on all major changes in advance, with two powers, both to endorse government proposals and present their own. All reasonable ideas could be put to a vote, but a basic constitution would be required to stop any being raised to restrict the freedoms inbuilt by the other parts of the system already. For example, any attempt to gain power over another group would be void, so bankers could not for instance set interest rates as they do now, or be allowed to speculate with investor's money as it was never theirs to play with in the first place and never would be if I had the chance to guarantee it. I would bring back a backing for currency, whether gold or silver or similar, and use the treasury to aim to stop and even reduce inflation, discouraging borrowing for all but housing and reduce house prices as a direct consequence. People would then be put off buying for profit and more houses would be released to the general public who would then be able to afford them again. No mortgage would be legal for more than 4X annual income, like before the 70s, and no one could borrow more than 80% of the total price to guarantee minimum liquidity.

Criminals would lose their human rights as soon as they committed a crime. Any force would be allowed to tackle burglars and muggers, and if one got shot in the head then maybe more would be put off in future. We would have total control of both borders and immigrants who break the rules once they get here. If anyone does not respect the freedom of their new country and breaks the law they are off. Abusing the generosity of their host country is a great insult and will be treated as such. The country would soon lose its reputation as a soft touch and deter new criminals from arriving as they know they won't last five minutes. Criminal records would be checked for every applicant to weed out as many as possible in advance.

Fuel and energy would be kept as cheap as possible, as it's something we all need equally, so why make profit from it especially for taxes, as it simply reduces the economy and money circulating it by removing it at source in advance. This would allow greater spending and collections from indirect sales taxes on luxuries which unlike food and water are optional. All pointless road restrictions, ironically called 'calming' but do exactly the opposite, would become illegal and all dangerous humps and chicanes would be removed, and banned from future use. No driver has ever benefitted from damaging their car or avoiding head on accidents by inches, and will also take any pedestrians with them if swerving to miss a man made hazard which now cover Britain's roads like aggressive cancer.

So, we will end up with a society where no group has an advantage over another, everyone has access to a basic standard of living with the cheapest possible housing, no trouble heating and travelling, and room for everyone. Taxes will be kept to a very minimum, especially income tax, as this keeps more money free and circulating and there is no reason to avoid paying what you can afford to. Crime will become less tempting, both as foreign criminals will be kept away and the standard of living would rise to mean many people could survive without stealing for food or survival. Without the need to make profits for transport people could travel to work further and more easily, and visit friends and family more easily wherever they lived. Of course all road tolls would not just be removed but incorporated into the constitution to outlaw indefinitely. They only penalise the poor as the rich just incorporate them into their budget while the poor simply have to avoid them.

If asked I'm sure I can fill in any other areas people choose to know. This includes nuclear weapons, which if seen in a film without them existing in reality would be considered as dangerous and pointless as they always have been, so they would go for a start. Interfering in civil wars would be no better than interfering in one's own citizens' lives, unless there was a clear outside invader and we were asked for help these are no one elses' business. Countries who regularly have civil wars have never stopped through intervention, it's just a matter of which tribe or family runs the local Mafia and will be till they get their shit together, which may never happen but is not other people's problem. That would save any resources for actual defence, ie not attacking other countries as we don't like what they happen to be doing, like Korea and Vietnam, or Iraq. As Britain hasn't been invaded since 1066 I'd say we'd end up saving many billions with that policy alone.

To summarise:

Low taxes
Nationalised services
Cheap fuel and energy
No advantage to any group above others, and large efforts made to maintain this in all areas.
Unrestricted travel
Limited immigration and repatriation for criminals
No warfare outside our own borders, or nuclear weapons
No domination by outside forces through any international agreements
Restrictions on mortgage borrowing
Market manipulation to have an entire department to outlaw and detect
Policies made and decided directly by citizens within a basic constitution
Constitution outlawing any rules to impose additional burdens on citizens
State protection and support for whistleblowers
Honest levels of educational attainment without adjusting any marks upwards
A fixed base for currency
Guaranteed welfare for the sick and unemployed
No protection for criminals carrying out their acts
No personal interests allowed for positions of power in those areas.
Borrowing made virtually impossible and obsolete except for mortgages
The most taxes would be on sales of luxuries which are both optional and affect the richest, unlike fuel at present which has some of the highest levels and hurts the poor the most.
Banks could not gamble with depositor's money, in fact many such derivatives and futures would be banned altogether as they create absolutely nothing but just move the same money around endlessly.

