Imagine there were two weather forecasts on TV after the news, one for Labour, one for Conservatives. You'd think it was crazy, as it would be. Or a concert of communist music. Politics can creep into everything, probably best demonstrated by Hitler's selection of music by Jew-haters, but in the arts and sciences it is rarely connected or relevant. You can't listen to a piece of classical music and work out the political intent of the writer, even if Hitler chose to select what Germany was permitted to listen to, and the weather will rain equally on the left or right alike.
Strangely within a very short time of Al Gore announcing to the world it was melting, and the only way to stop it was to stop using fossil fuel (and as a result economic production and travelling, as well as heating and power) an initially small section of the extreme left, the green wing so to speak, jumped for joy as suddenly their wishes, previously consigned to the dark corridors of mental wards and obscure council chambers had overnight become mainstream. They knew little or nothing of the climate till then, as they still don't, but they now had the world's powers behind what they had been trying to do (don't ask why, only they can try and tell you) and sod the actual reason, genuine or not.
Then gradually the centre left jumped on the bandwagon, not out of sheer hate for mankind as the Greens, but a sentimental and false caring for others, so much so it allows them to raise the fuel bills so high for old people they die of cold every winter. But when we are talking about science, the temperature, ice cover and sea level are the same as sticking a thermometer up your arse. It doesn't know the intent of the doctor but just measures blindly whether you want one result or another. Technically there is a much room for politics in scientific measurement as music or choosing your wallpaper. So when the left (it's only the left) accuse deniers of global warming (as they so lovingly refer to us) as right wing killers of children, while they appear almost as a united front as left wingers they must also believe in global warming as part of their primary agenda. Fair enough, it attacks both capitalists and capitalism, but it does not make it automatically right. Just because the means to deal with a problem (should it exist) actually coincides with some or all of your wishes does not entitle anyone to use it as a weapon.
It is precisely the politicisation of science which has allowed a new army of activists who know less than a small child about science but a lot about how they want to change the world. As a result any challenge to their plan by the impersonal thermometers and float gauges results in a deeper entrenchment and attack of the enemy whoever they see they are. To them the science has to stay right or their first and probably only chance to impose their wishes on the world will wither on the vine. The sheer power they now hold, having united internationally with the backing of the worlds richest organisations headed by George Soros, David Rockefeller and Al Gore such as MoveOn.org and the Environmental Media Services, all Club of Rome and Bilderberg members, their power has overtaken world politics purely by it's weight and not its quality. The quality weakens year by year as predictions made from past decade to past decade reach maturity and fall away. It is clearly less certain each decade than the one previously, yet they scream louder and louder when we simply read the graphs and notice it.
Politics is not anything more than personal opinion in action. Left or right, free or controlled. At no place in a science degree do they teach any of it, or tell the students certain parts such as the environment are more left wing than say geology. But now they are, and it's a crime against everything in society and history.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
It's normal to them
Thirty years after studying criminology I'd been watching the nature of criminals, mainly as they have become so prevalent in recent years not as individuals, which is fairly constant, but in an organised way, which is not. I applied everything I'd learnt including watching interviews with ex and current criminals, and by far the greatest cause, covering the great majority, is a blind spot, they think what they are doing is normal. This then extends to all irrational and bad behaviour, such as mistreating animals, lying and even simple irrational beliefs all follow the same pattern. However intelligent a person is they still can have blind spots, which are from a combination of immaturity, a weak mind and a prevailing culture such as Islamic Jihadism. So start with the worst, and imagine you have been brought up in Gaza where the teachers tell you Jews and Christians are pigs and dogs and must be killed. Your own morals have not been taught by normal parents and teachers but criminals, so you know nothing different.
Then go to the poor areas of cities where a few career criminals operate and bring along as many of the local kids to help them, and a few continue into a new generation. They do not care about the effect they have on their victims, and the main way people wake up is if it happens to them. But like its close cousin, addiction, people cannot be woken like an alarm clock with rational facts. They are as blind to reason as a blind person is to colours, and unlike most blind people could suddenly see them but only when they shift by themselves. There is little anyone can do until they want to change, but to them it's everyone else who has a problem and there's nothing wrong with them. Whether or not some people will wake up is not relevant, but the phenomenon itself which explains why after seeing all the evidence most people still think global warming will flood the planet in 100 years although they can never know for themselves. It's not complicated, in fact even the climate alarmist scientists don't say it is, they simply say double CO2 and temperatures will rise dangerously. CO2 has risen by 50% and temperatures have done very little, as have all the secondary and tertiary indicators such as sea level and extreme weather events, but as the same scientists haven't changed their minds despite new data then the idiots watching can't use their own minds to follow.
These blind spots are a permanent feature of a young society, as in immature, I can't say if society evolves or stays put and each generation reflects the same features as the last forever, but we can't fix it. All we can do is those not affected can understand those who are and little else. Occasionally a mass intervention will work, but mainly by the use of force, such as the British wiping out suttee and thugee in India, killing widows and gangs of armed robbers. But these sort of things continue in other ways around the world and the recent attack in Nairobi shows a perfect example. Do the terrorists think they've done anything wrong or care about the families left behind after killing people? Of course not. A conscience protects you from such actions, and although all but the most extreme psychopaths have one, they are all selective to some degree. These arseholes had a conscience that related to other Muslims, but no one else. To them they treat other Muslims like humans but not others, while other Muslims only see their own group of Muslims as human and not others. This is the same for muggers, burglars, armed robbers etc, and demonstrated in prison when they all gang up against sex offendors as while one set are happy to injure and kill people to steal from them they do not approve of people having sex without consent. I'm sure the sex offendors don't steal either.
So the nonsensical situation of human growth and weakness can be demonstrated here in all its facets, I don't believe anything less than mass action on a national scale can even scratch the surface, but we can only be aware of why people behave like this and not really expect to be able to change them as they have lost a part of themselves to what religion would call Satan, and their dark side is unable to be accessed by the rest of them, however good, decent or intelligent they may be on every other issue.
Then go to the poor areas of cities where a few career criminals operate and bring along as many of the local kids to help them, and a few continue into a new generation. They do not care about the effect they have on their victims, and the main way people wake up is if it happens to them. But like its close cousin, addiction, people cannot be woken like an alarm clock with rational facts. They are as blind to reason as a blind person is to colours, and unlike most blind people could suddenly see them but only when they shift by themselves. There is little anyone can do until they want to change, but to them it's everyone else who has a problem and there's nothing wrong with them. Whether or not some people will wake up is not relevant, but the phenomenon itself which explains why after seeing all the evidence most people still think global warming will flood the planet in 100 years although they can never know for themselves. It's not complicated, in fact even the climate alarmist scientists don't say it is, they simply say double CO2 and temperatures will rise dangerously. CO2 has risen by 50% and temperatures have done very little, as have all the secondary and tertiary indicators such as sea level and extreme weather events, but as the same scientists haven't changed their minds despite new data then the idiots watching can't use their own minds to follow.
