Monday, July 29, 2013

Moral relativism is taking over

Don't be concerned with the nature of my examples, but the implications, for that is what this is about, not the merits or otherwise of actual ideas and policies. As many expected, by allowing gay, or 'equal' marriage as some insist on calling it, they have set a model of altering the meaning of known words from the precedent here, and opened the door to new requests from other sexual groups. Now if they actually mean 'equal' marriage then of course it is correct, if homosexuals can marry then why not family members or groups, or any other sexual preference, as under their own philosophy all needs are equal so should be catered for by a fair society.

This is called relativism, where there is no good or bad, but just analyses behaviour as a cultural or personal norm, and within the wider view of liberalism, promotes all versions as equal. The fact the golden rule, treat others as you would wish to yourself, has to go, although in both parts of the bible. As female genital mutilation or worse still honour murders are part of their culture, and some would argue should still be allowed when they leave the countries who either permit rape victims to be stoned to death or actually insist on it. How minds became so twisted they actually wanted to condone savage behaviour by people who would get life imprisonment without the cultural reason for what they do is another issue entirely, and one too late to require analysis as the horse has already bolted and is racing down the motorway at 100mph.

The next question is can these promoters of equality see where their philosophy leads to, and do they care? Can Peter Tatchell, or even David Cameron himself understand if you allow marriage to extend beyond who it was created for, then everyone else not yet included will not just want in but possibly insist on it, as it is, as they rightly point out, equal. Could this extend to criminality? Well, as many acts are either legal or illegal in different places and times, why not? Homosexuality was illegal and still is in some countries, so from their point of view when anyone now suggests this country allow marriage between brothers and sisters or parents and children then that would be no different to the majority of us here than homosexuality is to them. Yet they are all the same thing wherever they are carried out, the only thing which varies is the attitude towards them. Of course relativists condemn the countries where homosexuality is illegal, as it discriminates against different sexualities. They get round paedophilia as they say there isn't consent (although the age varies across nearly every border worldwide, and none at all in a few places last time I checked). So they've carried out a little bit of discrimination unwittingly, as surely if they took their own view genuinely they would have to concede that the age of consent is a totally artificial concept, otherwise like murder or theft it would be the same everywhere.

Unfortunately the liberal brigade don't use a great deal of logic, I suppose otherwise they wouldn't even be liberal, but primarily the childlike emotion where you see poor kids on TV as a child and want to give them the food and money from your own house. It's a valid emotion but hardly a practical one if carried out in such ways. But they continue to retain this view throughout their lives, and manage somehow to dominate politics in many western countries in the 21st century, so one by one every element of life under the golden rule is subject to question if it could be seen to discriminate. That's why we're currently in battle with Europe over giving prisoners votes. They didn't respect others' rights so they lose theirs, fair? Not according to the moral relativists. So when they've done their time if allowed the vote, then of course they should never be penalised ever again for what they've done. There should then be no entry on a job application for a criminal record, let alone a criminal record at all, as once they'd been punished surely keeping it on their record would breach their human rights? This attitude has already led to burglars being able to take the residents who attacked them (in self defence) to court and win, and these are not accidental anomalies, but the first steps of relativism becoming law in modern society.

It's really the thinking that's at fault here. If you take any principle and apply it above all others, all details and subtleties are lost. Equality isn't even necessarily a valid concept. Each person is of course of equal value, but even though I personally believe all lives are of equal value (unless they put ours at threat) many people kill animals for pleasure or just because they get in their way. Or unborn children, who are human and alive, and if anyone wants to question me then answer why so many aborted foetuses are alive when they come out? Treating people equally is perfectly fine if applied sensibly, so if everyone qualified for a job has an equal chance of getting it regardless of race, age or sex then that is sensible. But include convicted criminals and common sense kicks in to play. So far it is winning and it's near on impossible for ex-cons to get work, at least depending on what they did and what they're applying for. Admittedly if someone gave them a job it may deter some of them from committing more crimes, but many criminals had jobs at the time they were committed so hardly universal. Ultimately common sense is what keeps all these policies working, but the emotions and related wishes of the activists who take over power have their view of what must be done and will do it at all costs. I'm very curious to see if even one unwitting liberal breaks rank and is true to their principles when the next deviant group requests equal marriage. It's the ultimate catch 22 of being put in a bin and told to pee in the corner, as if they disagree then they've just admitted gay marriage is not equal as it discriminates against close family members etc, and if they agree everyone else will rip them apart. They are on the verge of being hoisted on their own petard, and the sooner and greater so the better.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

The news is bad, always.

I have decided if there is any guidance from elsewhere I have been trained to see the worst around me, and like the lotus flower floating on the mud, not let it touch me. My mind/ego sees the bad news, and understands exactly why it is happening as a few powerful people are exploiting the weak majority, but I can't do any more than if I tried conversing with the TV. It seems the news is something each person must take their own responsibility for and work it out themselves. If enough did, then it couldn't happen any longer simply as in the democratic parts of the world we can still vote out these lunatics, but only if we understand what they are doing. But it's tough as heck, almost impossible, to share this information, as each person must own it and not able to accept it from others on their own level.

It takes me back to the 70s, when there were some pretty dire economics going on, plus other atrocities like Vietnam and Britain joining the Common Market. Besides suffering the power cuts as we all did the only other part which concerned me was the Common Market as to me (at around 14) it was obvious they'd take over, and 40 years later they have. But nearly all the time I left the room when the news was on, and although I read the paper every day looked for the interesting things rather than bother with the garbage. I was far happier then, and whatever I did have going on in my life overtook whatever was elsewhere. Now I see the list of deliberate acts against humanity, and although the interest rates cut down my personal income by maybe 60-70% so am directly affected the same as anyone part of a massive recession, and pay maybe £1000 extra a year for energy (and then even more for petrol) because of the green taxes, but thank god I still end up with enough. If I didn't I haven't a clue what I'd do, so worries me millions of people who can't afford these extras and has had their lives ruined as a direct result of what can only be described as burglary.

I won't include pages of details here as I've spread them far and wide already, but you just need to accept these points divert billions from normal people to a few, and their excuses how and why they do are so empty anyone with politics O level could see through it. But this is about my own detaching from a constant stream of sewage in the form of political decisions, votes, non-events, muslim fundamentalists taking over yet another country, vast numbers of immigrants packing this country which was already full, massive house prices three times higher in real terms than a few decades ago (one of the benchmarks of third world status few others have spotted), witch hunts against dead celebrities and intelligent people who can work out global warming isn't actually doing anything, basically every time a decision can go one way or another they nearly all follow the same path to hell, presumably as they were planned in advance to do so. But I must stop this being my problem although it costs me maybe £10-15,000 a year minimum, and wrecks many people's lives who can't manage with the lower income and higher costs, but then again in my defence I suspect the majority of these victims have voted for the policies which made them so as they don't know any better and most certainly do not take any notice of me or anyone like me on the internet or further beyond.

I also know that as I live alone and only now have my parents left in my direct family means the news had become a small source of interest, until the supply simply turned rotten. So I did whatever I could to point out it didn't have to be, was either ignored or insulted, and learnt enough now about psychology as a result to see it purely as a set of lessons for myself, and the news and other people the vehicles for it only. I still see these items every day, but besides using them to further my own knowledge and career should someone ever recognise the value of my material and use it where people may take it seriously, if the news is usually bad, then that's the nature of the world and I can only change myself to react differently to it. If I spend even some of the time I spent trying to teach unwilling viewers how they have been shafted thoroughly by people they trusted on meditation I'd probably have double the benefits (almost bugger all) I have from now. But I've been at it over 20 years now one way or another and running out of time so better I pack more work in in case it does help, and the better I become then the less the dreadful world outside will concern me. I've tried the other way and it's sent me back to working on myself and letting everyone else develop at their own rate, even if it means the world will be in a wreck for my remaining time here.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Costs of wind power

Here is a reply I gave to someone suggesting there was some potential in wind turbines. I may add figures later.

The wind output is complicated to work out but starting with the initial cost, new grid and installation that is the financial hole which needs to be filled first. Assuming, like solar panels, they produced a little power, then solar for instance may never pay themselves back simply as the amount they need to return to cover the initial £8000 or so may never be completed as they wear out before that point, even with subsidies which technically do not count as they are money not power.

There is a daily power input for wind turbines which must be subtracted from their output, brakes, heating if icy, and motor to turn and sometimes I hear to start up at all. Then there are the power stations which run in tandem constantly and their costs pretty much cover anything produced per day by the turbines as they cost the same whether drawing the power or not. Maintenance is incredible, especially for offshore which are the highest for anything including oil rigs, and a good deal of the random power they produce daily is lost as it comes at times of low demand. Also they need a member of staff to constantly monitor the peaks as if they don't turn them down they will spike and blow the system which is only a feature of wind and no other forms of generation.