These partly address known issues in today's society I have identified, and basic principles which protect all countries from corruption if applied completely. I have seen many in both situations so know from direct experience the difference from what they have been like in the past. Remember the days when only one partner had to work to afford a house? How can it be better now when in many cases they cost too much for even a couple both working? Remember when the queues were shorter in hospitals and waiting rooms, and roads and pavements were half empty outside city centres? Remember when roads were flat and wide and two cars could pass each other without swerving to avoid council bollards? And regardless of the service, which can be addressed separately, when gas and electricity prices were cut as soon as a certain profit had been reached by law?

I remember all these, and no doubt everyone who either does or would like to would benefit from them again, and it can easily all be done tomorrow if people wanted it.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Why do I do it?

Having had valid comments about the extreme nature of some of my comments, it occurred to me to explain the reasoning behind why I say what I say.

It is divided between observation of where people simply get it wrong and I've seen through it, so need to put things straight in my own small way, and my opinions based on what seems right and natural.

As currently the pendulum has swung left, and for big government and large scale intervention and social engineering, the first point is whose right is it to tell others how to live if it isn't hurting them? They call it equality, but the first principle of equality after every life (including animals) is equal, is no person has the right to impose their wishes on others. Those who govern are employees, and if they get it wrong we get rid of them. Of course where that isn't possible individuals simply take over, but no one would say that was a good thing except their friends and families, we only know this one short visit to life on earth and do not need big headed autocrats putting unnecessary obstacles in any of our paths, much like Camden council's roadblocks in the 70s which have now been copied across Britain, making everyone's journeys harder unanimously. All these rules are nonsense, society simply doesn't have a right to impose its morals on others. Of course the fall of empires in history raised this long ago, so realised while the people generally will not last long under the rule of arbitrary other people, mainly then the aristocracy, they needed something higher, (much like today's global warming), so raised life to a level above humanity (despite having foundations of nothing at all) and if people were pushed into handing over their money and rights it was to a higher form of life, the highest possible, god.

Now more people are gradually dropping their belief for humanism, that only works on the margins, and the rulers need more subtle ways to impose their wishes on who are in all ways their equals (what right does the British royal family have to order us around, or the hereditary peers?). Of course the Parliament Act stopped that centuries ago for that very reason, recognising no one born to a particular family has the right to rule on that basis, but it only meant new ways kept being developed for those who weren't content with their own freedom, but feel they must impose it on others the way they want it.

So when I catalogued the areas which were being used to impose opinions on innocent people, and steal their money and rights, I pointed them out. And as a natural rebel, if anyone makes a rule to stop something harmless or even tasteless but harmless I will do it even more. A comedian was on the radio aplogising for an old programme about spastics, although it was and still is a medical term. Children (and many adults) will by human nature use the words for the disabled as insults, just as with body parts, so call it something else and they will just use them sooner or later. The name is irrelevant, as the British soldiers did when they were told to stop calling the Falklanders Bennys, they called them Stills, as they were Still Bennys. Banning words doesn't change human nature.

Family structure has always been a hot potato since the feminism of the 60s onwards. Back then women were either career women at the top, housewives in the middle, and workers at the bottom, as houses were so cheap the man could usually pay all the bills himself, while the women looked after the children and may work part time if they felt like it. They could have worked full time as no one actually forced them not to, but they chose not to. It was, to use a word the left would love to ban as well, natural. Animals are not told who must look after their children, but it's all arranged worldwide whichever animals we are talking about, some have the whole pack sharing the work, but most it's the mother, look at cats for the best example. So using ethology, extending animal behaviour to human (these lessons always become useful eventually) if animals have a natural family unit, then we can assume as animals so do we.