These blind spots are a permanent feature of a young society, as in immature, I can't say if society evolves or stays put and each generation reflects the same features as the last forever, but we can't fix it. All we can do is those not affected can understand those who are and little else. Occasionally a mass intervention will work, but mainly by the use of force, such as the British wiping out suttee and thugee in India, killing widows and gangs of armed robbers. But these sort of things continue in other ways around the world and the recent attack in Nairobi shows a perfect example. Do the terrorists think they've done anything wrong or care about the families left behind after killing people? Of course not. A conscience protects you from such actions, and although all but the most extreme psychopaths have one, they are all selective to some degree. These arseholes had a conscience that related to other Muslims, but no one else. To them they treat other Muslims like humans but not others, while other Muslims only see their own group of Muslims as human and not others. This is the same for muggers, burglars, armed robbers etc, and demonstrated in prison when they all gang up against sex offendors as while one set are happy to injure and kill people to steal from them they do not approve of people having sex without consent. I'm sure the sex offendors don't steal either.
So the nonsensical situation of human growth and weakness can be demonstrated here in all its facets, I don't believe anything less than mass action on a national scale can even scratch the surface, but we can only be aware of why people behave like this and not really expect to be able to change them as they have lost a part of themselves to what religion would call Satan, and their dark side is unable to be accessed by the rest of them, however good, decent or intelligent they may be on every other issue.
21st century politics
I felt like giving up, and then one person said I'd taught her a lot about politics online, followed by a second. I stopped considering giving up as one new person woken up is comparable in educational terms to the raising of Lazarus when it comes to humanity. It simply isn't the norm. The good news is I am now seeing actual media- national TV and papers, sharing my observations on the graft going on in modern politics and how they are seeing through it and exposing it for exactly what it is, rather than the opposite which it claims on the surface, much like artificial sweeteners that taste like dirt and eat you away from inside.
The Australian interview of one of the icons of the Green movement, David Suzuki, was a possible turning point in the 'we've had enough' movement, as when actually questioned on his pet topics came across as an ignorant student activist who wanted to be Jesus. Jesus he ain't, possibly the third handmaiden to Satan on a bad day but Jesus, nope. BBC Question Time now actually has some panellists who disagree with the EU, and may even challenge the mainstream view of global warming if we wait long enough. I get messages from leftist organisations every now and again like Avaaz pleading with me to stop oil production, as many of them genuinely believe the added CO2 will totally screw the climate, you know, like it has already after adding a whole 50% more. Or not. I think that mindset is still the majority, but cracks are now showing, firstly driven by the stubborn force named reality, that which will eventually melt away all illusions like ice in the sun. But the reactions are still as strong as before, although the world is not really warming, the same responses repeat, apparently ad infinitum, although the physical energy of warming has gone the mental processes are still running.
But the general picture, that of a world run generally on a planned long term international arrangement, with more than the sort of evidence of George Soros short selling the pound and breaking an entire economy for a decade or more, taking the entire profit himself, Al Gore becoming a billionaire from selling nothing which he called 'carbon credits', the same 'energy credits' which got the board of Enron jailed for fraud before Clinton legalised it. Had his timing been different the whole thing could have gone down as a ground breaking enterprise to save the planet rather than a bunch of greedy crooks running a company stealing billions. Like Al Gore. No, this circumstantial evidence is overridden by direct statements from the UN, David Rockefeller, the Club of Rome and all the other independent groups made up of the same few hundred world business and political leaders. Including some supposed to be at war with others, with the greatest crime on earth possibly being selling arms to both sides of a war, as you are jointly responsible for all the deaths made possible by you directly. I've addressed all those directly in great detail already, but the picture became clear to me and now I pass it on to others. Like my old college essays, I needn't even provide conclusions, in fact we were discouraged from doing so as they were academic and supposed to be balanced. But if I give the material you can draw your own. Australia have set the precedent this month in voting the first leader in a democratic country who did not believe entirely in global warming. Of course the greens are convulsing over this event, and despite the world level of CO2 rising steadily since the first carbon tax was instituted, believe if they now drop it the world will fall apart as a result. But the leader represents the people, and in Australia they have woken up.
Nobody wants to be cheated, stolen from, lied to and generally treated like dirt. If your governments say they are saving the planet, raising your energy costs and restricting many of your freedoms, had they done exactly the same things with no good reason you'd kick them out if you could and bring in a government who cared about and looked after the people. You need a damn good reason to treat your citizens like dirt, so more effort goes into creating the good reasons to do so (hence the requirement for the regular Bilderberg, Club of Rome and Trilateral Commission etc. meetings). So if you decide (whatever the reasons, as do you ask a mugger why they did it so you can get a better understanding of the situation?) you want to get far more money from the taxpayers than before (although they are meant not to keep the money themselves so why would they?) you can't just do a Henry the 8th (or whichever old king did that sort of thing in the past) and send the bailiffs out to collect it at gunpoint, you need people to believe they need to have it taken. So when you see the beggars on the street, each with a better reason to give to them, a dog, a child, a car that's run out of petrol, they've lost their wallet or whatever, this is the same on a national and international scale, currently named 'carbon taxes'. People regularly do give the man who accosts them (as he did to me but was turned down) saying he needs £5 for the train to take his girlfriend to hospital or whatever, until the second or third time when they realise why is he still there and asking two weeks later when you'd already given it to him? Like paying 20 years of carbon taxes to reduce it (which is totally pointless anyway) and it doesn't, so what do they do but make them even higher even though they've proved over 20 years they don't work. It's no different to an employee taking a day off for his fifth grandma's funeral in a different job where they wouldn't have known about the last four. But we do know in these cases.
I will enclose tonight's example of the fight we have on our hands, as like fleas, when you see one in the house you know you're infested. Here's a big momma of a fat flea.
See, I didn't accost him, I addressed an audience of TV programme watchers, and he challenged me. Besides the personal insult, which compared to 'baby killer' is quite mild, the real killer here was his statement "Global warming needs to be tackled, don't you think?".
Now this breaks every rule, of law, of logic and of life itself. It is a leading question, like '"Have you stopped raping your daughter yet?", and one on a par with "We all hate black people, so...", named a false assumption. No, we don't all hate black people, or all like travelling abroad or going to restaurants. These are advertising and propaganda tricks used to draw weak minded individuals in to their traps. So we have a false premise which he has attempted to force a false conclusion, which when declined resulted in a personal attack.
I don't care about idiots as the world is full of them, look at Kenya this week ripped to pieces by a bunch of Muslim scum. No, not all Muslims are scum, these scum were Muslims, OK? But this idiot is a representative idiot, a sample of world 'useful idiot' opinion driving mainstream politics and opinion, and so severe this particular idiot doesn't even believe it's up for question. Bringing things round nicely in a circle, this particular Richard (make your own jokes folks) echoes the deliberate known ignorance displayed in part one by David Suzuki, who not only should know better but almost certainly does know better (he was a professor you know), while the troops do not, as our friend here Richard, who I guarantee doesn't make a penny from his activism (not like us, we're paid for by big oil of course) but does it as he's been manipulated by crooks like Soros and Suzuki to do so for them.
But we're beginning to come back at them. Watch this space.