All these factors are a direct consequence of their physical nature so impossible to overcome, besides vastly expensive battery arrays which could hold the meagre amount produced at low demand points for later, but a drop in the ocean. There is absolutely no way round these issues and it is physically impossible to generate constant power or even useful power, while the little generated by offshore costs 12 times the cost of coal.

If I ruled the world

This is just a bit of fun as it's not quite bedtime and there's not much else happening. I know I've done one similar already, but this is based around policies and just explain the reasons why so you don't always think I'm simply mad.

Clearly from my own material the libertarian flag is flown large and proud. The state should protect people from hurting each other and their property, and look after the people unable to look after themselves, ie health and welfare. Otherwise keep the fuck out. Equality is the enemy of libertarianism, as the false concept of everyone being equal means they should live equal regardless of their abilities or circumstances leads to the most interfering possible governments, rearranging every aspect of our lives, even though we employ them to look after us and not create a society they have chosen personally as de facto dictators.

So it would be more a programme of keeping the existing criminal law based solely on the protection principle, and removing the entire sweep of rules designed purely to enforce morals, which outside the protection are totally personal to every individual so can never represent a group of any size. That includes causing offence, as defamation laws protect us from lies, while the other lot stop people speaking the truth.

Then it would be more a matter of dismantling existing rules and regulations which impose on people's lives with no discernible benefit, planning law would be inclusive rather than exclusive, allowing anything unless it could be shown to be far worse on the area than anything else nearby. I would remove all unnecessary restrictions on transport, clearing the roads of humps and chicanes which damage cars and cause accidents, and were only put there in the first place by extremist councils who want to put people off driving altogether, despite the fact buses and ambulances have to use the same roads as well and have caused many deaths directly by slowing down emergency vehicles. I would bring in discretionary speed limits, ie was the car going too fast for the conditions, and only bring in mandatory limits at the highest possible speed as on country roads the speed is still mainly 60mph and no one actually does it on single lane tracks as they don't want to have an accident. The same applies on every other road.

I'd bring in a flat rate tax, as we can spend our own money better than the state, and if set at 30% or lower after a massive personal allowance (to limit poverty to a bare minimum level) it would make everyone better off and circulate money more freely, and have no incentive either to avoid it or send companies abroad to lose it altogether. There would be no taxes on essentials as they are immoral and affect the poor far more than anyone else as they spend far more on food and fuel from the total they own than anyone else.

I would virtually stop immigration (unfortunately many years too late, as it isn't fair to send anyone legal back) as the population density directly affects everyone's quality of life and are also not keeping up with medical and educational services as you can't train up professionals fast enough to keep up, let alone build more schools and hospitals etc, and it is also immoral to import professionals as they then remove them from their own countries where they create a further shortage etc, plus if they can't speak English properly they are just a liability.

I would divert many more resources into preventing institutional fraud, as the biggest loss to an economy is false accounting, fraudulent investment practices, interest rate fixing, monopoly power abuse, price fixing, basically whatever the mafia does and most in the public sector. But reduce the public sector and you also reduce the opportunities to spend our money unwisely as it's someone else's so doesn't matter if you drive 500 miles to by a washer in London for the army at a cost of hundreds of pounds rather than go to the local B&Q, and that was not an isolated example but a typical one as that is how the public sector operates. But they are good at one thing, running public services, the ones where you all get the same thing whoever sells it and there is no opportunity for competition as a result. So water, gas, railways, electricity and phones would return to the public sector simply as we all need them and as essentials (the same principle as tax) can't add profit to the prices as they hit the poor the most.

I would also make welfare benefits universal the same way as flat rate tax, as if you do the accounts, by removing the admin and means tests required, the money saved on staff and premises alone would allow everyone claiming benefits to simply request them, provide a medical certificate or P45 or whatever just to prove they can't work, and get it until they can. If they start work the employer just sends a note to the system and takes them off it, and if they want to earn a bit by themselves to top it up they should be encouraged to as it is adding to the economy. It all evens out in the end.

When applying the limited areas of laws, all would be subject to what is reasonable. Therefore if firemen turned up at a pond and wouldn't save a child as none had the correct training, they would all be prosecuted for manslaughter (much as they would in France). No situations where the consequences of the rules were far worse than the problems they were created to prevent would be left, and all such excuses for not doing one's job would become subject to the law of whatever harm was caused as a consequence as they were just as deliberately causing harm as any other criminal.

I would bring back grammar schools, as once they became comprehensive everyone who could afford it sent their clever kids to private schools at a massive cost and the others had to suffer at the soviet style children farms. Just like raising taxes on public services, the poor lost the most, and like it's recently born cousin, degree charges, again creates a situation where all the best poor students are unlikely to fulfil their potential purely as they can't afford a decent school or now a degree either. Education is for all, just as food, water and energy are, and as such there should be no difference in what people earn as to whether they can have these basic needs fulfilled. The rest which are luxuries are what people can spend their money on, so for example everyone ought to be able to afford to drive, and just  matter if the rich choose a better car, everyone ought to be able to own a property, but the rich can afford better ones etc. So everyone gets the essentials (assuming the country can afford them at all), or as close as possible, and the rest are up to the individuals to spend their extra earnings on.

Of course if I ruled then anyone attempting to punish the rich by taxing them over 50% would be prevented to do so by statute, as this would go against the entire philosophy of libertarianism and one of the worst areas of social engineering, attempting to interfere with our short lives on earth and effectively steal the fruits of one person's efforts simply to give to others, in fact the state, which in the end becomes lost in the system like most money sent abroad for charity. As for the abominations of positive discrimination it would be treated the same as any other loss from discrimination. Women only quotas would be treated just as harshly as racial quotas- how can a specific number of black or Asian people be any better than guaranteeing a certain quota of white people? It is for a free society to allow everyone the equal chance to rise or fall, and deliberately favouring anyone is deliberately discriminating against everyone else, which is not the state's job to do.

If I think of anything else I'll keep adding it.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Why I teach

I just made a list of all the material I've posted in the last week or so, and besides the handful of readers here, most of whom already know what I'm writing, the actual intended purpose of such writings are to inform people of issues which took me decades to work out and put together, and had I set myself up as a lecturer or guru and charged hundreds of pounds for courses (a bit like the even less qualified David Icke for example) putting together all the material I have spent most of my life collecting before finally having enough to share after almost 50 years people should consider it good value for nothing. But that's not how the mind works, if it's free it's worthless so is ignored or worse. But the seeds are planted but only in the 'wise after the event' method, where once what I have said happens people remember me mentioning it and it's too late as it's already happened. The entire purpose of my teaching is to demonstrate how what people in power do and say is actually doing, and that once you know this it's then impossible to fool another person and elect such shits as Kevin Rudd or David Cameron again, least of all Barack Obama who represents the ultimate worst of everything I write about.

People who know me (and a few who don't) blame me for only sitting at home typing and leaving it there, but I remember almost 20 years ago when I spent a small amount publishing a little book and spent the following year carrying them around London's bookshops in a carrier bag until I'd sold the lot mainly on sale or return. Of course the travel costs probably wiped out the small profit I made, which was 'invested' in a series of radio ads, which had a return of 10% of the amount I spent, a lesson I could afford to lose but was doing it to sell as many books as possible rather than make a profit, but making such a loss was not planned in any way. Internet publication covers the worst of both scenarios, the money is spent just the same and all you do is sit at home typing. The tiny door which opened of library lectures could allow me to lecture and then maybe find ways to monetise the system or at least cover my costs (which are almost zero). Then my local library (ie the one with a lecture room) closed down after being there all my life, and that door swung almost shut. But like anything else my strengths are in a few specific areas, and not marketing them. I know some of the top writers worldwide just sit at home typing and earn a fortune, so it is a legitimate job, but they are the same as the successful actors, a handful of a huge set able to do the same thing.

I know exactly what I want from my teaching, a sort of penicillin effect where my little drop of fungus on the bacterial culture of politics starts spreading across the dish and gradually wiping out the infection as others pick it up and pass it on. I know one person can do enough (eg Jesus, although he's not an example I'd want to follow from the legacy he's left behind), but it's not a personal thing as the information should speak for itself. Newspapers regularly publish anonymous articles and no one ever questions the qualifications of the writer as they can only judge the material on its own merits. If it's relevant I mention my own just to raise a little confidence in the readers I haven't just read someone else's blog and copied it over, but did once pass an exam on something similar. But that's only a little icing on the cake as everyone can check information for themselves and shouldn't need to know who wrote what, especially when qualified references are given.