Multiculturalism is demonstrated worldwide in unimposed ghettoes, little pockets of Somalia, Poland or wherever else has enough new arrivals in an area, and all they do naturally is reproduce the Punjab or Shanghai in their own areas, the longer they remain the more traditional the area becomes as Chinatown or Southall. Then you reach the point where the new culture dominates the area so much the native people feel uncomfortable walking along the street or entering a shop where no one is speaking English, and whether or not genuine feel heads are turning just like when a stranger walks into a Cornish pub.

This simply isn't a political issue, it's almost entirely an economic one. As there is a currency slope between the highest and the lowest, within any country the economic hierarchy is based generally on dividing the limited GDP among the total population, either to a small elite and vast populace in poverty, or a democratic spread. Each country can work to improve the GDP to increase the total pot, but if you just let them commute to the best place and work there freely you'll naturally get the poorest who have the means all move together to the best places to work and live, with the extra bonus of sending money back to the old country to remove any benefits of the host country where it has been earned.

I haven't done a survey, but would expect given the chance the great majority of immigrants would love to return home if they had the same opportunities there, as we are all attached to our roots to some degree. Why on earth would anyone want to integrate, especially first generation? And if religious, the second generation get into great deals of trouble when they do begin to mix with the locals and either have to give in and get back in line or fall out with their families. These pitfalls are almost guaranteed, and can never totally go away, as when the few long term migrants do return home they don't fit in there either as many people see how they've changed and don't fully accept them as they are now.

Economic equality/redistribution is pretty much theft, based on my first principle, no one has the right to tell us how to live our lives if no one else is hurt. People in a single country are all in the same boat more or less, as if a free country the poor can all become rich. They won't but they could. Besides the money needed to run a country, any more than that is sheer theft. Where do you draw a line of 'too much money'? I can only describe people who wish to remove the honestly earned wealth of others for society as being no different from what they just did to the Cypriots, just a sophisticated form of burglary.

But the bottom line underlying all my beliefs is freedom. If something creates an obstacle for freedom in any way, then without an extremely good reason, vital in fact, it should never happen. I see them and call them for what they are. Artificial, totalitarian and entirely unnecessary. I was always aware of these, and fought at school to stop anything I saw as unfair as that was my nature. Since then I've had long enough to identify all the specific areas, and the internet allows me to point them out. And in the style of any rebel, if they've tried to block a word or attitude, I will use it all the more. Not because I want to offend anyone, but because everyone should be free to, and I am.

So those are the motives behind my bad behaviour. I want to release everyone for the same freedom, and to discover we all want the same thing, but just believe there are a million ways of getting it. But most of those are wrong, if they restrict freedoms for no good reason or purpose. Of course if everyone had everyone else's money they'd be better off, but the others who lost it wouldn't. Unless private property is outlawed altogether, something requiring the highest level of totalitarian imposition, the default is your property belongs to you without a damn good reason to share it. That's life, nature and freedom.

Friday, May 17, 2013

Speculation 2013

The no news of 2013 so far. News is similar to fruit, it grows and only falls when ripe, but with the media the difference is they imagine the fruit before it's even budding and go ahead and report before it has even been conceived.

Therefore the vast majority of their reports haven't actually happened, and never will, as Jesus says, withering on the vine. But it never stops people taking as if they already have, and if not are almost bound to. Except the only actual news events in my life and history didn't get followed from their roots and branches to maturity, they just happened suddenly with no expectations or warnings. But the media continue to thrive on nothing, the events they want people to expect which they already know are probably impossible.

2013s are particularly rampant, probably because the only actual news we have is some mad ragheads ripping each other apart in the Middle East, no sorry, we don't have any actual news at all as that's a constant.