The Australian interview of one of the icons of the Green movement, David Suzuki, was a possible turning point in the 'we've had enough' movement, as when actually questioned on his pet topics came across as an ignorant student activist who wanted to be Jesus. Jesus he ain't, possibly the third handmaiden to Satan on a bad day but Jesus, nope. BBC Question Time now actually has some panellists who disagree with the EU, and may even challenge the mainstream view of global warming if we wait long enough. I get messages from leftist organisations every now and again like Avaaz pleading with me to stop oil production, as many of them genuinely believe the added CO2 will totally screw the climate, you know, like it has already after adding a whole 50% more. Or not. I think that mindset is still the majority, but cracks are now showing, firstly driven by the stubborn force named reality, that which will eventually melt away all illusions like ice in the sun. But the reactions are still as strong as before, although the world is not really warming, the same responses repeat, apparently ad infinitum, although the physical energy of warming has gone the mental processes are still running.
But the general picture, that of a world run generally on a planned long term international arrangement, with more than the sort of evidence of George Soros short selling the pound and breaking an entire economy for a decade or more, taking the entire profit himself, Al Gore becoming a billionaire from selling nothing which he called 'carbon credits', the same 'energy credits' which got the board of Enron jailed for fraud before Clinton legalised it. Had his timing been different the whole thing could have gone down as a ground breaking enterprise to save the planet rather than a bunch of greedy crooks running a company stealing billions. Like Al Gore. No, this circumstantial evidence is overridden by direct statements from the UN, David Rockefeller, the Club of Rome and all the other independent groups made up of the same few hundred world business and political leaders. Including some supposed to be at war with others, with the greatest crime on earth possibly being selling arms to both sides of a war, as you are jointly responsible for all the deaths made possible by you directly. I've addressed all those directly in great detail already, but the picture became clear to me and now I pass it on to others. Like my old college essays, I needn't even provide conclusions, in fact we were discouraged from doing so as they were academic and supposed to be balanced. But if I give the material you can draw your own. Australia have set the precedent this month in voting the first leader in a democratic country who did not believe entirely in global warming. Of course the greens are convulsing over this event, and despite the world level of CO2 rising steadily since the first carbon tax was instituted, believe if they now drop it the world will fall apart as a result. But the leader represents the people, and in Australia they have woken up.
Nobody wants to be cheated, stolen from, lied to and generally treated like dirt. If your governments say they are saving the planet, raising your energy costs and restricting many of your freedoms, had they done exactly the same things with no good reason you'd kick them out if you could and bring in a government who cared about and looked after the people. You need a damn good reason to treat your citizens like dirt, so more effort goes into creating the good reasons to do so (hence the requirement for the regular Bilderberg, Club of Rome and Trilateral Commission etc. meetings). So if you decide (whatever the reasons, as do you ask a mugger why they did it so you can get a better understanding of the situation?) you want to get far more money from the taxpayers than before (although they are meant not to keep the money themselves so why would they?) you can't just do a Henry the 8th (or whichever old king did that sort of thing in the past) and send the bailiffs out to collect it at gunpoint, you need people to believe they need to have it taken. So when you see the beggars on the street, each with a better reason to give to them, a dog, a child, a car that's run out of petrol, they've lost their wallet or whatever, this is the same on a national and international scale, currently named 'carbon taxes'. People regularly do give the man who accosts them (as he did to me but was turned down) saying he needs £5 for the train to take his girlfriend to hospital or whatever, until the second or third time when they realise why is he still there and asking two weeks later when you'd already given it to him? Like paying 20 years of carbon taxes to reduce it (which is totally pointless anyway) and it doesn't, so what do they do but make them even higher even though they've proved over 20 years they don't work. It's no different to an employee taking a day off for his fifth grandma's funeral in a different job where they wouldn't have known about the last four. But we do know in these cases.
I will enclose tonight's example of the fight we have on our hands, as like fleas, when you see one in the house you know you're infested. Here's a big momma of a fat flea.
See, I didn't accost him, I addressed an audience of TV programme watchers, and he challenged me. Besides the personal insult, which compared to 'baby killer' is quite mild, the real killer here was his statement "Global warming needs to be tackled, don't you think?".
Now this breaks every rule, of law, of logic and of life itself. It is a leading question, like '"Have you stopped raping your daughter yet?", and one on a par with "We all hate black people, so...", named a false assumption. No, we don't all hate black people, or all like travelling abroad or going to restaurants. These are advertising and propaganda tricks used to draw weak minded individuals in to their traps. So we have a false premise which he has attempted to force a false conclusion, which when declined resulted in a personal attack.
I don't care about idiots as the world is full of them, look at Kenya this week ripped to pieces by a bunch of Muslim scum. No, not all Muslims are scum, these scum were Muslims, OK? But this idiot is a representative idiot, a sample of world 'useful idiot' opinion driving mainstream politics and opinion, and so severe this particular idiot doesn't even believe it's up for question. Bringing things round nicely in a circle, this particular Richard (make your own jokes folks) echoes the deliberate known ignorance displayed in part one by David Suzuki, who not only should know better but almost certainly does know better (he was a professor you know), while the troops do not, as our friend here Richard, who I guarantee doesn't make a penny from his activism (not like us, we're paid for by big oil of course) but does it as he's been manipulated by crooks like Soros and Suzuki to do so for them.
But we're beginning to come back at them. Watch this space.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Everyone's talking about Ed Miliband
Well it is the Labour conference. His speech was fantastic. His policies, apparently, were borrowed from Michael Foot, that great success of a previous leader, and he is still the bastard experiment of merging Mr Bean, Frank Spencer and Rodney the plonker. Policies, speeches or blocking action on Syria, he will still be the harassed man with a little problem who'll fix it in the morning, eh.
From my point of view (I have taught politics so feel reasonably qualified to say so), the Labour (and sadly the once decent Liberal) party conferences hold as much interest to me as which mafia gang gets what in 2013. Are they any different? You decide. Policies are based on ideology. I believe we all want the same things, albeit in different ways, as we are all human, but some don't want others to have it if they don't. Humans can be weak and immature, and the entire left wing is based on childish beliefs that if you have something I want you must have taken it from me. Base an entire powerful movement on such errant nonsense and then get equally half baked twits to vote for them and each country is totally fucked, and anally.
Ed Miliband comes across as so reasonable but look at his record and compare it with today's speech. Energy bills, which he wants to freeze for 20 months, are high because of two main reasons, HIS climate change act which has added 30% and rising faster than the CO2 which it has patently failed to affect, and Tony Blair's decision not to nationalise the public services against his own party's manifesto until he dumped it. Add the fact the regulators Ofgem don't have power on prices and you have a mafia scenario running Britain's power stations. Besides the other policies I can stop there already, as he has taken with two hands and giving back with one. His actions as a minister in the previous government put the prices up as high as they are, and now he says he's freezing (note, not 'reducing' them?). Go fuck yourself Miliband. I can see through you and millions of slowly awakening individuals are beginning to. A caller to LBC last week said (as he has a friend in parliament) although Miliband had sorted out numerous concessions with Cameron to support him invading Syria, the reason he pulled out was Jeremy Corbyn, that great philo-Semite, whispered in his ear that if he voted with the government he'd never be elected. It shows what a thick arse he was if he couldn't quite have worked that out himself, seeing as it lost Blair a vast swathe of supporters after he inexplicably invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. He wanted Syria bombed as much as Cameron and Obama, but in the end Ed looked after Ed, and Assad was saved by pure luck.