It's usually a long term process where each step ahead is not known till taken, and the ultimate result remains unknown until the very end. Each is a fork in the road, a flow diagram where each attempt can succeed or fail and finishes when the total project either proves utterly fruitless or is accepted into the mainstream. I know the odds quite clearly, but as it costs me nothing and would waste the material otherwise I write it and have learnt now to assume it is wasted except for the few wise after the events I mentioned earlier. I have had a few compliments from people who know this already, for my presentation, but they are not infected so can never be added to the total percentage cured. We need a rough number of the total to lose their hold on the illusion until there aren't enough to maintain it. Therefore it would mean an end to (at the very least):

Artificially low interest rates.
Artificially high house prices.
Belief in global warming with a consequent ending of associated taxes and restrictions.
A belief in the merits of diversity and multiculturalism.
EU membership is worse than being outside it for every country within it except the core (ie Germany and its close allies).

There are many more areas which are more my own preference than right or wrong, so will not extend beyond the knowns, but the amount of money lost already through the myth of global warming has done more to cause world recession than any other factor, probably even more than the dodgy mortgages. For example, why do bankers sell credit cards but don't use them? If you simply use that example and extend it beyond you will have learnt enough to protect you from the majority of crooks masquerading as businessmen and politicians. In politics there is no law of contract, and as a result they can say whatever they like and never be bound by a single word of it. In business there are laws and lawyers paid six figures a year to find ways round them. I can't name my sources but when I say a certain area is corrupt sometimes I have been informed directly, otherwise I wouldn't bother to claim it. The higher you go in authority the more they cheat to get there and stay there, so that is the nature of authority inherently. It's not negative or paranoid, just how it is. It needn't stay like that, as if enough people learn it then it won't be able to continue, which takes us back in a complete circle. Just imagine life with any element the other way round and then see how different life would be with just that one change.

For example, if Cyprus had put two fingers up and the EU and had the balls to leave either the Euro or EU entirely we know they would never have had money taken from the richest people's accounts. If Greece had left the Euro they may not have had a long term recession they are now guaranteed, as their income streams can never meet their long term obligations whatever they think of. In fact, how could any of the suffering countries in the Euro have been worse off outside it? To take it a step beyond, where opinions are included but facts are still the basis, how many murders would London have had without its massive recent immigration, bearing in mind there is a sector of all violent crimes imported which would simply never have existed had Tony Blair and previous governments not invited in the lowest of all parts of societies internationally, as if coming to Britain would cure their ills by improving their environment. Our Barbadian politics lecturer explained that the only reason London's West Indian communities had such a high crime rate (something the government kill themselves to hide, but now possible through Freedom of Information requests) was when they came here originally the ones who were doing well generally had no reason to leave, so the majority were from the existing criminal classes there and simply did what today's Romanians are doing across Europe and spreading their own dirt far and wide as encouraged to do so.

By closing your eyes to ethnic crime you are inviting a burglary, mugging or any other of the direct consequences of open door policies which are sold as a perfect scenario which anyone objecting to must be a racist. Except the thousands of law abiding ethnic minorities and Chris Rock who also object to it. Clearly immigration alone is not the cause, but besides the obvious overcrowding all immigration causes sooner or later, if you look at America and Australia's old rules (before they were hijacked by the UN led left) the slightest dirt on the picture will stop an entire family coming in for a holiday in some cases, let alone residency. That was the old-fashioned default picture, you have a quota of space per year and then made damn sure it was only taken up by the best people. Now it's the exact opposite. In Britain an illegal immigrant is a joke now as when said people are now caught the vast majority are given the number of the nearest Home Office desk and left to vanish in the crowds. The opinion side is secondary but valid, as some people do say they prefer to live among a mixture of nationalities (even though I would bet none had ever spoken to a Somalian where they live) but hippos prefer to live in muddy ponds but I personally would not. And however interesting they may find hearing 100 different languages on the train to work every day they can never avoid the longer queues and fewer available seats which is the inevitable result.

So yes, everyone including me has an opinion, but as my previous entry points out, separate the opinions from the facts as you can't have opinions without knowing the facts. So if Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson (for it was they) have persuaded you to believe black on black crime hasn't made Brent the highest murder borough in Britain and all the people called Mohamed and Hassan convicted of running child sex rings across the country are totally coincidentally Muslim and it could equally have been carried out by any other group, except it wasn't. This is the point where you must use your own minds and learn to work things out yourself and not be taken in by the misleading bullshit. I've shown you how, try it out.

Monday, July 22, 2013

Why there can be no surprises in the EU

Rather than waste everyone's time on an unqualified economic analysis which won't get us very far, I am using the Euro/EU issues as an example of illusory totalitarian politics, that is governments managing policies people would never actually want so need to both cover them up very well and when they are too obvious to hide then lie about their benefits.

The EU and Euro have been growing like a tumour since I was born, enveloping one organ after another who willingly join for entirely selfish reasons, not realising the only people who benefit are the politicians and Germans while the rest are milked dry and kept under iron rule just as if, well, they'd actually won the last war. That should ring an extremely loud bell with anyone old enough to remember, as these buggers will not give up their ambition, and if they couldn't win it the old way as people don't want to be invaded so fought the crap out of them in the last war until they eventually lost, they'll do it politically which 95% of the population appear not to understand. My earlier examples of all the bailed out countries voting to stay in prove my point perfectly, as not a single victim including Cyprus who had their money stolen from them would dream of leaving, and as a therapist seems the same phenomenon as the wives who spend decades with violent husbands for the same reasons, ie ignorance and fear. There's a little fear in those dumb enough to still believe we're avoiding wars by being in the EU, as the results economically have been just as disastrous although there won't be any more bombs and bullets, we've left that to the terrorists now who don't respect EU membership as a reason not to target anywhere. But bombs and bullets in conventional wars are means to an end, so if they can gain that end gradually without a single military act then it doesn't prevent the same results in the end.

My personal issue here is no one under the thumb of the Eurocrats and suffering in their own local ways has to, as it's a choice not by governments but voters, as there can always be a party set up to leave as UKIP have done here and are gaining support. The second way of leaving is being kicked out, which the media claim is possible by defaulting on a debt, which so far does not actually look possible. The reason for that is the Euro came with its own insurance, so by deliberately allowing Greece and all the other piss-poor almost third world states around the edges into the Euro knowing they would be guaranteed to fail, the mechanism was set up beforehand to deal with it. Max Keiser and Vicky Pryce are insiders who don't work for others, and as a result both said there wasn't a single chance of a default a couple of years ago, and since then all that happens is the debts are extended and the countries just go into a deeper recession of choice. The next step is debt pooling, which needs full economic and political union, ie what we'd have had had we lost the war, as Germany is the richest and most powerful EU country by a long way.

So we have Germany making the rules of the EU, bailing them out with longer and longer debts, in exchange for whichever rules they must follow in return. Therefore all talk of a default clearly is unaware of the prior arrangements designed exactly to let these countries bob along the bottom while having their entire wealth slowly drained in the direction of Berlin and Frankfurt, with the French and Italians getting the crumbs as usual to keep them onside. Francois Hollande is a good example, his manifesto included a similar one to the Greeks and the comedian's party in Italy, ie not to follow austerity for debt. Unlike the other countries mentioned Hollande won the election outright, so rather than attempt to hold a coalition to ransom as they couldn't elsewhere with under a quarter of politicians being against austerity, Hollande came across as a full on rebel, brought in his old-fashioned socialist policies straight away as that is what he was elected to do, and so far (ad infinitum) has not upset the EU establishment besides a few rude comments when he was first elected. Now even if he intended to stay in the EU and break their rules, as he claims, that is not possible, demonstrated by France's lack of change since his arrival, as as long as you remain in the EU you do as they say. Like the mafia.

So every few months when one of the indebted countries runs out of cash (anyone can do the accounts, there isn't enough in the world to pay back their total owings, let alone the interest) they simply either make it another few years or (as in the case of Cyprus) take the money directly as you would on a court judgement. If you imagine an undisclosed department whose sole function is to hold the failing economies together by any means possible, then for example in theory should one do so badly even the German people could work out they could never pay the money back today or in 100 years, guess what they'd do. They'd take it over, like a company in administration. If they agree then it would be a quiet handover to the EU, thus creating the first non-national country but a pure EU department, and if not then a little friendly persuasion (at will) wouldn't need a great deal of effort against a country with very little left to fight back. Whether things would reach that point is not known, but if the financial solutions become impossible when maybe Spain or Italy fell (which I also don't believe is possible as they were not part of the plan to do so, but just so bloody useless they fell apart anyway), or the Greeks peed away all the rest of their money so there would never be enough to pay back under any conditions, what else would the EU do about it?