 The breakup of the Euro was actually becoming debunked by a few serious commentators, but not before every single country bailed out had been tipped for default, even though there is no mechanism in place to allow one. The built in safety net within the Euro actually informally guarantees a default would be impossible so there is no valid reason to expect one.

This month's special in the US is will Obama be impeached. Why exactly? Because there has been corruption in authority and some ambassadors were killed by terrorists as he didn't protect them? That's business as usual, if that caused impeachment anywhere else half the world would change their leaders every week, and the standards are barely higher in the US any more. And before anyone says 'Nixon', he wasn't impeached, he resigned. Clinton passed his test after doing far more than Obama's been caught doing so far, and that's about it. If anyone's getting impeached we'd know about it.

Will Britain leave the EU? Possibly, but not by a referendum which will never happen, only by UKIP winning a majority. Till then it's business as always.

Global warming. As I said in my previous entry, it isn't even warming any more, while CO2 is at a record level. It can't happen.

France, Spain and Italy are too big to afford a bailout. Well, no one would know till the time, but how could they really collapse?

Italy and Greece will not form a government and be forced to default. That was earlier speculation and proven wrong already.

I'm sure there are more I've missed but you get the formula. They see a situation, imagine the worst possible scenario and push it as the likely outcome which never happens. I'm fed up with it. If there's nothing happening worth reporting then find something else to talk about.

Climate war

This is war, no doubts. The current response to the lack of warming has been to invent new laws of physics to fit them, and raise the predictions for sea level rise, although that isn't happening either.

Normally such actions would only be appropriate in a film, and the audience could all see exactly what was happening. This time the audience are the outsiders, ones who can't see how anyone can believe this crap, while the actors are the masses, the dull and duller of mind who simply accept something as they are told by someone with authority and the figures themselves don't actually register, only their 'effect'.

Can this continue forever? I have no idea. This has never happened before, except in religions. They at least all unanimously agree we must take the concept of God on trust as he doesn't do performances. You have to have faith or you can't have religion. But the climate does do performances, there is no element of faith, unless you switch from what we call 'the real world' to the fantasy geek world of computer gaming, or 'models' as they have been called if the subject is based on the climate. There you write your own laws of physics to suit the game, and this game is hot. If the heat then doesn't arrive you move it somewhere else, this time the deep ocean, where only the binary patterns can see this heat but as the announcement is made by people of authority we must have faith in them and their models, plus none in our own direct observations.

Of course I get frustrated. I never believed more than a few percent of the world were so fucking dim, and now I find below 100 IQ really means that, double digit, half the world, plus a large slice of the slightly above average. If we entered a new ice age they would all wake up, but apart from the genuine death and destruction that would cause it wouldn't happen for millennia. In our lifetimes however what is left to happen for them to realise you can't hide heat in the ocean and not the atmosphere. This theory was cobbled together in weeks to counter the reality that CO2 rises and temperature does not. And of course everyone who was watching their world collapse as their fears and hopes of changing society were slowly being dashed as the inevitable lack of climate response was gradually eroding their ideals. But it never takes long for the 'dog ate my homework' theories to be knocked up, this one being no easier to believe, except from time to time dogs do actually eat homework, but not when you don't have a dog.

So imagine. After 150 or so years of cyclical temperature rises from CO2 (hypothetically), suddenly this heat says 'Hey, let's try the sea, I'm bored with the air and feel like a swim'.

What a fucking liberty.

Guidance report

The guidance in my life recently has been quite amazing. It's present role is to both get me things I couldn't on my own, and show me (and everyone else) it is. And logically it should be for everything else now as well.

