Saturday, October 26, 2013

Ed Miliband, guilty as charged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 50p tax rate made permanent
  • New financial transaction tax
  • Five year plan to remodel the economy by creating a broader industrial base
  • Mutualise Northern Rock
  • Narrow the gap between rich and poor by putting limits on top salaries
  • Graduate tax to enable tuition fees to be scrapped
  • Living wage; right to request flexible working for all workers
  • A third to half of shadow cabinet to be women
  • Against ID cards 
My responses:
  • You cannot tie the hands of future legislators, fail.
  • EU policy already
  • Five year plan? Where did he get that from, USSR? Theirs didn't work though.
  • That'll make a lot of difference without mutualising and reforming the rest of the banking system will it?
  • That's called socialism.
  • It would have the identical result as graduates don't pay up front now, only when they are earning enough, ie it is the same as it was already.
  • The random good idea present in all totalitarian regimes
  • More social engineering and positive discrimination, which is discrimination with a qualifier in front of it.
  • We don't have ID cards anyway?? 
If this is the best positive material he can offer we have nothing at all to gain from his official manifesto, let alone the total magnification of existing atrocities currently present and causing widespread suffering.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Turkeys voting for Christmas

Useful idiots, the term coined as far as I could see from the Russian Communists (it's usually one or the other), those weak minded masses who take on the evil ideas of the ruling class and impose their views on other people even though those rules would wreck their own lives just as much if they were brought in. Fear is the key, you do a Margaret Mead and lie through your teeth for the cause, she was pushing post-normal science with the late Stephen Schneider back in 1974, with the quote:

"What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats"

ie lie to the public and get them to harangue each other. Which has reached its peak in the 21st century. If you removed the imaginary threat, currently global warming, racism, sexism, and all other divide and rule tricks used by the extreme left and right alike, they wouldn't want it either. All these punishments and divisions are to make a world better for the ruling classes alone, not us. Wiping out population in the UN's 'managed depopulation' programme of Agenda 21 doesn't include them. Taking most of what rich people earn doesn't go back to the poor or apply to the rulers, look at the Russian Communist party members if you don't believe that. They had everything the people didn't, and make today's theoretical 1% look like a significant number in comparison.

Look at the aims of Greenpeace, the Socialist Workers, Worker's Revolutionary Party, the liberal left leaders, social workers, the BBC, anyone either part of the establishment or working to impose even worse restrictions on us. I can't imagine a world better for a single person when or if each policy is added, which include:

Banning cars
Making driving restrictions so severe it makes people want to give up their cars
Stopping personal wealth and inheritance
Removing personal property
Banning fossil fuel
Restricting free speech to include causing offence, banning specific words and anything else the government do not want you to say, despite only inciting a crime and lying do any actual harm.
Forced diversity and multiculturalism
Rights for criminals

What sort of life would you get if every single one of these was fully implemented?

Firstly it would be almost impossible to travel quickly or easily (like in Soviet Russia), so people would tend to work and stay near home and gain very little knowledge of the outside world or see their family or friends beyond a few miles away, and restrict everyone's work prospects. People would be given what the state considered adequate, from accommodation to clothing if you remember Chairman Mao. The UN already have plans to remove personal wealth on a worldwide scale by replacing cash with carbon credits, which only last a year. This of course could never have been accepted without the imaginary fear of global warming. Forced diversity has two results, firstly it forces diverse cultures at totally different stages of development and with entirely different values and languages to live on top of each other, as they already do in London, while each coalesces together in local pools and does their best in practice to avoid the others, unless their culture includes stealing from them. Without fossil fuel we would simply revert to times before we had it, with little industry and electricity only for those rich enough to generate their own in the very few other ways which could never run a hospital, so people would not have operations or treatment for many illnesses and again die as they did in the dark ages (ie managed depopulation). Meanwhile those still alive and forced to live alongside Arab, Muslim, African, Pole, Sunni, Shia, Pakistani and English, and that's just in one street, would start turf wars and end up trying to take over each other's territory, as that is the nature of history wherever this has happened and still does in places like Nigeria and Sudan. People could not speak freely in public, like Soviet Russia, and probably not allowed to meet in groups either in case they plotted revolution. Education would almost fall apart altogether (except for the elite), as so many subjects would be banned for one reason or another, and what was taught would be so regulated (like global warming and history) little of value could actually be learned. You could never speak freely, see anyone beyond the travel limitations, get decent healthcare, improve your standard of living very far or have use of much of the technology we now take for granted as they almost all need fossil fuel for production and use.
Protests, which I assume would be inevitable under such conditions, would need to be vigorously dealt with.