So politically at least I hope the EU and Euro crisis between them have demonstrated that as well as lying to the citizens ("We will never take over any country's criminal laws") ("It is only a trading group") etc., it has systematically arranged things to cause such dire economic problems in countries never qualified to join in the first place that very little if anything is down to chance but all planned in minute detail since the end of the war. Having followed every vote for more power, where countries either needed parliamentary approval or a referendum, would you have expected them to be unanimous? Every parliamentary vote and referendum? I am not including the referendums which were ignored of course, as they didn't have an effect and just retaken to get the result they wanted. Even I don't know how they manage that and would expect Paul McKenna and Derren Brown to be doubtful as well, but they did and they do. Then when you try and work out the reasons the logical answer would be every parliament is so pro-EU then of course they always vote yes to giving them more power, but in many votes they win by one or two votes alone, like the single casting vote of the Speaker to get Britain to accept the Maastricht Treaty (followed by the simple welshing on the promise for a vote on the last one in Lisbon). Having the advantage of having studied EU law I know the official lines here, and had they been in the form of a proper constitution I would not be writing this here now, as not imposing on national criminal law would have been binding, but try advertising something in Imperial measures and not getting a criminal record.

So the basic point of this is to demonstrate how there are no surprises in the EU as whatever has happened has been arranged, and whatever could happen has solutions in place, and are means to the ends of greater power under the Hegelian dialectic, creating a problem to make the people vote for the solution you wanted which they wouldn't have voted for otherwise, in this case making the bailout requirements so high they'd need debt pooling, which in turn needs a federal Europe, which coincidentally and unofficially (at the start anyway) would be led by, er, Germany. Mein Kampf indeed.

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Facts vs opinions

I really shouldn't need to write this but have seen so much confusion over this for a while I will do my best to clear it up. An opinion is how someone likes the world to be, while a fact is how things are already. You can have opinions over preferences, a judgement on quality or performance, but although some facts can be included as a basis, such as whether someone played all the right notes, how they played them is more a matter of opinion.

But in politics it's slightly easier to separate out. The facts are the givens, such as the economic figures and prices, while the opinions are war, two sides constantly in competition over freedom vs regulation. Both believe equally the same ends can only be satisfied by their view, but that is not what I am writing about here, but the way they confuse facts as opinions when they cannot change and if you begin treating them as such then you have shifted real politics to fantasy, and arguing a set of policies which become physically impossible as you have got your foundations wrong.

I will start with a list of some examples of facts. I will add once you have such facts it is then the opinion of the politicians what they do about it, ie whether they favour one set of people over another, but if you bring in utilitarianism, ie what benefits the most people mathematically (ie facts) it ought to trump most opinions automatically if the majority suffer for the minority with no good reason.

Low interest rates benefit 1/3-1/4 of people who borrow over savers.
Wind turbines cannot produce usable power once costs are taken into account.
We cannot predict future climate.
Certain ethnic/cultural groups commit more specific crimes than the general population.

Now some of these are a lot easier to prove than others, the low interest rates is a gimme, as economists can measure the natural rate, which is around 5% here but 0.5% in reality. The £7 billion/£14-20 billion balance between winners and losers is written in stone as the figures are absolutely certain, so we can safely say as a fact the British government are paying borrowers by sacrificing 2-3 times as many savers, mainly retired.

Wind turbines are fairly easy to work out once you have the entire accounts and produce a simple bottom line which anyone equipped can work out for themselves, and it is physically impossible to arrange the figures in any other way to show otherwise.

The future climate is a lot harder to dismiss as it's a partial experiment (how they get away with it), but 20-30 years on there is still snow, arctic ice and the temperature is below all estimates solely based on a model adding in CO2. If they can be seen to have got that wrong after a short run then most sensible people who understand chaos theory will realise the longer a non-linear prediction runs the greater the error.

The crime figures are pretty hard to dispute as long as it's possible to find them. Black on black and Muslim on Muslim violence is fairly widely available worldwide, while Romanian and Italian organised crime is familiar to any of its victims. The British sex predator gangs can be called up on various searches and most of the names are pretty hard to interpret as anything besides Muslim, as they only take Muslim names including converts.

Those are contemporary examples which unanimously become accused of being only opinions by people whose personal philosophy disagrees with it. So the scientists who believe CO2 has a high effect on the temperature do not dismiss their models when it doesn't, but look for it in other places as the missing heat must be somewhere. It's in their effing computers, that's it. Those wonderful dreamers who genuinely believe if we had taken suicide bombers out of the Middle East and families from Pakistan who kill their wives for leaving them or their daughters for choosing their own partners, schooled them in Camden and Islington from a young age they would have become peaceful, loving and productive individuals. There is of course some truth in it, but then if you take the actual situation, that with (and I'm not picking on Muslims at all here, but as a sociologist you may as well take the largest bars on the current chart as examples) well over 2 million Muslims in Britain the second generation who is now growing up is in fact diverging into either picking up western values or fighting against them. So yes, you can certainly moderate extremes by removing them from an extreme culture, but you can also import and export them and the hard core will not only never die, but may even try and take your liberal peaceful country over.

It should be virtually impossible not to be able to separate facts and opinions, but all the time I see educated people (who had the same training as most) mix them up, and when they have an opinion dear to their hearts it's a fact, and when you counter it with a fact it's your opinion. Why everyone can't just accept the world around them for exactly what it is, do the research, and either come to some sort of factual conclusion or accept we don't have enough data to know yet (if we ever will) on some areas, and use the facts as a foundation of givens, and then apply their opinion if they want to change things. I watched a video yesterday when people were described as such having been treated badly by their parents in the name of religion and saying this was loving behaviour as it was God's word. His point was God is love, so any behaviour which is not loving is not religious, but decades of programming by their culture has made them lost in their opinion and they see it as a fact. Otherwise there would be no psychotherapy as people would never know they had problems, let alone want to change them. The entire field of cognitive therapy is based on facts and the therapist is entitled to teach the clients which is which as that is how they are trained.

A final point is this is not confrontational. Teaching is educational, the only confrontation is when you do not wait for willing students but take the teaching to all as I do. Then you attract nothing but attacks as it's the same as injecting a mental patient and dragging them to a counsellor. Their doctor and therapist can see exactly what's wrong but normally you only have counselling when you decide you need it, often long after everyone else can see it. That is because people want to change when it hurts them, not other people. So the violent husband or bossy wife will keep doing it until they lose more and more people and become so lonely they may wonder why and then they are ready to change. To me, when politicians (who represent the majority of people's opinions) are voted in to destroy rather than create, it's my problem. I can see why they do it and how it happens, as facts are always slanted and misrepresented to gain what ends they want, and before the internet it was only intuition and bad smell radar which alerted people to dodgy claims, now we can check nearly all of it instantly. There is a phenomenon where most people know a little about a major political issue and no more, as it's not important. Low interest rates must be good as we don't have to pay so much for our mortgages for example. Oops. Big major 'trod in massive soft dog mess' oops.

Property prices are dictated by the usual economic parameters, plus one special one. The usual ones are supply/demand and availability of cash. The special one is unlike most assets they are appreciating, ie they always go up in value long term. Of course there have been exceptions, such as the Irish and Spanish building houses for no one as they were lent billions by the EU, who now want it back but most of the houses are empty. That's greed over economics and a separate lesson, but generally they go up and even those probably will eventually as they are based on land and a building which should last hundreds of years. The price itself is based mainly on the land (the reason for local variations) and a small percent on the building (a typical insurance policy is £60,000 rebuild costs for a £300,000 property in London). The purpose of a house is to live in (no, that's not stating the obvious, most people will tell you it's an investment), and the only way it will also be an investment is if someone else lives in it than its owner, as every single person (unlike car or TV owners) needs to live somewhere so even the top property magnates own their own as well as other people's.