You won't see comments like this in the papers as despite many readers agreeing with it the editors would sack anyone running down political leaders based on what they've actually done. They skirt around the policies and compare how much the EU bonds affect the economy in member states compared to what happened under Sarkozy, as if anyone cares or notices, while turds like Miliband are plotting to destroy the country faster than the coalition. The Damian McBride saga continues as if anyone wanted to know, and did one thing only, made his name familiar. What he did, is doing, and wants to do has as much relevance to you and me as whether the family across the road argued over what they would have for breakfast or how long the meetings lasted over the alterations to the latest Southern Region rail timetable. Blair vs Brown? It's happened, it didn't affect anyone directly except the people involved, and the differences between the two governments in reality was simply a question of what your shit smelled like on different days.
I have lived through over fifty years of politics, and followed it gradually for over forty of them. Things were different and although we had a left and right we didn't have the similarities between parties meaning you ended up with virtually the same results whichever one you voted for, especially since the EU started running the show. Nothing was off limits, if a party genuinely believed (as was standard across the board in the 60s) immigration was a privilege and not a right then it was accepted, and when others started questioning it it was still reasonable to have both views represented. Now we have 'givens'- we must have renewable energy, unrestricted immigration, diversity, all extreme left views but mainstream. It could be argued under such circumstances it would barely make any difference if Ed did win the next election as most of the policies he wants are already in place, mostly by EU diktat. But the one difference is he stands for those policies officially, so rather than do a Cameron and say he wants cuts in spending and immigration but still does more of both, Miliband believes in spending and immigration so it is guaranteed. And there are still Tory MPs who do have traditional values and capable of having a little influence around the edges if in power, which technically they are not, as Nick Clegg boasted so nauseatingly in the Liberal conference last week when he listed all the good plans he blocked personally. When a politician gets cheers for what he hasn't done rather than has done the world has come to its political knees at the crotch of the devil. Technically although they wouldn't play together in coalition and slag each other off as if they were Tories, the new Lib Dems are further left than Labour has been since the 70s, so not quite sure what the differences are. The Tories claim to have different policies on a couple of areas but unable to operate them due to the coalition, while spending more than last year and allowing in more immigrants, both of which they could stop.
One good thing about Ed Miliband, much like Julia Gillard before him, it isn't that necessary for people to expose them as they do quite a good job of doing it themselves. You can't say that about many political leaders nowadays.
From my point of view (I have taught politics so feel reasonably qualified to say so), the Labour (and sadly the once decent Liberal) party conferences hold as much interest to me as which mafia gang gets what in 2013. Are they any different? You decide. Policies are based on ideology. I believe we all want the same things, albeit in different ways, as we are all human, but some don't want others to have it if they don't. Humans can be weak and immature, and the entire left wing is based on childish beliefs that if you have something I want you must have taken it from me. Base an entire powerful movement on such errant nonsense and then get equally half baked twits to vote for them and each country is totally fucked, and anally.
Ed Miliband comes across as so reasonable but look at his record and compare it with today's speech. Energy bills, which he wants to freeze for 20 months, are high because of two main reasons, HIS climate change act which has added 30% and rising faster than the CO2 which it has patently failed to affect, and Tony Blair's decision not to nationalise the public services against his own party's manifesto until he dumped it. Add the fact the regulators Ofgem don't have power on prices and you have a mafia scenario running Britain's power stations. Besides the other policies I can stop there already, as he has taken with two hands and giving back with one. His actions as a minister in the previous government put the prices up as high as they are, and now he says he's freezing (note, not 'reducing' them?). Go fuck yourself Miliband. I can see through you and millions of slowly awakening individuals are beginning to. A caller to LBC last week said (as he has a friend in parliament) although Miliband had sorted out numerous concessions with Cameron to support him invading Syria, the reason he pulled out was Jeremy Corbyn, that great philo-Semite, whispered in his ear that if he voted with the government he'd never be elected. It shows what a thick arse he was if he couldn't quite have worked that out himself, seeing as it lost Blair a vast swathe of supporters after he inexplicably invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. He wanted Syria bombed as much as Cameron and Obama, but in the end Ed looked after Ed, and Assad was saved by pure luck.
You won't see comments like this in the papers as despite many readers agreeing with it the editors would sack anyone running down political leaders based on what they've actually done. They skirt around the policies and compare how much the EU bonds affect the economy in member states compared to what happened under Sarkozy, as if anyone cares or notices, while turds like Miliband are plotting to destroy the country faster than the coalition. The Damian McBride saga continues as if anyone wanted to know, and did one thing only, made his name familiar. What he did, is doing, and wants to do has as much relevance to you and me as whether the family across the road argued over what they would have for breakfast or how long the meetings lasted over the alterations to the latest Southern Region rail timetable. Blair vs Brown? It's happened, it didn't affect anyone directly except the people involved, and the differences between the two governments in reality was simply a question of what your shit smelled like on different days.
I have lived through over fifty years of politics, and followed it gradually for over forty of them. Things were different and although we had a left and right we didn't have the similarities between parties meaning you ended up with virtually the same results whichever one you voted for, especially since the EU started running the show. Nothing was off limits, if a party genuinely believed (as was standard across the board in the 60s) immigration was a privilege and not a right then it was accepted, and when others started questioning it it was still reasonable to have both views represented. Now we have 'givens'- we must have renewable energy, unrestricted immigration, diversity, all extreme left views but mainstream. It could be argued under such circumstances it would barely make any difference if Ed did win the next election as most of the policies he wants are already in place, mostly by EU diktat. But the one difference is he stands for those policies officially, so rather than do a Cameron and say he wants cuts in spending and immigration but still does more of both, Miliband believes in spending and immigration so it is guaranteed. And there are still Tory MPs who do have traditional values and capable of having a little influence around the edges if in power, which technically they are not, as Nick Clegg boasted so nauseatingly in the Liberal conference last week when he listed all the good plans he blocked personally. When a politician gets cheers for what he hasn't done rather than has done the world has come to its political knees at the crotch of the devil. Technically although they wouldn't play together in coalition and slag each other off as if they were Tories, the new Lib Dems are further left than Labour has been since the 70s, so not quite sure what the differences are. The Tories claim to have different policies on a couple of areas but unable to operate them due to the coalition, while spending more than last year and allowing in more immigrants, both of which they could stop.
One good thing about Ed Miliband, much like Julia Gillard before him, it isn't that necessary for people to expose them as they do quite a good job of doing it themselves. You can't say that about many political leaders nowadays.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Newcastle is hideously white, so we've been told.
Real life forces me to respond, and this phrase 'Hideously white' has now become a mainstream meme, having been mentioned on the radio yet again, proving it wasn't just one isolated BBC journalist's personal wet dream, but their entire mindset. Now if you go to Newcastle, as they did, and report it's 'Hideously White' then for a start that is insulting white people is it not? Had he visited Lagos or Nairobi and reported they were 'Hideously Black' he'd not only never appeared on British TV again but probably been found at the bottom of a river somewhere.