Currently a very rare (one I haven't got) road sign turned up in Braintree in March, which has another on the way, and since then I've been working nearly every weekday I would have gone and too tired to go the last two Thursdays when it became possible. So what I did was to use my weekends south of the river to go to Kent as it has more than elsewhere, and began with one in Sissinghurst as having missed the others was worth the distance for a virtual certainty (you never know for sure as they are removed sooner or later). On the way back I found an incredibly rare one I'd never have got otherwise, and as I couldn't get to Essex the following week kept Streetviewing till I found another in Tunbridge Wells. I left my large scale map behind so had to rely on the little roads in the book coming back, as I try and go back a different way to get photos on two sets of roads, turned right at the village I was meant to, and right in front of me was another direction sign, although I'd checked them all for miles around this wasn't near a main junction so had missed it. Had I remembered the map I'd have taken the next road and never known about it.

The following week I kept Streetviewing, nothing new except a mystery warning sign on a stripy pole where I'd been already near Maidstone, so asked around and got no answers and decided to check it just in case, as there were two in Chatham which wasn't too far away if it was cack. It turned out not to even be old or a warning sign, they'd added stripes on a new pole and put a neighbourhood watch sign on it, but had I got word from the locals that week it was I wouldn't have bothered to go, and got nothing. That means instead of getting two signs in Essex and calling it a day, I've got six more and still the two left there. That is a major profit.

Now of course the next level is to both see the guidance everywhere else, and be guided to all my other ambitions. Without a single step being present (around five per visit) I wouldn't have got half of them. When that's not only happened a few times clearly in the past, and then three weeks running it can't really be seen as much else, especially as it's happening all the time to many people around me now as well who call me almost in shock with their own experiences. But to me now it's all become normal, I don't see it as odd, and just science as we don't yet know it.

I have a lot more to add on similar areas, suffice to say I have seen enough now to get what I'd call the big picture, and once someone does then it's valid to comment as if one does. That took me all this time but seems to have completed now.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Facts vs opinions, the details

Following up from my observation the left have hijacked their side of opinions as being the only valid ones I am listing every area where this is the case, to demonstrate how a belief has been attempted to be presented as the only right way things should be.

Gay marriage: The actual reality is it is entirely personal opinion whether marriage is between a man and a woman, in its original sense or more than that. But there is no right answer and never can be as marriage is a totally artificial concept anyhow.

Equality: Who is equal? Every human life. Then every individual has a chance to make something of that life. After that there can never again be equality as each person is unique in their achievements so can never be equal to another, and unless the state removes all their money after a set level, which they have no right to, there can be no financial equality either.

Diversity and multiculturalism: I don't think these existed before maybe the 80s, and if it was fine not to have them before it clearly can be now. Both are false qualities born purely from a narrow ideological band, with absolutely no inherent merit, let alone unique in their correctness for any society. Like maybe Saudi Arabia or Congo who as yet have no plans for either.

The right wing is bad: This is the latest assault on the growing movement against the early 21st century dominance of leftist philosophy. As people gradually get fed up with it the old guard simply heap playground insult after insult on them, as all they have are their emotions and no actual basis otherwise for their personal views. But to the left, there is no other correct view, these are not opinions, they are right and everything else is wrong, often to the point of them actually recommending the death penalty they normally condemn on the other side, who don't all actually believe in it. But the difference here is they would never use it for a crime, but for holding the wrong opinion. That is psychopathic.

Homosexuality: If you even hint that heterosexuality may be the default position and anything else, including gender confusion, be a diversion, you may be condemned to a curse of death. Daring to look at areas such as nature and parenthood, observing the norm is two parents to bring up their own children gets people labelled as Mengele and Goebbels by the left who think everyone should simply do it their way, except oddly not paedophiles, which goes against their own principles of equality for all. Oh, and incest as far as I know, although both involved would be consenting adults. Maybe that'll be next, it certainly should follow logically now men and women will soon be able to marry each other.

Two parents of two sexes is best: Sometimes the right holds an opinion they feel is fact, this is probably the closest, but based jointly on nature and thousands of years of evidence of children from one parent families suffering and failing later in life. Sorry, but that's how all higher life was designed, don't blame the observer.