Now imagine the number of people who own more than one property compared with the others. Whatever the actual figure not many people are in the property business, even a second buy to let. So it's pretty safe to say they are the minority who make money selling extra houses. Their house will lose by going up as firstly they pay more for it initially, and far more importantly as most people trade up unless in dire straits, the percentage inflation their 'asset' has suffered means the more one goes up the more the other does. So 10% on their £300,000 house will be £30,000 while if they want one for £500,000 and both rise by 10% they'll need to find an extra £20,000 from somewhere as the more expensive house will usually cost proportionally more. So as the majority of people only own the property they live in then the majority suffer rising house prices the same way they do for food or energy. Of course the selling minority businessmen will always do well from inflation but if it's economy wide rather in their own area it all gets lost when they have to buy from others, so always toxic. Another aspect is the price-income ratio. Houses have traditionally cost around 3X annual income, which meant virtually everyone working could afford one. That's the same price-income ratio used to assess the wealth of every country, dividing the average income by a basket of commodities to see how much each can afford, plus a weighting for how the income is distributed across the population, ie how many people are at the top and bottom relatively.

If you strip this equation bare, and simply present it 'Do you want to pay 3X your income for your house or 10X', being fact based very few (no one if sane) should say 10X, but when you simply present it as 'Are you glad your house is worth more' nearly everyone (bear in mind I have just asked the identical question in a different way) would say the opposite.

I have just demonstrated how ignorance can drive opinion, as people do not either know the facts or realise they are not opinions. I will just complete the equations, if you buy a house you must always buy at a price where you can afford the maximum possible repayments, as interest rates do not usually (till now) stay the same. If not you are reckless, and once banks weren't even allowed to lend unless you satisfied this and took the choice away from people altogether. Now it's grab as much as you can get, and suffer the consequences later. House prices are actually the same for the borrower, as the estate agents set their prices as a monthly outgoing the customer can afford. If they are paying £500  a month then whether some is interest and the rest is principle, they are paying their limit. By dropping interest rates all that happens is the £500 a month is fixed by economic reality, but when less is represented by mortgage interest the rest is balanced by an equal price rise, which will totally knacker anyone less cautious if interest rates then go up and they hadn't been allowed for. But you'll be knackered when you want to move, as when you have two kids and need a couple more rooms you'll find you need way more to do so than you would had your house prices not all gone up so much (as it's a national problem).

The interest rates and house prices are one of the simplest and most direct examples of facts driving politics and bad beliefs create bad policies, such as low interest rates where over two thirds of the population subsidise a third or so, and in the end as it also drives up prices everyone in the majority loses when they want to move. All other facts are equally solid, but much harder to fathom out, but no less genuine. So when people want to legislate and spend trillions trying to stop global warming, it's almost impossible to prove as their completion dates are set from 2050-2100 before they'd know for sure. We can't actually wait that long as we all need to be alive when the results come in to run such a costly experiment, so rather than work on moonbeams and fairy dust we have had three very clear elements known since measures began over 20 years ago. CO2 has risen inexorably. Taxes have risen phenomenally but the CO2 has risen regardless. The temperature has barely risen. Those are facts. The rest are not even opinions, they are 'what ifs' and 'maybes'. Who would vote or spend money on either of those, as they are below opinions and only empty waste.

Muslim claims- where's the evidence? Here More Some more From the BBC Not cherry picking BBC sex gangs reportLong detailed blog entry Nice summary of Islam NB I had to resort to a few blogs here as the original reports were long gone but they had copied and pasted them for posterity with full references.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Britain needs immigration to cover future pensions? My arse it does.

They now want 140,000 immigrants a year indefinitely to 'cover the pension borrowing'. They actually frame it as an either/or position, as if one is entirely dependent on the other, while in reality the two positions are either they want im...migration and are using this as the best excuse they can think of, or far more likely is they want to maintain interest rates near to zero, which indeed cannot generate anywhere close to a living pension level, so need to find other ways to pay for it, which someone suggested may come from higher immigration (although I am not aware of a single country ever using that as a solution).

In the end we have a clear situation that pensions need to be paid for, but the major factor behind it is not borrowing but lending. At present Britain has decided to continue the same path which caused the crash in 2008 or so, of living beyond its means and letting future generations pay for it. There have been no new curbs on either borrowing or lending, so people continue to run up debts for no reason (ie it is spent on expensive cars and holidays, and then either racks up far more interest than the original sum as paid off so slowly, or defaulted on altogether) just as before. The country does exactly the same, and deliberately keeps their own level down by fixing interest rates near zero, rather than create growth through manufacturing or investment.

This means we end up with a country which produces as little as possible, cannot support itself, and simply charges its debts on the citizens, who pay it back over decades through reduced pensions and higher taxes, combined with far higher energy prices and commodities, as they rise as the currency falls. This means food, oil, gold and everything else which has intrinsic or assigned value is the genuine currency, and the paper worth of fiat currency is reduced along with interest rates, and there is a net outflow of cash abroad as a result as investment goes elsewhere.

So ultimately the government are saying they will continue to maintain the powerful position of the banks, who are the ultimate receivers of the lost money from the investors earning way below inflation, and will further use this to increase further immigration for reasons we really don't know about. But the ultimate problem they have raised of paying for pensions could be solved at a stroke simply by raising interest rates, which would bring in foreign investment, raise the pound and as a net importer make imports far cheaper. It would then reduce house prices (three times higher than the EU average) as the monthly mortgage payments would remain roughly the same so need to reduce the total price accordingly. Only property companies would lose as everyone only living in one property would make a profit as soon as they sold up as what they bought would be cheaper plus the people who paid too much as interest rates were low would lose out, but they had no business buying in the first place as you must spend as much as you can afford at the highest likely rate, not max out at the lowest as you will guarantee hardship when they do go up. But 2-3 times as many people lose from lower interest rates than gain.

But overall this is an ideal example of government propaganda and lies, as not a single word of this claim (reiterated yesterday but I haven't found a link yet) is genuine, it is simply a plausible excuse to sodomise the country even more
This is before we consider the guaranteed consequences of trying to force more people onto an island with one of the highest population densities in the world already, even if we managed to import enough medical practitioners and teachers etc (it takes 4-7 years to train new ones here even if enough new people were capable of qualifying) just building more houses and flats alone wouldn't allow the existing power and water plants to add underground and physical capacity to expand sufficiently to cope with the increase, let alone the regular added increases through childbirth. Suffice to say if you visit some of the already jam-packed areas of London (not even considering the added costs of translation and teaching people who barely speak English, which is just a side-effect) and imagine each area nearby becoming the same, with the queues for services and waiting time for treatment increasing towards third world levels, that is what they wish for Britain. Add the social problems of growing ghettoes, where quite naturally when enough people from one community arrive in a country they form a small version of it there, and effectively isolate themselves in an island within their chosen location to live for valid economic reasons, some never even required to learn English as they can simply work for existing immigrants in the same community, forming an entirely separate economic and social bubble within a larger community.
This is the true picture of multiculturalism and diversity. We end up with a crowded mess of individual and isolated pockets of what are also often the lowest and poorest members of any given group, and especially if part of a religion far different from their hosts', are actively requested not to 'westernise' themselves, but strictly maintain their own ways, often to the extent of ostracising members who do not as they discover they quite like the freedom here compared to the restrictions they grew up with abroad. Only people who have not yet experienced this directly can claim otherwise, as I am in the middle of it here and seen how it suddenly appeared around 30 years ago, and has now escalated to similar 'communities within communities' I was so shocked to see when I first visited America in 1980. They, however, still have a largely empty country with land borders as well, while if you look at London the only solutions to housing everyone is to go upwards and demolish the nice houses and putting up flats, forcing up the population density by many times for the same area of land. That is not even related to who is occupying the spaces, but the stress it puts on the area the same way rats begin to eat each other when the density reaches a certain point. We may not do that but can still sense that point where there are just too many people around, and the economic loss alone of vastly increased traffic wrecks the quality of life and wastes hours a week getting from one place to another for absolutely no reason as we have both created and imported a problem we should never have had to suffer, let alone deliberately adding to it indefinitely.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

The left wing path to hell

The British media has been unanimously uninterested in the Trayvon Martin case (unless I've managed to not have the radio and TV on the exact times they have reported it, and not read a paper on those days, which is possible but unlikely), so I've just been picking up the skeletons of the story online and haven't bothered to look for the meat on them. But the reaction to the verdict online has been many times more interesting and significant, as it has raised all the paranoia of the liberal left worldwide, feminists, race activists and just your basic Marxists as a unanimous, guilt-laden middle class movement of mass neurosis, bleating and whining about middle class racism, how these awful white women jurors got it so wrong (I assume every person who has was either in the court every day following the evidence themselves, or at least reading the transcripts afterwards), while regardless of their personal guilt just for being white and well-off while other people weren't the legal process was followed to the letter. I must emphasise I have no interest and little knowledge in the case itself, but the incredible reactions since the verdict which have truly exposed the utter weakness of so many people's beliefs.