But the attitude which is behind this truly evil phrase is what is really worrying. If a white racist (as I'm sure many have in the past) described either an area in their own white country or that of any black country as 'Hideously Black' any non-racist would have instantly rung the racism bell and ostracised them, yet middle class white media hacks and their black followers now use the term as if it is just not offensive but actually gospel. This means that certainly white culture is seen by them as somehow wrong or inferior at the very least, so needs some black, brown and yellow mixed in otherwise it's clearly an empty and worthless culture.
That's fine if that really is what they believe, but no one can be a hypocrite, so a principle has to be universal otherwise it is racist against the white race they have so far exclusively picked on as inferior. To be truly inclusive and genuine they must insist every city in the world is not hideously black, brown and yellow, and insist the governments there attract as many immigrants to remedy this as we have in Britain. If not then they're no less racist than the (sorry to mention them but it's true) Nazis. Divide and rule, the Jews have ruined the economy, the final solution is to eliminate the Jews. This is continued by Al Qaeda, as once Hamas for example, if you read their constitution, expel the Jews from Israel they will not stop but pursue them across the world. Jews do not belong in the Global Caliphate.
If anyone wants to play race cards, and accuse anyone of being a racist for condemning the actions of anyone not white for doing things which are either against the criminal or moral law, then they are putting their rights above those of the whites, and forcing other whites to either attack or defend them in the classic divide and rule programme, getting the useful white idiots to perpetrate the division by calling on their white brothers and sisters every time they see a hint of racism. But they can direct it against whites and that's OK. What was the question again?
But the attitude which is behind this truly evil phrase is what is really worrying. If a white racist (as I'm sure many have in the past) described either an area in their own white country or that of any black country as 'Hideously Black' any non-racist would have instantly rung the racism bell and ostracised them, yet middle class white media hacks and their black followers now use the term as if it is just not offensive but actually gospel. This means that certainly white culture is seen by them as somehow wrong or inferior at the very least, so needs some black, brown and yellow mixed in otherwise it's clearly an empty and worthless culture.
That's fine if that really is what they believe, but no one can be a hypocrite, so a principle has to be universal otherwise it is racist against the white race they have so far exclusively picked on as inferior. To be truly inclusive and genuine they must insist every city in the world is not hideously black, brown and yellow, and insist the governments there attract as many immigrants to remedy this as we have in Britain. If not then they're no less racist than the (sorry to mention them but it's true) Nazis. Divide and rule, the Jews have ruined the economy, the final solution is to eliminate the Jews. This is continued by Al Qaeda, as once Hamas for example, if you read their constitution, expel the Jews from Israel they will not stop but pursue them across the world. Jews do not belong in the Global Caliphate.
If anyone wants to play race cards, and accuse anyone of being a racist for condemning the actions of anyone not white for doing things which are either against the criminal or moral law, then they are putting their rights above those of the whites, and forcing other whites to either attack or defend them in the classic divide and rule programme, getting the useful white idiots to perpetrate the division by calling on their white brothers and sisters every time they see a hint of racism. But they can direct it against whites and that's OK. What was the question again?
Sunday, September 08, 2013
Logic has left the building
Yesterday I saw a post by Ed Asner (Lou Grant) who claimed Hollywood weren't challenging Obama's threats to Syria in case they looked racist. Now here's the best example of many previous of how half or so of mankind has lost its mind in the 21st century while the uninfected look on powerless.
Barack Obama is indeed partly black, no doubt about that. So was Idi Amin and so is Robert Mugabe. So is Herman Cain. Now when Julia Gillard got bollockings for being not female but an absolute total bitch she blamed it on her gender. Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and Benazir Bhutto however got on with their jobs and were treated with the respect they deserved, even when people disagreed with their policies. Herman Cain is all black, unlike Obama, and Republican. He was popular, honest and decent, and as a result had his character smeared not because he was black but because he was a potential challenge to Obama.
Since when (I'd say the mid 70's) did race and gender been more important than who someone is and what they have done and can do? Should someone's identity be more important than their character and ability, and if so why? I find this one of the many questions without an answer. But where the brains have totally vanished is where apparently normal people only see race and gender and very little else. If a black leader does something wrong then is this less able to challenge than anyone else? Isn't everyone supposed to be equal under the law, and under the left isn't everyone equal? So by favouring ethnic groups and women where is the justice there? Positive discrimination is only positive against the small groups favoured and negative against everyone else, as is negative discrimination positive for a small group, ie there is absolutely no difference between the two is there? If anyone is treated worse then sort it out, but don't raise them above everyone else as some sort of punishment for putting them down originally.
In the end people are people, and picking on the obvious qualities you can see to sort them into favoured categories is no different from any other form of nepotism or at the extreme level apartheid. Does it really make any difference if the victims are white and male or black and female? If someone is favoured then the others are all victims. Switching your discrimination from black to white or female to male is no different and no better but that is exactly what today's left are doing, Labour are now promoting positive ethnic discrimination in the public sector after they brought them here in the first place and most fell to the lower levels by what would normally be called 'the free market system'. Poke around with that and you are throwing stones into the machinery and tying the hands of the economy and society.
If anyone still doesn't get me, I will tell a short story from a recent TV programme. A police car stopped another for doing something dubious and the driver, as around half do, said 'You only stopped me as I'm black' (the race card seems to be one of the most powerful since the Masonic handshake) to which the policeman replied ''Sir, we were behind you and it is dark, we couldn't see who the driver was until you got out'.
QED
Barack Obama is indeed partly black, no doubt about that. So was Idi Amin and so is Robert Mugabe. So is Herman Cain. Now when Julia Gillard got bollockings for being not female but an absolute total bitch she blamed it on her gender. Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and Benazir Bhutto however got on with their jobs and were treated with the respect they deserved, even when people disagreed with their policies. Herman Cain is all black, unlike Obama, and Republican. He was popular, honest and decent, and as a result had his character smeared not because he was black but because he was a potential challenge to Obama.
Since when (I'd say the mid 70's) did race and gender been more important than who someone is and what they have done and can do? Should someone's identity be more important than their character and ability, and if so why? I find this one of the many questions without an answer. But where the brains have totally vanished is where apparently normal people only see race and gender and very little else. If a black leader does something wrong then is this less able to challenge than anyone else? Isn't everyone supposed to be equal under the law, and under the left isn't everyone equal? So by favouring ethnic groups and women where is the justice there? Positive discrimination is only positive against the small groups favoured and negative against everyone else, as is negative discrimination positive for a small group, ie there is absolutely no difference between the two is there? If anyone is treated worse then sort it out, but don't raise them above everyone else as some sort of punishment for putting them down originally.
In the end people are people, and picking on the obvious qualities you can see to sort them into favoured categories is no different from any other form of nepotism or at the extreme level apartheid. Does it really make any difference if the victims are white and male or black and female? If someone is favoured then the others are all victims. Switching your discrimination from black to white or female to male is no different and no better but that is exactly what today's left are doing, Labour are now promoting positive ethnic discrimination in the public sector after they brought them here in the first place and most fell to the lower levels by what would normally be called 'the free market system'. Poke around with that and you are throwing stones into the machinery and tying the hands of the economy and society.