Women should work as mothers: This is originally based not on anyone's actual opinion, but the British phenomenon of houses rising from 3-4 times annual income to over ten times. Do the maths, this means on average it needs two incomes to pay for them. Had this never happened most married women would still stay at home as housewives as that was how it worked naturally. They don't like that though, everyone is equal and must do exactly the same as everyone else even when they don't want to.

Women should hold half the jobs in society: One word answer, bollocks.

Everyone is born equally intelligent: Over a hundred years of rigorous scientific experiments have destroyed this from every possible angle, and new DNA mapping is finding more and more traits are genetic. Unfortunately for the wider view, it also applies to different races as well. And that's not opinion, it's simply the same as inheriting within any family. Again, it's an area where they treat your own facts as your opinion as they breach their own opinion of how things should be, which is the entire foundation of leftism. When reality ever disagrees, kill it.

All cultures are equal: Again, history has enough to demonstrate the Indian practices of suttee (killing a widow on the husband's funeral pyre) and thuggee (organised crime gangs), as well as the caste system, female genital mutilation and honour killings elsewhere are pure savagery, and all serious crimes in Britain, so why not when people do it as a matter of course elsewhere?

Had I lasted the course and got my master's degree this would have been published as a scientific paper, but as I diverted to another branch I now have to compete with established journalists but only concerned with getting the message out. Once exposed and recognised, these phenomena will die away as go from being implicit to explicit. You can't maintain illusions when exposed.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

The world's biggest intelligence test, failed

I am absolutely amazed and disgusted over the general level of human intelligence I've discovered through the means of global warming. The standards of proof normally required in a court case or scientific experiment have followed the same rules since ancient Greece and Egypt, are documented, taught and known universally, yet have been totally abandoned while the world now heads straight for the dark ages at the hands of those who know better and exploit it.

Originally the media were very clear and simple. They stuck with the headlines. We have put out huge amounts of CO2 which has raised the temperature and will melt the ice and raise the sea levels. Then the internet came along, plus a few more detailed reports, which focussed in far more depth and showed that the one thing we knew was the CO2 level, which has now officially risen around 50%. But the rest of it wasn't quite as clear. The temperature varied depending on who you read, and how it was measured and then adjusted in ways I'm sure even their peers don't always understand. The sea level however was only rising the same amount it had for centuries, around 8 inches a century. That clearly could not be dangerous, as it's always been that way, and has not changed. Working back, if the sea level, far easier to measure and more stable than the rapidly fluctuating temperature, is not actually rising any more, then the two factors required to make it rise, thermal expansion and land ice melting, could not either be increasing any more than normal, ie in the cyclical warming phase between ice ages we have had since the day the earth had an atmosphere, caused by the wobbling orbit and solar changes.

Although many details laid on top of this formula are incredibly complicated this foundation is very simple. The official (not tested in the field as there is no control mechanism, ie a second planet without the CO2 rise to compare it with) figure for existing CO2 at 260ppm added a degree C to the 33C total over deep space. The only reason global warming could be a problem would be if the doubling of CO2, which would happen around 2100 at current rates, added more than 2C, which would require both a rise in humidity from evaporating oceans, and its presence in the atmosphere where it was able to cause a greater greenhouse effect.

It is that simple, and everyone can understand this. Nothing else can be added or taken away from this to alter the outcomes. Unless 2C is reached and breached, according to the experts at the UN, the benefits of warming (greater food production, fewer wars over limited resources, fewer deaths from cold etc) would not be outweighed by the problems, which they do not actually know beyond the rising sea level as there are few historic records to explain possible changes in extreme weather, droughts and floods at such a temperature, ie they don't know.

The great majority of the theory was based not on the risen CO2 or even temperature, but what would happen in 2100, based on the entire potential range of feedback from negative to extreme, offering a range from around 1-6C, with 4 in the middle, way above their safe level. But this was purely speculation, and 20 years after it was made the actual temperature is just below the lowest possible level for 2013 on their diagram and no sign of rising. The experiment they created, doubling CO2 and seeing what happens, is half done, the total rise is 0.8, less the amount from the pre-existing natural rise which is around half that. Therefore doubling CO2 to 520ppm cannot rise above 1.6C even if it were responsible for the entire amount.