So even though these represent the extreme and total enforcement of the green movement, far left and UN, no one affected by a single one would actually have the quality of their lives improved. Global warming alarmists only see it as a sacrifice to save the planet but certainly wouldn't want to give so much up unless they had to (useful idiots), and when their fire engine or ambulance can't get there in time as they can't handle the road humps you lose even more than your enemy the car drivers. They all use computers to spread their propaganda, how long could they last from a solar panel? Anyone who believes in hell can see the comparison I've described, and there is no other way of seeing the results, especially as we have some already now which have spoilt the areas they were implemented in and this is early days. I suspect nearly all the anti car brigade don't drive or can't afford to, so won't make any difference if they stop everyone else. Even the most careful and best intentioned idiot can slip up, so sooner or later your activist of today will say something wrong about disabled lesbians or having too many Bangladeshis living in the garden behind their house. The fact they worked to get these laws won't stop them being punished the same as the enemy who actually freely disagree with gay marriage and immigration without the power of the law to stop them. The schools are already coming to pieces in London with a hundred languages being spoken, often without actual English. If the gypsies now allowed in as it's deemed racist to stop any form of immigration steal they won't care if their victims are PC or not, and if you invited them in personally it won't make you immune from being mugged or raped by organised foreign criminals. I fight for this cause as I can sense the difference between heaven and hell very easily, and if you give up more freedom than any possible benefits I can guarantee you it's wrong.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Read my mind

How do I come to the conclusions I do, as I am sometimes asked, and here are some of the answers. It is a combination of intuition and knowledge, and seeing that information follow what my intuition told me beforehand and confirm it (which it usually does), both tells me how strong and accurate intuition is, and how we need to accept both our own and other people's, as tuning in to feel something which is wrong often comes along long before we have actual material to prove it. Politicians are a well known and good example we can all relate to, and good vehicles to demonstrate it on.

I picked up bad vibes, so bad you could almost see into the dimensions of hell, from Barack Obama, Julia Gillard and Ed Miliband. They are not the same, as all unique individuals, but all filtering the same frequencies out at the other end which in the case of Julia Gillard were actually so strong as to cost her her career. Cats are another example, they don't have any information besides their intuition, yet will accurately pick and choose which visitors or family members to avoid, and which neighbours to visit, sometimes to the extent of leaving home altogether as even when they are still being fed and looked after they don't like you or like someone else better. They know, but they certainly don't understand. This is the mechanism I hook into and want everyone to and to expand, as it is universal but because our education (or un-education in this case) tells us we need actual evidence before we come to a conclusion. But this is a form of evidence simply not recognised by scientific rules and regulations, like so many others.

Nowadays it is also a test to me as well as a protection mechanism, as I tune into the big guys and am rarely wrong after deciding on their vibes, right, wrong, or in the case of someone like David Cameron a combination of both. Julia Gillard, assuming you are familiar with her, is probably the loudest and clearest recent example. Not a single redeeming feature. She was loud, brash, confrontational, spent her speeches personally attacking opposition members and worst of all (like Ken Livingstone and Barack Obama before her) a proven liar. I know most of them do it, but in combination with her abrasive personality, and obsession with misandry from her down the line 70s feminist agenda made her the most obnoxious and least appealing world leader from genuinely compiled election results. I think she's influenced by the New World Order rather than entirely led by it like so many others, as she's too hot headed to be told exactly what to do by anyone if it means giving up her own agenda, but as so much coincided with the NWO anyway she was certainly good to go. But her actual personality led her to fall, as they say, you can and almost guaranteed will be a psychopath at the top, but not if you let it show too much.

Holding Gillard out as the clearest example for most, Ken Livingstone could be seen as one of the same bunch but pre-NWO days, screwing up London entirely on his own will rather than needing to be told. He explained he could lie as he was allowed to, something evil people do, devoid of civil or religious sanctions if there is no penalty for lying he will lie. So saying he would not raise the price or extent of the congestion charge, before doing both, and then saying anyone who got rid of the Routemaster bus was an idiot, and then wiped them out within a few years, was because the system allowed him to change his mind. Moral people would not cheat because they couldn't get into trouble for it because they were brought up properly, but of course many others will take advantage of any liberty to choose between right and wrong as the only penalty they will suffer is a blot on their character. The bible has plenty of good material in it outside the religous guff, and temptation is a biggie. You may be offered untold riches of all sorts, but although you may not suffer directly in this life you've sold your soul to the devil. Ken will now go through the remainder of his life as someone who could have done the right thing but because he was free to choose with no known penalty he chose wrong.