If anyone still doesn't get me, I will tell a short story from a recent TV programme. A police car stopped another for doing something dubious and the driver, as around half do, said 'You only stopped me as I'm black' (the race card seems to be one of the most powerful since the Masonic handshake) to which the policeman replied ''Sir, we were behind you and it is dark, we couldn't see who the driver was until you got out'.
QED
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Growing up
I have discovered a phenomenon around which explains much of the total mess the world is in, and why I lose so many friends on Facebook and get warnings on forums. There is a simple formula where as we grow up as children we see things as they are presented, and then one by one we may see through the ones which are not behind the façade. This is normal maturation behaviour and expected to be universal, whatever the rate and number of revelations which occur, but the twist in the tail is once I or anyone else works one out, we find it almost impossible to communicate. That was what got me as I didn't see that coming at all. So of course I then come across as patronising, as it means treating people like your children as that is how they are behaving, except like someone else's children who were told not to trust strangers like me. Unless the revelation is either owned by the individual or revealed by authority then no one else has the status to convey it. The basic premise is that we grow up seeing the world in certain ways, and one by one we learn whether each way is genuine or not. That could be something really basic like believing in Father Christmas or that some magic tricks are real and that you can actually win on the stalls along Oxford Street doing find the lady, to realising subtle but equally direct things like high house prices and low interest rates destroy the economy.
Once you discover something was not as it was sold or seemed on the surface you know something new, and something some or most other people do not. That automatically puts you on a level above them and you would think capable of teaching them the same thing rather than hoping they may eventually work it out themselves. But then I came up against the barrier. If I do not have the authority to tell them they will both not accept what I know and more so reject me personally as I have basically called them a fucking idiot in their eyes, so basically it is virtually impossible to convey what one person has worked out to another, on the internet at least. That is what I have explained in today's entry and currently see no solution to it as people have to own their own information, ie work it out for themselves, or hear it from the source itself directly before they believe it. If they are already grown up and do not know then neither of them are likely to happen so they will probably carry the same illusions for the remainder of their lives, vote on them and spread them around others.
I could list a number of examples once I think of them, but far easier just to see one and understand how it represents them all. I was listening to a magician on LBC when I was about 20, who gave a sequence of numbers to pick and then add and divide etc and then he predicted the result when people called. I did a quick 'lateral thinking' formula, starting with the answer and working back to the question, and saw the result was the only possible one whichever numbers you began with (see also Michael Mann's hockey stick diagram for a modern example) so called to expose him. He blew his top and accused me, a 20 year old student, of being a professional magician. I didn't get it as the trick was blindingly obvious and so dead simple I was amazed and shocked no one else had noticed what I had.
Wind forward 30 years or so and I have seen through many similar illusions, but not for entertainment but theft of cash and our freedoms, which the governments and media claim are for our own benefit. In counselling, which is my own profession, we are encouraged not to state what we know which our clients don't as unless we give clues so they can work things out themselves they won't accept any direct challenges, and that's when they are paying us and know we are qualified to do so. This wall is so tough that if you can't tell people the truth as an expert when it applies to their personal life rather than politics or false advertising you can see a deeply primitive survival mechanism which kicks in whenever someone's personal view of the world is challenged. One method used in such denials is 'it's only my opinion', despite low interest rates wrecking the total capital in an economy and wind turbines producing less energy than they cost to build and maintain. These are direct mathematical figures which I have simply discovered and attempted to use to stop what is currently international policy in half the world and being used to rob us all.
Of course I can't give up, I have just stopped engaging individuals online as it doesn't work, but we are the ones losing because of their refusal to listen as the policies based on maintaining illusions are hurting us all and the majorities are voting for them worldwide as they don't know any better and without wanting to be patronising I do because I've taken the trouble to check. It's not my fault other people are so trusting of those who I can prove ten times over would drown their children given the opportunity. So this way unless and until they do they won't believe me. Catch 22, like when the police can't stop threats as someone now apparently has to carry them out before they can do anything (no, making threats is an offence, but the police are selective).
Once you discover something was not as it was sold or seemed on the surface you know something new, and something some or most other people do not. That automatically puts you on a level above them and you would think capable of teaching them the same thing rather than hoping they may eventually work it out themselves. But then I came up against the barrier. If I do not have the authority to tell them they will both not accept what I know and more so reject me personally as I have basically called them a fucking idiot in their eyes, so basically it is virtually impossible to convey what one person has worked out to another, on the internet at least. That is what I have explained in today's entry and currently see no solution to it as people have to own their own information, ie work it out for themselves, or hear it from the source itself directly before they believe it. If they are already grown up and do not know then neither of them are likely to happen so they will probably carry the same illusions for the remainder of their lives, vote on them and spread them around others.
I could list a number of examples once I think of them, but far easier just to see one and understand how it represents them all. I was listening to a magician on LBC when I was about 20, who gave a sequence of numbers to pick and then add and divide etc and then he predicted the result when people called. I did a quick 'lateral thinking' formula, starting with the answer and working back to the question, and saw the result was the only possible one whichever numbers you began with (see also Michael Mann's hockey stick diagram for a modern example) so called to expose him. He blew his top and accused me, a 20 year old student, of being a professional magician. I didn't get it as the trick was blindingly obvious and so dead simple I was amazed and shocked no one else had noticed what I had.
Wind forward 30 years or so and I have seen through many similar illusions, but not for entertainment but theft of cash and our freedoms, which the governments and media claim are for our own benefit. In counselling, which is my own profession, we are encouraged not to state what we know which our clients don't as unless we give clues so they can work things out themselves they won't accept any direct challenges, and that's when they are paying us and know we are qualified to do so. This wall is so tough that if you can't tell people the truth as an expert when it applies to their personal life rather than politics or false advertising you can see a deeply primitive survival mechanism which kicks in whenever someone's personal view of the world is challenged. One method used in such denials is 'it's only my opinion', despite low interest rates wrecking the total capital in an economy and wind turbines producing less energy than they cost to build and maintain. These are direct mathematical figures which I have simply discovered and attempted to use to stop what is currently international policy in half the world and being used to rob us all.
Of course I can't give up, I have just stopped engaging individuals online as it doesn't work, but we are the ones losing because of their refusal to listen as the policies based on maintaining illusions are hurting us all and the majorities are voting for them worldwide as they don't know any better and without wanting to be patronising I do because I've taken the trouble to check. It's not my fault other people are so trusting of those who I can prove ten times over would drown their children given the opportunity. So this way unless and until they do they won't believe me. Catch 22, like when the police can't stop threats as someone now apparently has to carry them out before they can do anything (no, making threats is an offence, but the police are selective).
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
Will it ever change?