There is simply nothing complicated or controversial here. The foundations for the additional academic complexities such as extreme weather changes, water vapour distribution, solar and geological influences etc., are all subsumed by the big picture.  When the scientists constantly present a melting glacier here (some of which turned out to be made up, such as the Himalayas) and a storm there, and then expect everyone to believe it represents dangerous climate changed caused by global warming, they are breaking every rule of their profession and of life itself, yet nearly everyone accepts it. This has demonstrated two things to me, firstly the entire lack of intelligence and logic in the vast majority of people who should have known better, and secondly the entire trust in authority over experts who make mistakes and lie.

This is a dangerous combination indeed and has been fully exploited to its maximum level. I have stripped it apart into its few essential components and hopefully presented it in an accurate but simple enough way it should be impossible to misinterpret. All the claims of dying birds, polar bear migrations and even the latest debacle over the summer Arctic ice melt in 2012-3 are all subsumed by the single linked rise in CO2 and lack of a corresponding rise in temperature. The UN have never either stated a delay in the positive feedback, besides one comment by James Hansen that the ocean may store the heat before releasing it, but that was never expected to be a major factor, or raised a single other issue besides the 2C rise in temperature (such as the incorrectly named 'ocean acidification') as causing the pages of problems listed in their regular reports.

I have checked, double checked and triple checked everything I have written (like the scientists are supposed to, and the media who report them), and cannot see a single thing wrong with it, as these are mainly agreed figures and impossible to refute. Given such a relatively simple equation then with a half-run experiment and corresponding absence of warming, then unless they can find an incredibly original reason to alter their parameters, the 2050 and 2100 projections must be scrapped as they are now impossible to reach. While the scientists are struggling to explain why the temperature is no longer warming or reaching anywhere near the level required to cause a problem in 2100, the temperature continues to do what it does regardless, and diverges further and further from global warming, whether man made or otherwise. And this is before the vast differences in temperature location and adjustment are brought into account, as before adjustment many aren't even showing a rise at all in many places, and needed to be coaxed into performing, so maybe the only man made element of warming is in the alterations to cause it to appear.

Thursday, May 02, 2013

Cyprus, one country which represents the entire world

As Cypriot ministers predictably voted to remain in the Euro this week and accept the bailout the people of the country were destined to an interminable recession, and without even the means to create their own economic policies to deal with it. They will be in debt possibly for generations to come, with no opportunities for more than just subsistence as like any bankrupt anything they do make will simply service their debts.

Of course this didn't have to happen, they only joined the Euro in 2008, and without doing a study on their economic history would be fair to say they were better off the day before they joined than they are now, something which also applies to Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France, at the very least. Being physically joined together reduces the feelings of independence compared to others, although the poorer countries like Ireland and Cyprus who are not joined as they thought as net collectors they would have an endless supply of wealth from those who were better off, kind of like something described as communism. But this communism was different, as it was the short term offer which then saved up the real costs till you were deeply into it and then got hit by the bill plus everything you'd saved with interest. Of course no one, especially such basket cases which would attempt to take advantage of such an opportunity, would ever be able to repay such deliberate Indian gifts, those only offered in return for something back, but have now been put into perpetual serfdom at the feet of the only people who set the EU up for their own interest having failed to complete the task in two world wars by military means, Germany.