Try it yourself with a public figure you know well. Tune in and simply feel what you get back. I do with Obama and I get a corpse. It's dead, nothing, empty. He repeats what is put in his head and probably doesn't even need to process it. No life, no heart. Get a soulless robot who appears human but is an empty machine to carry out a job with no conscience, thought or question. It's like the real Obama is at home retired playing with his family while the empty clone runs the world. Whether the evil is put in from outside or present is immaterial if the results are carried out regardless of the details. And then my favourite target, extensively covered and possibly even exhausted, Ed Miliband. Like Gillard most people can naturally feel the weakness and inadequacy of every single aspect of the man, besides his ability to cast cheap insults. His actions however are quite the opposite, having been the man to set the fire and then offer to put it out in exchange for the power to do so, like the very cream of psychopaths. How many films have you seen where the hero who rescues the children from the burning building turn out in the end to be the ones who set the fire for the glory, hoping they would never be discovered? But due to his inherent inadequacy, Miliband goes ahead and raises energy prices ad infinitum with his Climate Change Act in 2008, watches as they shoot sky high, and when they reach a point where even the socialist green lobby are aware they have been caused by his policies offers to keep the price down for 20 months if he gets in next time. That's like saying we've demolished your house but will do the decorating cheap when you rebuild it. Thanks a fucking lot Ed, and piss off back to the shadows of politics where you came from.

The major observation here is they don't always do it in the shadows where you have to go back afterwards with a team of dogs and torches to work out what they've done (as in Gillard's current investigation for money laundering and related fraud), but they are so twisted they do it naturally in the open as well. He's far from the first or the last, just the most recent and best example of it, clearly totally in harmony with his entire raison d'etre. He is a demolition man, he does not build, but destroys whatever someone else has done in order to offer to fix it cheap. That is the parasitic bottom feeding scum we get in politics, but in his case even I am totally doubtful anyone would dream of electing him leader and very much doubt he will be there in the position to do so at the next election, as just like Gillard his party can also sense a walking liability and will drop him just in time for the new campaign. David Cameron proves you can sense all the range of the spectrum as well as the dirty bottom. He seems a decent naive solid type, too trusting of the enemy (in the shape of the EU and those like them), but was one of the only leaders to ever veto an EU ruling over a major issue. He didn't have to and no one would have been upset in his party if he hadn't, but unlike Ken Livingstone, he did the right thing regardless of the fact he didn't need to. They are given tests and they pass or fail, but I believe most would be unable to do either at all were it not in their nature, once you know which tests really count as important indicators of them. A normal decent person doesn't promise not to carry out a certain move and do it at all, let alone gloat about it afterwards as Ken makes an entire (ex) career out of. Decent people anywhere in life don't do that, but when a politician does it it's the difference between throwing a stone and dropping a bomb with the damage they cause.

Once you get the hang of it it's second nature. You can't convince other people of your intuition as it's as personal as your other feelings, but this one can be shared by anyone tuned in as you are. You can run tests with photos of strangers and those able to do so will nearly always feel the same things, it's not magic, it's nature.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Ed Miliband represents the world

I am wondering, if like the bright yellow head of a boil represents the epicentre of the infection, Ed Miliband represents the epicentre of the infection which is called 21st century left wing politics. He has a single modus operandi, called 'sabotage'. Listen to every single reply to what the government do. 'Look at the coalition, they've pooed in their pants'. 'My granny could run faster than you' etc. That is his limit and he is incapable of doing better. Of course his recent performance at the conference did nothing to alter this case of arrested capability as someone else wrote it all but he is still the same dangerous bug creeping around ready to infect Britain with an even stronger strain of the 21st century left wing virus than it has already. His sole accidental action which may have averted something probably better not to have happened was entirely on a dishonest personal cause, ie an insider claimed after fully accepting every single condition required to invade Syria he voted against it purely as Jeremy Corbyn (that great friend of everyone and everything Jewish, if by being a friend you mean someone like Saddam Hussein) quietly pointed out if he votes with the coalition he'd never win the election. So by pure chance his own personal ambition averted the biggest potential war in my lifetime.

On the minus side his innate incontinence meant soon afterwards he soiled himself and the carpet by promising a 20 month freeze on energy prices which were only so high because of a law he wrote personally while he was the relevant minister. I genuinely don't believe he could ever actually win an election, but neither do his party so would take a miracle if he's still there when it arrives. On the wider scale I can sort every top politician through experience into the thumbs up or down boxes, and then into individual categories. Ed is actually quite similar to Obama in practice albeit minus the presentation skills which placed Obama at the top of the official pile. Both are empty vessels, while Miliband does appear to be working for himself rather than higher authorities such as David Rockefeller and George Soros, he is an academic socialist in the mould of his father, who has gone the step further to make the changes directly rather than stir up others. But while both their motivations are different their results will be almost identical. They are both totally ruthless, and use every single means within their positions to get exactly what they want, either executive orders or in the British case simply fixing the political market where whichever of the big three parties you vote for they offer the same policies anyway. The Tories moderate the sharpest edges, lobbying to reduce green taxes (with no success as they are in a coalition not working alone) but have done something unheard of under Labour when in power (although they said they'd do it when not) of freezing petrol duty Labour created as the fuel escalator, which does exactly what it says. This tinkering around the margins is as far as it gets in Europe as the EU make the big rules and we just do the equivalent of a local council with the remainder.