Meanwhile I've just found an insider's view on it, which by total coincidence is very similar to my own

So not just yet again do the equality merchants get to whinge about how wrong the world is for possibly killing someone I now discover may have been a potential suspect, but use it as an excuse yet again to rip into the world for treating the people who are not the same as not the same, and above all not respecting the legal system when they disagree with the results. Firstly outside a banana republic (which the US is turning into under Obama but not yet part of its legal system) a jury's verdict is sacrosanct, and can only be overturned on appeal, and secondly all this equality, feminism and racism obsession is childish nonsense. Racial profiling is not racist, it is sociology/criminology (something which was part of my degree so feel I am allowed to explore with more authority), and although most sociologists are from a political angle the data they collect is not. They can only work with the results of their own experiments, and if young black men commit certain crimes more than anyone else (I think it could be near 80% for certain serious assaults in London by memory) then if you don't racial profile you are being irresponsible, like frisking elderly white women in airports while the young brown men in beards walk through unhindered. Tell the feminists waiting for a flight they just let all those guys through without a check and see how they feel then. Crime prevention and detection is for everyone's benefit, and if certain racial and cultural groups commit certain crimes more than others (the Jews are great embezzlement enthusiasts, it's not a secret, which is included because I am Jewish and can't be accused of picking and choosing who I mention) then you must target the likeliest perpetrators. As for making this a feminist issue as the jury were women (only six? where did they pick that method up from?) is bandwagon jumping or exploitation of a cause at the lowest level.

The Trayvon Martin case was definitely a racially charged issue even though it was technically a question of 'reasonable cause', ie did the attacker have a reasonable case for stopping him in the first place, and then was the shooting self defence when it happened? Had either or both been other races this would have been a clean case, ie one solely assessed on the facts, but make the killer white and the potential criminal black and all the liberal paranoids come out of the woodwork. And if the vast majority of such cases involve white authority figures and black alleged criminals then I return to my racial profiling point. But that was only the catalyst. The general misplaced guilt of those who by whatever means have done well in life and do not break the law have for those who haven't and still to this day genuinely believe committing crimes has a social basis rather than moral are doing as much to erode society as the criminals themselves. Poverty is and has never been a reason to steal, as my family reminded me having arrived in Britain with nothing and lived with the ancestors of the Krays and the Richardsons in London's East End while the natives carried on with their long term culture of organised crime they worked hard and dragged themselves out of it, bearing in mind this was decades before there was a welfare state, which has eliminated virtually every excuse for poverty-induced crime where it has spread to.

Wanting everyone to be the same is the sort of uninformed naïve view of young children who generally learn how every single person is different, and in a free society are able to rise or fall by their own devices, and in a civilised society protected by a welfare state, so they needn't fall as low as to even consider stealing to get what they need. So while most western countries have a combination of freedom and protection from extreme poverty, they still want it all. Forget the fact such equality requires preventing anyone from crossing whichever financial line they decide is 'too much' as they then work for other people, and families are relieved of their property when they die as the estate returns to society rather than the people the families wanted to have it, they want everyone to have the same. Discrimination is not the same thing, laws are constantly being developed to stop it wherever it is found, and discrimination involves treating someone worse than everyone else which is of course wrong. But when black ghettoes form naturally where 80% of the murders are between its own group members then the problem is not caused by the white middle class natives, but the ghetto members almost 100%. Did the piss-poor Jews kill each other or anyone else, or steal to buy food 100 years ago in the East End when they didn't even get housing benefit or weekly dole to cover their basics? It can't be an excuse, as all the unemployed in Britain are far better off than the majority of working people in the third world, and they don't all kill or steal to improve their standard of living either.

So the combination of guilt and jealousy among the white middle class has allowed the worst elements of the world's criminals to be justified across western society where they now live, often diverting the blame from the perpetrators to society for not allowing them to be equal, and work their way through every other group looking for privilege and trying to eliminate each example systematically. Just as the banks reward failure, by paying bad managers to leave, the left wing punish success by trying to take away every genuinely gained reward as they see it as taking it away from everyone else. Apart from being economically illiterate, it would end up with a society with no incentive to do well or work hard in any area, as you'd know any benefits would be taken away from you, and one which assumed everyone had the same chance of intellectual success if only they were given equal opportunities. Now DNA profiling is finding more and more examples of innate abilities in every possible area, these mental Lilliputians are still claiming everyone is of identical intelligence, it's only society's fault if some do not fully get the chance to show it (even when siblings in the same family show totally different results). You have to be pretty dense yourself to have to fight to avoid every single piece of scientific evidence which proves your backward theory is nonsense, so in the end what is probably a lack of emotional rather than intellectual prowess, as the worst perpetrators are normally left-wing academics whose own privilege far outweighs the few pounds a week more their targets are earning who they want to shave even more off their incomes from. The same of course goes for global warming, where James Hansen can create predictions requiring more heat and ice than the planet is capable of producing and anyone with a grasp of arithmetic can easily work out, but because it supports their existing beliefs it goes through and becomes mainstream.

Therefore anyone in authority can exploit these massive areas of discontent, and offer solutions which all involve the sort of restrictions and financial penalties required to both redistribute the wealth and re-educate the people to discriminate less and allow each and every individual regardless of culture or background to reach their full potential. There's no reference to free will or personal qualities as at the furthest extreme the liberal/left believe no one is more intelligent than anyone else (presumably including people with Down's syndrome and brain damage) and property is theft. So rather than provide the safety net of a welfare state, laws for protection from damage to person and property and let people get on with it, they want to regulate society in every area to force this imaginary equality on it until it is perfect, ie Utopian. Forget the detractors who say it's a matter of degree and very few of them really believe this all, the fact they all believe a level of it leads to the identical measures, as if you remove wealth at all, then who decides when people still have 'too much'- is it the 97% removal by 1960's Labour or the 50% by 2000's? The actual results of high taxation alone are well known, people either leave the country or pay accountants to find ways not to pay it, and always will as long as there are different countries with different tax levels. Otherwise it would need a world tax level (as the UN are proposing) to be watertight, and then allow a total level of imposition worldwide. Meanwhile the BBC as I write are bashing on about the highest values of multiculturalism and diversity, with two of who I would choose to call extremists are fighting about why one didn't emphasise racial diversity as much as economic diversity. Class and race war are both neither, but totally divisive. People ought to be free to live wherever and however they want to and can afford, and social engineering to force people to either have other races or economic levels live amongst them is just another aspect of totalitarian creation of hell on earth.

The fruits of these ideas are guaranteed, and the level is only a matter of how far any individual country can take it. If you believe everyone is equal, and should be reflected in society, enforced by law, the consequences will always be a restriction of speech against anyone implying they are not equal (mainly women, racial minorities, gays and the disabled), coupled with the wealth limits decided by each society at the point an individual has 'too much', despite the fact economic growth means those who amass more tend to add it to the total rather than simply take it from others as in a Ponzi scheme. If you found a society on false beliefs, combined with jealousy, guilt, a belief other people are selfish and need to be controlled, and a shortage mentality there can never be enough to go round so everything must be rationed centrally, you will end up in a permanent hell of your own making, as the initial beliefs correspond exactly with hell itself, where there can never be enough and everyone is out to get you. Feminism only exists as a combination of these imaginary beliefs, that somehow the only reason half the company directors in the world (and every other top job) are not women is because of discrimination against them (not the fact they spend time off every so often to give birth and care for the babies afterwards) is a start, a gap in the foundations of society where based on such a delusion. This is then extended to race, religion and culture, where every one in existence is seen as neutral and equal, so Muslims who both destroy the vaginas of their children and then may kill them for having partners of the wrong culture, tribe or family, Pakistanis who traditionally force marriage on their children to their first cousins and then produce more and more disabled children per generation, black people who are entitled to blame the police who stopped them for driving without tax and insurance for only picking them as they are black, and every other example of law breaking by foreign minorities is justified and actually often covered up to hide what they believe is 'irrelevant' (how often to The Guardian or BBC mention the race of perpetrators of serious crime?). Making race and culture 'irrelevant' in relation to what is a crime in every single country of the world is almost the same as carrying out those crimes yourself.