Now anyone who ever claims I am exaggerating just imagine had I asked you a month ago if you believed the EU would collect their debts directly from citizen's bank accounts and you (and me actually) would have laughed. I don't see many Cypriots laughing, except the usual politicians who are immune from the internal failure of the economy as they are paid from central funds directly. They don't actually care as a result how the ordinary people suffer, as they get to keep their jobs. But Cyprus and all the other basket cases under lesser but no less restrictive bailouts are all suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, as the only difference between Stalin's Russia, North Korea, Cuba and the EU is EU members can all leave immediately with no notice. But they won't. The creep towards the fourth Reich, Holy Roman Empire, or whatever bastard version of Hitler's view of a 'united Europe' or Nero's or any other tyrant throughout history carrying out the same type of plans, is growing in momentum, and with every deliberate surrender of power to the authority above is speeding up the process for them. None of the countries bailed out have economic independence any more, and although the figures owed probably mean they can't ever pay it all back, would probably keep the rules imposed even if they did manage it. As the purpose wasn't the financial ones, but to impose those rules they wouldn't have managed so easily if they hadn't required bailing out.

Bailing out a country requires you also take over their finances almost completely, to ensure they are directing the majority of their annual income into paying it back. Had these been compulsory I wouldn't be here writing this now as it would be part of the requirements of joining. But these countries all asked for them, knowing although they were under no legal obligations to repay these debts (like Iceland who weren't in the EU so didn't do it) they didn't trust their own people to run their countries so handed them over willingly to the EU instead. One thing the Germans or even the French or Dutch would never do is invade a rogue state within the EU, as look where it got them last time. As Corporal Jones said, 'They don't like it up 'em Mr Mainwaring'. The one thing the Nazis, I mean the EU won't do again is invade any of their neighbours with tanks or bombers. This war is an economic one, as only a few people understand economics but everyone understands an invasion. How many people in the bailed out countries even realise they could leave the Euro/EU and are under little or no obligation should they choose to default and go it alone? But they have become so dependent on their kidnappers that even those who do know are so scared of wiping their own bottoms and not drinking milk from the teats of Brussels they prefer to stay in prison even though the door was never even locked.

We have another episode of the sad state of political choices, from Maastricht to Lisbon, where countries voted time after time not to accept the Lisbon treaty until more money was spent on propaganda till the second or third times they voted the proper way after all. I don't think Britain would have done that, which is why (even though we were promised it) we didn't get a vote, but the rest are not made of such strong stuff and now all see themselves first as Europeans, even though such a place has been created from the rough edges of a much larger set of continents from what was left over. That's hardly a reason to become a single state, especially when made up of more diverse nations, cultures and languages than any other similar area in the world. One example is while Europe unites its member states, recognising on the small scale even almost identical Tweedledum and Tweedledee nations as the Czech Republic and Slovakia are different enough to divide, and other Muslim enclaves such as Bosnia follow their brothers worldwide to ask or fight for independence, while all queuing up for EU membership if not already in, just like Scotland want should they win the vote ahead.

We live in the most exploitative times since the Roman Empire, with what is only a modern revival of the similar culture and plan, albeit with Germany running the show this time but the Italians as always not far behind them with their tongues wedged firmly up their backsides. As always they managed to disappoint the world and form a coalition of the usual suspects, Berlusconi and some other unknown mafia representatives, leaving the relatively sensible and decent (by Italian standards) Beppe Grillo on the sidelines as expected. So Italy now continues to play ball and do Brussels' bidding as fully intended from the start, while France has imposed a 75% tax in its millionaires just to show they have not strayed from the terminally disastrous policies every other country abandoned in the 80s. The rule seems to be have a choice of policies, one the standard establishment world government model, the other closer to freedom, and always choose the wrong one. Of course if they weren't actual choices but foregone conclusions this would explain it far better, as they have to give the impression of independence and choice but are simply doing as they have been ordered.

That makes best sense, we all have a choice of electing new anti-establishment parties, but Stockholm Syndrome combined with total ignorance stops this happening anywhere so far, so people keep bringing in the same rules wherever they are although they are the only ones who do have a choice. If people became educated and realised what is actually being done to them then of course none would vote for tyranny and subjugation, but they don't and they aren't. So Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and who knows who else are one by one falling into the third world, and although they'll still be up the creek for many years regardless, at least they'll be free to find their own ways out. You can't beat independence.