Of course like any illusion knowledge is the only solution, which is why I write these. I have had two people say they've learnt from me now after maybe five years at it, which proves it is possible, and know if twenty people read this in a year which is about the average it will be there until BlogSpot take it down and only needs one person with the means to spread it further or actually do something with it to win the war. Like any professional you don't use false modesty when selling yourself or no one will think you can do what you can. I put together the big picture a couple of years ago so now see where every new and old action fits in and how it affects those involved. Obama's debt is a good example. He has roughly doubled the US debt in his five years or so in place, not being American I don't know why he needed it all and what he's spent it on, but he's pretty much done the equivalent of marrying a gold digger and having all your assets stolen or spent by them. He is the Anna Nicole Smith of presidents, hook up with a billionaire and milk as much as you can for your friends and family. Of course there's little evidence she actually did that but I specifically chose to name her as she's dead so can't be defamed. Logical captain. Anyway, whether he spent it on biscuits or weaponry (probably some of both) it's gone, kaput, and not just removed many trillions from the best economy in the world, but saddling them with an open vein for decades at least to tap the economy outside in the future. Imagine buying a house where the debts attach not to the individual but the address (something I heard happens in the odd third world country) and you aren't even allowed to do a check but buy it as a blind auction. The location of America is now a bad property as anyone there is now liable for about $23 trillion and if the interest rates ever go up (which is probably impossible) imagine the effect multiplied at that level.

Keynesian economics is the foundation of economic cancer. The wasting disease, that which diverts all nourishment to the tumour ahead of the body, so the body continues to waste until either the tumour is removed or the body dies. Having your currency debased is still treason as when governments worldwide brought in quantitative easing they quite accurately realise there was no way to prosecute the government for anything so didn't repeal that part of the law. So technically Britain and the USA can both be liable for a treason suit for deliberately reducing the value of their currencies by a policy which increases the cash in the economy without a corresponding increase in capital value (eg the gold standard which made such tricks impossible). The second world war was partly created by quantitative easing, as Germany did it so effectively they got their inflation suddenly in one huge bunch, much like modern day Zimbabwe. Ours is a slower process, but if you insist on sharing the loaf in thinner and thinner slices eventually the people will starve. Janet Yellen is the latest piece in this equation, as is Mark Carney, the respective new leaders of the national banks (except both are private companies). Both have pretty much guaranteed QE will not be tapered and interest rates will remain almost zero as long as people vote the same lots in who will allow it to continue. As a result the prices have all gone up while the wages have not, making the price to earnings average ratio fall closer and closer to basket cases like China (it's growing but it was in the gutter to start with so now on the pavement, which isn't a lot better when you think what lands on that) whose average personal income is still about a seventh of ours. We are heading down with these deliberately genocidal policies while theirs is heading up as among other things (despite the appalling working conditions) they are manufacturing things and using cheap coal power.

Bottom line, if you want to rip the guts out of a successful country but do it so slowly hardly anyone notices till it's finished and you're down the road, out of sight and beyond their reach, that's how to do it. Obama has and still is, while Miliband would if he could but he won't get the chance. But the tragic thing is someone else will instead.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Keeping up to date

Nothing new to teach this month so far, but I do surprise myself sometimes how much material I have put together over 40 years which has now all come together to form a complete picture. Besides spread it as far and wide as I can I can't make people listen or learn but two people I know recently told me I have taught them so will carry on.

Otherwise I am back on the spiritual path, and quantum physics explains it better than any other theory, and means we can tune our brains to extend their spectrum in all senses as there's a lot more there beyond what we currently see, ultimately possible immortality. That's what every teacher says, and all we can do is any exercises we can learn, keep doing them and wait till the third eye or any other door opens. Of course without any results we'd all give up, and I haven't so clearly had a few clues when it cracks open for a few minutes and then slams shut again. But as I've managed a little I know if there's a way to hold that door open the next time I will, and then will be able to see whatever's on the other side and realise we're never alone as all the other life around us will become visible and possibly able to communicate.

Most people I speak to say life is perfectly OK as it is and have no need for more. I stopped finding that many years ago and been looking for it ever since. The next rule is to assume anything's possible, and as I certainly know a couple of things other people say are not possible are then clearly the things others claim which look crazy to me may not be. So I will test each one, and if genuine would add to the totality of life rather than be a diversion from it.

Otherwise the world has changed very little, I expect less and less and see that as a gradual detachment from what can affect me but shouldn't. The last and worst imaginable result would be the rest of my life no different to now (or even worse) in every way. That would be a waste, knowing there could be more and missing it all. I already know the physical things I'm missing and have no way of getting them directly, and have as much or more chance of working for the others. And with them you've got nothing to lose by trying so can always do that whatever else is happening.