So racial profiling again becomes outlawed by the left, both its media and activists, who would prefer the organised sexual assault of girls in places like Rochdale and Blackburn by Muslims, or the gangs of Romanian gipsies (who don't even have the right to live here) who run pick pockets, mugging and drug dealing etc across Europe and are now being indirectly encouraged by those who try and pretend they don't exist, and the organised sexual assaults of girls the left claim are equally carried out by anyone and everyone, and when the Daily Mail or whoever else dares to mention it are then accused of picking on a tiny minority of wrongdoers and deliberately ignored all the other thousands of white people who must be doing exactly the same thing (but have never been spotted doing so let alone tried and convicted). So all the Mohammeds and Mustafas who are named as convicted of gang rape (they'll need to either change their names or get injunctions now if they want to avoid being identified as such indirectly)  and the like the rare times these groups are brought to justice (most are overlooked by the local authorities to avoid trouble as highlighted on a recent radio programme) so this liberal/left attitude is actually allowing serious crimes to occur as their own beliefs when running local councils etc allow the criminals directly related to those cultures carry on to hold society together and not expose them for exactly what they are.

I don't care about good intentions or otherwise. If a complete political movement is based on what is no more than childish insecurities, it is the same as the episode of the Twilight Zone where a child has god-like abilities and traps the whole town in his house guarded by monsters. If you give the equivalent of immature children political power you will have a society where everyone is seen as the same (not equal, every life is equal, every person is different), no one is allowed to fully own the fruits of their own labours, any words which threaten the system are outlawed, and basically everyone else is seen with suspicion as people are innately bad and we must all be protected from their selfish desires. As there can never be enough to go round then all commodities must be rationed, (despite the fact the sole cause of any shortage is overpopulation, which they don't like especially as the ethnic groups have by far the highest birthrate as it's directly related to the level of education), and basically looking at every aspect I have mentioned, the practical result of their policy will not be Utopia which of course we would all enjoy, but pure hell.

Heaven is based more on a spiritual (ie one outside physical laws) than an economic and political view, where there is no dirt, decay or illness and more than enough for everyone. But no spiritual people believe this is possible here, but are motivated in a positive way to eliminate any bad things which can be. Most on the left really want the same things we all do, but their total lack of understanding of how the world is means the ways they go about it can only do the exact opposite, as individuals are all unique, having their own set of strengths and weaknesses for life, racial and cultural groups have specific features which will not go away when they move abroad, and making money adds to the total and does not take it from the poor. Genuine racism and sexism is based on discrimination, treating people badly because of their race or sex, and is illegal in all civilised countries. But using inclusive isms to cover all possible aspects of interactions between the dominant race and sex and the others as a blanket assumption is simply paranoid and inherently divisive, like the old-fashioned feminists who have the default position all men are rapists, or the ghetto mentality all police and maybe even white people are racists. Where you convert a protection into a paranoia you have made your valid defence into a criminal attack. Everyone who looks for isms in their alleged enemies have already divided their society into us and them, and as a result feminists have a deep mistrust of men and black activists (often white, as being patronising for others is an essential element of leftism) a deep distrust of white people, the default being they are all bad until they can be found individually to be otherwise. That is the worst ism we can ever have, misanthropism. I'd trade all the others back to get rid of that one as they will always hate more than any other group ever could. Of course I am not saying any group (except one possibly but I won't go there) is generally criminal, just each one has its own flavour of it, just like with every other aspect of life.

Friday, July 12, 2013

Politically correct is incorrect

Thanks to Lyndon Sullivan for sharing this:

"Western peoples have also been conditioned to die. Not for Allah or Hirohito, but for the new religion of Liberalism. We have surrendered any hope of a decent future for our children and grandchildren because we do not wish to be labelled  racist, intolerant, xenophobic, nationalistic or illiberal. Western peoples have also been conditioned to die. Not for Allah or Hirohito, but for the new religion of Liberalism. We have surrendered any hope of a decent future for our children and grandchildren because we do not wish to be labelled racist, intolerant, xenophobic, nationalistic or illiberal. Such a suicidal ideology is wholly unnatural and can only be inculcated through propaganda every bit as powerful as Shintoism once was, and Islam is today."
An extract from an article by Paul Weston, for Gates of Vienna.

I will now attempt to explain why this is the opposite to what the liberal left tell you. Firstly I would rather be "racist, intolerant, xenophobic, nationalistic or illiberal" than not free to be. Freedom is the highest level of being, as everyone in prison has food and shelter but they are still being punished and generally suffering. Poor and hungry people can often still appear to be happy, as they are at least free and have some means to eat and find shelter. And secondly we already have laws to stop people hurting each other physically, and if it's someone I'm only offending then it's their problem not mine. If that's who someone is then they have as much right to be who they are as anyone else. They will still be prosecuted for paying black people less or attacking homosexuals as they are simply treating people in ways you wouldn't want to be treated yourself, and consequently illegal. But preferring your own sort of people living around you, as most minorities do both abroad where they form small versions of their own country, and in their own countries, is perfectly normal. Making uninformed and ignorant statements is quite different from having personal preferences and being able to speak them without the risk of prosecution. The same applies to political correctness. I'd rather be called every single derogatory names for a Jew and never be allowed to punish the people who did than lose my right to use retard, Paki, mongol, spastic and any other word which is only as bad as the person hearing it. A word may have some historical baggage, but cannot ever be any worse than saying shit or fuck, they are all still words and should never be given more power than they can actually convey. The majority of people are sheep and cowards, and break their own principles (if they even have any) if today's government tells them they are wrong, and some go even further and believe they are.

If you listen to people from the last century, now dying out, using words such as coon or darkie were not actually very significant in 1930 or even 1950, and were not meant the way they usually are now. So condemning a pensioner who calls the radio and starts talking about coloured people (as they were till around 1975) and possibly dropping in one of the other terms as they go along is far more ignorant than they are for simply using a word which was perfectly normal in their time and has no malice behind it at all. But the general point is that people generally do not and will not attack and physically discriminate against any of the people they complain about at times, or use the wrong words to describe. A father who uses the term poof and nancy boy is no more likely to kick his son out for being homosexual as one who uses the current terms. None of these 'isms' make anyone a bad (or a good) person, it simply describes natural human traits more or less present in everyone. Black and Asian people in London (as that is who I mix with personally) are no less racist than the white people, just against slightly different targets. Do I mind? Why should I? If I dare to go to Wales or Cornwall and walk into a pub do I mind if they speak Welsh or stare at me? I'm certainly not feeling comfortable or welcome but it's their pub and if they are insular to an extreme never experienced in London then I'm better off not bothering to go somewhere as medieval as that. I'd certainly never send up task forces to teach them about diversity as they've every much a right to be who they are as anywhere else. Unlike certain parts of the world we still have freedom of movement, so anyone that bothered about the local's primitiveness can always move to Stoke Newington or Camden if they can afford it. Or Havana if they actually want to appreciate the freedom they actually have already.

Discovering the mole

In 2013 UK Big Brother had its first mole, and when revealed the experiment itself demonstrated what I will now explain, how the process of discovering a mole or any other cheating taking place develops, potentially to completion and exposure, and why consensus is the exact reverse of what actually occurs.

So for the example, you can take an artificial construction like Big Brother, or any other experiment where the innocent volunteers are put in a situation they can use the clues to work out the scam being carried out, bearing in mind a good scam can also be constructed on basic principles, and then use group mentality to extend the period it can run before being discovered.

Armed with a situation the people are unable to measure or see directly, which means they are going totally on trust, one Big Brother example was when they appeared to destroy everyone's luggage. Of course they didn't, but the fact they could have and it was impossible to know directly then people assumed they had. But the related clues were impossible to avoid, as all illusions are based on nothing but words and false pictures, the actual material claimed has never actually existed, and as such all the people see are the shadows supposedly cast by the solid objects which aren't actually there.

The main reason these scams are so successful is the very thing which people believe they are real in the first place, the consensus. But not the consensus of the supposed experts who said stomach ulcers were caused by stress, or the sun went round the earth, or if you sacrifice a virgin you'll get better crops, but the consensus of those who mock the tiny minority of people on the receiving end who don't believe them. The defence of the illusion is not mainly from its originators, who simply create and release it below like a huge dog after a good meal, but from its detractors, the vast majority of the victims who trust the perpetrators and do everything for them voluntarily to defend the illusion against the handful of clever people who can spot the tiny holes and magnify them to a huge size in their perception. Because intelligence, like most natural phenomena, is on a bell shaped curve, with most people in the middle and a few either end, only a tiny fraction of people are clever enough to see through scams. It's easier to see through one than create one as it's a passive skill and based on simple breaches of logic used by detectives and essay markers. You only need one or two inconsistencies and suddenly an initially plausible picture appears inadequate.

But rather than simply convey the observations chain-like across society till everyone's informed and the scam is blown, each level of observation is unable to be seen by those below that level of the pyramid. The pyramid triangle is a bell-shaped curve on its side and shows the minority on the high intelligence (or other qualities) at the thin top, with the heavy mass at the bottom. The communication and discovery of glitches in the hologram works its way down the many levels of the pyramid, with each level logarithmically larger than the one above getting it as the clues get larger, until you reach the actual tipping point where it's clear to enough people in the pyramid there aren't enough left to maintain it and the bottom level is blown away as well.