I see a constant stream of similar situations, in that they are all the worst possible and seem to be unending. Politically I have never seen anything like it, as presumably things which have been planned for decades and more are all coming together, so of course everything is as bad as it can be as it's all connected. Most people are totally unaware of it, and my first escape route would be when people started to, until enough realised what was being done behind the pathetic pretence of helping the poor, the planet and the people from the enemy. What they miss is the lot who are arranging these policies are their actual enemy, and pretending to be their friend so they can hold on to their power and carry out their wishes which would not actually be possible without people's consent. Their power is the same as the devil, it is entirely based on illusion and lies, and once you see through it then what power can you have?
In no particular order I will list all the current policies, spreading across party lines in my country and possibly yours, as they are being guided by the Rockefeller Foundation and its members and offshoots, officially under the umbrella of the UN and Agenda 21:
Low interest rates: These steal money from savers and pensioners so the bankers can borrow at next to nothing, speculate and force up commodity prices. It lowers the local currency so money flows out of cash into gold and oil etc, the traders buy forward to raise the future prices, and even on a small rise which they have created by quantitative easing, guarantee a permanently on tap of profit from a constant stream of skimmed cash from people's accounts. That's not even one world order, just organised mafia operations as people think their house price (a massive commodity) go up is a good thing. Like they want to pay more for everything else as well. With such a phenomenon as its foundation no wonder everyone is falling for the lot.
Multiculturalism: One day Adolf Hitler woke up and said 'Why not do the exact opposite of my original policy, not in Germany but the rest of Europe, and spread their societies with as many different races, religions and cultures as possible.' As a result the poorer countries will have as many leave as can manage it, crashing the resources of the richer countries as their system struggles to cope with the schools, medical services, roads and water. If you want to wreck and weaken a society to its extreme then allow the population to expand at an unlimited race, fill schools and surgeries with hundreds of languages and watch them try and communicate and teach. Then each group will create entire communities within their adopted country where you can have shops and whole streets where a native person will be stared at as if they are a trespasser, and you will be able to walk for miles and not hear English. Now I don't know who thought this crap up, but as the end result is what I just described, with an increasing birthrate from the 2 children of Europeans to the 4 plus of the third world immigrants. They move as they earn ten times more than before and when their children westernise can be ostracised or worse. The immigrants are no more interested in their host culture as vice versa, and will do their best to maintain their own culture for as many generations as possible and many resist any pressure to not do so.
Global warming: I have already written an entire blog on this, and it represents the 'problem' with the perfect profile to expand the control over others and financial extraction for as many decades until the temperature is evidently no longer rising. By then the damage would already have been done and like the police who tweaked the evidence at Hillsborough from orders from the very top, would all be retired or dead by the time the truth came out. Look at every political party in parliaments worldwide, how many disagree with it? None possibly?
Policy merge: Following the previous point, how many countries in the west (apart from Iceland who are criminals) do not all follow as well as global warming: Keynesian economics- Quantitative easing/low interest rates/increased immigration and multiculturalism- international government taking over from local- travel and transport restrictions (taxes, road narrowing/closures etc)- increased surveillance and other restrictions supposedly against terrorism and general crime- political correctness including outlawing any words not approved of- positive discrimination for ethnic groups and women- laws against causing offence-
These are already in place across the EU and Australia, and Obama is gradually forcing them on what was officially against the constitution in many cases. If you haven't got them yet then watch out to see them coming.
Debt as growth: Look at the changes made in finance since the credit crash. There haven't been many. Banks still are allowed to gamble with depositor's money and where banks can no longer afford to lend on massive mortgages to people who can't afford them the government are giving them the money to do so, after the US, Spain and Ireland (at the very least) managed to crash the western economy by doing it the last time, selling on the debts hidden in AAA rated structured financial instruments, and then running away to hear the bang from a distance when it all blew up, having taken the fees for setting up the bogus mortgages and left others holding them when they went rotten. As a result British house prices have hit record highs again, fuelled by a few million more people ramping up the demand. If you believe shanty towns are a third world phenomenon then look at an aerial view of Slough and Southall and you will see most gardens have shanties built housing illegal immigrants which the councils all know about, and the only time they 'do anything about it' they use a law which means they give the landlords notice so the illegals can be out the day the call and back the following day when the property has been certified clean. The councils can't work against the UN ICLEI rules so although technically there are still many classes of immigrants who are illegal they can't in practice send many back, which is why immigration officers let nearly all the ones they find go and tell them to turn themselves in to the Home Office, which of course they all do the following day...
Travel restrictions: Apart from the incredible taxes on fuel and travel, our roads are becoming deliberately engineered (Transport for London have now admitted it as an official policy, part of EU directives and no doubt based on Agenda 21) to make it harder and harder to use, to eventually put people off it altogether, in readiness for EU plans to ban cars by 2050. Now 2050 may be a heck of a long way off if they were telling the truth, despite being a plan akin to killing the first born, but Paris has already banned older cars and London older commercial vehicles, so the ban will not be sudden or people may notice and object, but they do it so gradually then by the time the announcement is made to finish the job there will be so few people allowed to drive already it will become normal.
The accusations, all genuine, against the Soviet Union, China and Cuba have not been quashed by the west where in one case they have broken their hold on the area, but instead adopted and westernised as we know enough about totalitarian empires to reject them directly, and too sophisticated for our own governments to take over in the same way outside the democratic system. So instead they bring in a little here and a little there and anyone who has it pointed out to them will repeat the official reason they have to do it and tell you to go fuck yourself as an enemy of the state. They certainly have to me, and accused me many times of murdering people who haven't even been born yet. Imagine reading that in a novel and being expected to believe it could really happen.
So rather than see the breakup of the Soviet Union who we heard on short wave radio for decades lying to the world and their own people, who before the internet were only allowed the news from the state agency Pravda (truth, always use the opposite term to what you mean in politics), the west has westernised their methods and brought them fully up to date to go over the heads of 90% of citizens who do not believe it is possible for an entire government to conspire against its own people, unlike the Nazis or Russians did in their own lifetimes. The old conundrum it's only foreigners who behave like despotic crooks will always allow home governments to do so subtlely as their own citizens only believe someone else capable of it. Even as close as France and Italy, where the greatest economic producer is the mafia, the French would always say it wasn't possible there. Or in Switzerland (ha ha). The fact the borders are only partly relevant, as these leaders all meet on a regular basis to share dirty jokes and a booze up, apparently, which while the masses think they are helping solve the economic problems which a) wouldn't have existed at all had they not had such meetings in the past which created them and b) if they really were meeting to do that then why are they all getting worse? Which means basically they are all setting up such international atrocities which need to be organised to properly work and not allow an escape anywhere else to avoid it.
The normal law of dialectics or anything else where natural phases overtake anything in life means these phases go in a wave where they peak, enough people notice them and by the very awareness they must fall and go away again. I am waiting for this to happen now but not holding my breath as despite a massive increase in evidence and restrictions most people either do not notice it, certainly would never understand the entire picture even if they made an hour long documentary where David Rockefeller and George Soros explained it with the use of muppets. The few laws they don't like get excused by any reasons they offer, we need immigrants to pay our pensions (they will also get old and need pensions, and there will be a few million more by then) and ban cars to stop global warming as well as stopping cheap energy. And of course you must make it easier to borrow in an economy which is only in the worst recession since the 20s caused by borrowing too much. But if people are too stupid to see it then they will continue to do it till they cross whatever line it takes by which time everything will have been lost anyway so it really won't matter when they realise they've been totally screwed as once they do they won't then get it back will they?
In no particular order I will list all the current policies, spreading across party lines in my country and possibly yours, as they are being guided by the Rockefeller Foundation and its members and offshoots, officially under the umbrella of the UN and Agenda 21:
Low interest rates: These steal money from savers and pensioners so the bankers can borrow at next to nothing, speculate and force up commodity prices. It lowers the local currency so money flows out of cash into gold and oil etc, the traders buy forward to raise the future prices, and even on a small rise which they have created by quantitative easing, guarantee a permanently on tap of profit from a constant stream of skimmed cash from people's accounts. That's not even one world order, just organised mafia operations as people think their house price (a massive commodity) go up is a good thing. Like they want to pay more for everything else as well. With such a phenomenon as its foundation no wonder everyone is falling for the lot.
Multiculturalism: One day Adolf Hitler woke up and said 'Why not do the exact opposite of my original policy, not in Germany but the rest of Europe, and spread their societies with as many different races, religions and cultures as possible.' As a result the poorer countries will have as many leave as can manage it, crashing the resources of the richer countries as their system struggles to cope with the schools, medical services, roads and water. If you want to wreck and weaken a society to its extreme then allow the population to expand at an unlimited race, fill schools and surgeries with hundreds of languages and watch them try and communicate and teach. Then each group will create entire communities within their adopted country where you can have shops and whole streets where a native person will be stared at as if they are a trespasser, and you will be able to walk for miles and not hear English. Now I don't know who thought this crap up, but as the end result is what I just described, with an increasing birthrate from the 2 children of Europeans to the 4 plus of the third world immigrants. They move as they earn ten times more than before and when their children westernise can be ostracised or worse. The immigrants are no more interested in their host culture as vice versa, and will do their best to maintain their own culture for as many generations as possible and many resist any pressure to not do so.
Global warming: I have already written an entire blog on this, and it represents the 'problem' with the perfect profile to expand the control over others and financial extraction for as many decades until the temperature is evidently no longer rising. By then the damage would already have been done and like the police who tweaked the evidence at Hillsborough from orders from the very top, would all be retired or dead by the time the truth came out. Look at every political party in parliaments worldwide, how many disagree with it? None possibly?
Policy merge: Following the previous point, how many countries in the west (apart from Iceland who are criminals) do not all follow as well as global warming: Keynesian economics- Quantitative easing/low interest rates/increased immigration and multiculturalism- international government taking over from local- travel and transport restrictions (taxes, road narrowing/closures etc)- increased surveillance and other restrictions supposedly against terrorism and general crime- political correctness including outlawing any words not approved of- positive discrimination for ethnic groups and women- laws against causing offence-
These are already in place across the EU and Australia, and Obama is gradually forcing them on what was officially against the constitution in many cases. If you haven't got them yet then watch out to see them coming.
Debt as growth: Look at the changes made in finance since the credit crash. There haven't been many. Banks still are allowed to gamble with depositor's money and where banks can no longer afford to lend on massive mortgages to people who can't afford them the government are giving them the money to do so, after the US, Spain and Ireland (at the very least) managed to crash the western economy by doing it the last time, selling on the debts hidden in AAA rated structured financial instruments, and then running away to hear the bang from a distance when it all blew up, having taken the fees for setting up the bogus mortgages and left others holding them when they went rotten. As a result British house prices have hit record highs again, fuelled by a few million more people ramping up the demand. If you believe shanty towns are a third world phenomenon then look at an aerial view of Slough and Southall and you will see most gardens have shanties built housing illegal immigrants which the councils all know about, and the only time they 'do anything about it' they use a law which means they give the landlords notice so the illegals can be out the day the call and back the following day when the property has been certified clean. The councils can't work against the UN ICLEI rules so although technically there are still many classes of immigrants who are illegal they can't in practice send many back, which is why immigration officers let nearly all the ones they find go and tell them to turn themselves in to the Home Office, which of course they all do the following day...
Travel restrictions: Apart from the incredible taxes on fuel and travel, our roads are becoming deliberately engineered (Transport for London have now admitted it as an official policy, part of EU directives and no doubt based on Agenda 21) to make it harder and harder to use, to eventually put people off it altogether, in readiness for EU plans to ban cars by 2050. Now 2050 may be a heck of a long way off if they were telling the truth, despite being a plan akin to killing the first born, but Paris has already banned older cars and London older commercial vehicles, so the ban will not be sudden or people may notice and object, but they do it so gradually then by the time the announcement is made to finish the job there will be so few people allowed to drive already it will become normal.
The accusations, all genuine, against the Soviet Union, China and Cuba have not been quashed by the west where in one case they have broken their hold on the area, but instead adopted and westernised as we know enough about totalitarian empires to reject them directly, and too sophisticated for our own governments to take over in the same way outside the democratic system. So instead they bring in a little here and a little there and anyone who has it pointed out to them will repeat the official reason they have to do it and tell you to go fuck yourself as an enemy of the state. They certainly have to me, and accused me many times of murdering people who haven't even been born yet. Imagine reading that in a novel and being expected to believe it could really happen.
So rather than see the breakup of the Soviet Union who we heard on short wave radio for decades lying to the world and their own people, who before the internet were only allowed the news from the state agency Pravda (truth, always use the opposite term to what you mean in politics), the west has westernised their methods and brought them fully up to date to go over the heads of 90% of citizens who do not believe it is possible for an entire government to conspire against its own people, unlike the Nazis or Russians did in their own lifetimes. The old conundrum it's only foreigners who behave like despotic crooks will always allow home governments to do so subtlely as their own citizens only believe someone else capable of it. Even as close as France and Italy, where the greatest economic producer is the mafia, the French would always say it wasn't possible there. Or in Switzerland (ha ha). The fact the borders are only partly relevant, as these leaders all meet on a regular basis to share dirty jokes and a booze up, apparently, which while the masses think they are helping solve the economic problems which a) wouldn't have existed at all had they not had such meetings in the past which created them and b) if they really were meeting to do that then why are they all getting worse? Which means basically they are all setting up such international atrocities which need to be organised to properly work and not allow an escape anywhere else to avoid it.
The normal law of dialectics or anything else where natural phases overtake anything in life means these phases go in a wave where they peak, enough people notice them and by the very awareness they must fall and go away again. I am waiting for this to happen now but not holding my breath as despite a massive increase in evidence and restrictions most people either do not notice it, certainly would never understand the entire picture even if they made an hour long documentary where David Rockefeller and George Soros explained it with the use of muppets. The few laws they don't like get excused by any reasons they offer, we need immigrants to pay our pensions (they will also get old and need pensions, and there will be a few million more by then) and ban cars to stop global warming as well as stopping cheap energy. And of course you must make it easier to borrow in an economy which is only in the worst recession since the 20s caused by borrowing too much. But if people are too stupid to see it then they will continue to do it till they cross whatever line it takes by which time everything will have been lost anyway so it really won't matter when they realise they've been totally screwed as once they do they won't then get it back will they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)