Therefore there is a massively long period in most scams where a few people will always pick it up early, and then be ridiculed and vilified by the rest of the victims as they can't believe them, until more clues come out the slightly less intelligent ones can see, etc etc until if completed then eventually the scam will be blown. But it can halt at any level for a lifetime or more, and often only become transparent long after the event from the position of history. But think of the mechanism and next time a couple of people try and tell you you're being had and you think they're potty as you trust and believe your elders and betters to be not just older but better as well, remember it's always a tiny fraction of the people in any group who can pick these small but vitally important glitches up way before anyone else can even process them. But if you've got even to that stage it would rarely be possible if there was nothing wrong so there nearly always is.

Wednesday, July 03, 2013

Global warming as a paranoid delusion.

Global warming as a paranoid delusion.

 David Howard Ll.B. (Hons), Cert. Counselling, Dip. Counselling & Supervision, MNCP (sen. accred), MBACP (accred).

There are two sets of people who promote the idea of global warming, the small group of leaders who doubtless know and understand the data fully and gain huge amounts of wealth and power from their campaign, and the vast army of useful idiots who do their filthy work for them, and fight anyone who disagrees, often with actual death threats. This is because as humans are basically wild animals with clothes and houses, when faced with any threat revert to stone age mode and protect themselves and their families against all others. If you're not one of them they literally feel you are out to kill them all, hence the attack as a form of defence.

The paranoid delusion becomes apparent when the media are finally beginning to dribble out the fact that warming stopped over 15 years ago, yet rather than celebrate, considering the far out ones genuinely claim this was the most dangerous threat known to the planet (more than nuclear weapons, meltdown, AIDS, Iran, and any other of the multiple potentially immediate threats known to wipe out the majority of the population who come near to them) not a single follower has been seen to celebrate but are all looking for reasons the claim is wrong. Now surely if you were told (however unlikely it was in reality) the earth would warm up by a possibly dangerous amount 70 years after you died, considering you would also have to actually think this was a problem, then knowing for dead certain (all the graphs agree) it probably won't should have them cartwheeling in the streets and making Al Gore the first living saint for presumably making our world governments prevent it in time (as none would actually believe it was natural). But instead they are looking at the hole and not the cheese, and as CO2 still rises they have been told it causes heat, so by running round the arena trying to find the corner they will eventually die of exhaustion looking for the missing heat, rather than wake up and realise it was never there in the first place.


Until this occurred I had never imagined more than a tiny percentage of the population could be psychotic. The usual cause is genetic, often coming out in the rare twins suffering from it within days of each other, even when separated for many years. The difference between a neurotic illness and a psychotic is neurotics are totally aware of what is wrong but can't control it, while psychotics, at least during an episode, believe everything they see is real. Now we have a graph which has stopped rising for the exact length of time previously considered long enough for a significant trend to be produced, yet rather than both celebrate and question the fucking idiots who told them otherwise, they search for the real answer they believe must be true, because Al Gore and James Hansen told them so.


It is bad enough for leaders in any field to make people believe in something which is present but not what it seems, but to manage to extend that belief to after the something has vanished altogether is almost more the fault of the idiots than the leaders, as every single believer has a brain to think with for themselves. Nothing in the picture is complicated, as the complicated stuff is totally dependent on the simple stuff, ie the temperature. If that is below the rate required for alleged 'problems' then that is all we need to know. Had CO2 not risen and the temperature done what it did, then who would have noticed anything out of the ordinary? Normally changes under 0.5C over a certain period aren't even considered significant. Or what if CO2 had risen but the temperature had stayed flat or fallen? Then in a few decades the entire greenhouse theory would have been killed as if CO2 had risen 50% and the temperature had not risen then it couldn't cause a rise as suggested by most.


So you put together what is probably almost totally a very unfortunate coincidence, a rise in CO2 which may or may not be man made, as many graphs show it being released from the ocean after the temperature rises (and pretty much unanswered by the community) combined with what would normally be considered a negligible and normal rise in temperature, James Hansen sees the potential for whatever power and authority he wished to wield, and the myth of man made warming was created in front of congress in his original meeting.


I have worked in mental health for over 20 years and am only too familiar with the sufferers of every single type of delusion possible. Up till now I only imagined this to be restricted to the same small section who have always been diagnosed with it, but now I see the line not being a clear one but a grey band between sanity and delusion, which more than half the people are easily drawn into, and exploited by some who are not. As this experiment has not run for long enough I can't see if they'll ever wake up out of it, at least not unless either one of their heroes blows the gaff and lets the truth come out (which many in fact have over the years but have never been reported so they aren't aware of it) it was all created to bring about existing UN policies they would have been unable to get through without the reason for doing so, or just wait another 30-50 years for the few surviving to see when the temperatures do not make it anywhere near the predictions. But till now nothing else has worked so I can't see it happening in any other way. I have added my qualifications deliberately on this piece, as unlike my science blogs which I'm clearly not directly qualified for, this is my own field of work and as such need people to be aware I am not picking it up 'off the internet'.

Tuesday, July 02, 2013

Schoolboy errors have taken over the world

I have discovered an incredibly sad and worrying situation while getting into discussions online. As a teacher there are a standard list of requirements to write a decent essay, and at all times those standards are applied to marking and gradually eliminated from the students, and in the end only present either due to a lack of ability or motivation. But they are required for O level upwards, and as most people around are educated to at least that level they have proved they are capable of sticking to those simple rules, the same rules which apply to life itself.

But in the last few years only, mainly in the field of climate for me as that is what I discuss a lot, but certainly not exclusively, I constantly come across people who present material which breaks any or all these rules, and then when challenged am usually responded to with personal attacks. The rules of scientific and logical enquiry are very old and universal. Without them people are simply making it up and hoping people will believe them, while the facts remain the same regardless. The greatest sin of all is induction, extending from specific examples, while operating the remainder which all should not even be repeated more than once if pointed out in a sane person:

Irrelevant examples
Appeals to authority
Diverting the subject
Attacking the source while not referring to the material
Making statements without the required facts

Had I thought of it I could have saved every one from the last few years, as an example to all of how it is done, but unfortunately most days more arrive as examples you can extend from, as I already know they do represent a far greater number. But typically they look directly at the relayer of the message before the message itself, whether the organisation or the individual, and if approved then regardless of the material it must be right, and vice versa. This implies a total inability to think for themselves and question what they are told directly. Non-sequiturs are random unrelated replies, which I'm sure most people think at the time are connected in some way, but only indicates the confused ways they are thinking. Providing similar areas but entirely irrelevant is a typical student error, where they think as it's about the same sort of thing it must be right, is the same thing that happens in court when people can throw anything at the examiner regardless of how specific it is to the actual question. For example, the number of times people repeat the fact that tobacco companies spent decades hiding the dangers of smoking when trying to smear the reputation of a totally unconnected report, as if it means any company since who is questioning the status quo can't be trusted, is both irrelevant and using induction. Also it is not comparing like with like as we already know for certain smoking is dangerous, and the companies trying to hide it did as well, while the UN itself admit any major effects from global warming wouldn't happen for decades ahead at the vey minimum, so using every mistake on top of the other to simply try and sweep away a challenge without actually challenging it directly.

Induction can be used in a single example, which has its own term, precedent. This means if something proves it's possible once, like exceeding the speed of light or reaching a new record, then it can be extended. But in no other areas besides that. When the related meme that anyone questioning global warming must be part of the big oil conspiracy they are ignorant of the details, as big oil is a huge sponsor of climate research as it creates artificial shortages and huge extra subsidies. You can look at the funding of various climate PR organisations and the Climate Research Unit itself and they are paid by Shell, BP, Total and the rest, which removes any doubt from the situation.
I do not know either the cause or solution to this very new problem. Unless they really are releasing something into the environment which softens most people's brains I can't understand how people who proved they can deal with these things adequately at school and college have now regressed to babyhood. But the politicians and businesses know it as well, and direct their propaganda to these failings directly, knowing the minority of people immune to their toxins and able to both think for themselves and work things out directly before checking rather than vice versa are not sufficient to beat the masses. As an ex teacher I had to spend years ploughing through essays, and never saw these errors very often, and when picked up the students were only too willing to remedy them, as it was in their own direct interests. Now they have finished their exams and their interests have changed, it seems they have left their brains back at school, and the world will eat them and everyone else alive if they don't collect them soon.