Saturday, August 31, 2013

I'm with Ed Miliband

A spiritual teacher told me once if you see life as a soap opera you may become enlightened. This latest business over Syria is a typical example, and one case where I totally can. Every film needs action, and here is a little, as Paul Daniels would say, not a lot, but it's got people talking. Now the fact Ed Miliband voted against us going in meant he actually agreed both with me and 88% of the British people, but why did he do it? Probably not as he ought to have done, as he thought it would make things even worse, but because it may help undo the harm his previous but one leader did to his party going into Iraq. We will never know for sure, but it's probably the first and last time we'll agree on anything.

The general spiritual view is we are here for a very short relative time, and the reason we suffer, become ill, and die, is because we don't really, much like The Matrix we simply wake up and do it all again, it is an experience and possibly a lesson to learn as much as we can until we can know pretty much how to handle everything. I don't know what happens after that but it would make sense if true. I've hit the point where I need to know directly, much as those who have had near death and out of body experiences, and are never scared of living and dying again as they say they now know they go on forever. My own evidence is synchronicity at increasing levels, a well known and documented example I am well and truly on the path. What path exactly is another story, and there we see a split in the teachers (the exact reason we are forced to follow our own discretion as they can't both be right) who say pleasure is built in as a message to be followed (my own belief) and everything is just energy which is equally accepted when enlightened (maybe, but not before so why care if it is?). Of course if you knew it was like a dream where the bullets couldn't even injure you, let alone kill you, then all fear would be gone.

The major rule is it should be fun. That is universal for all animal life on earth. Ed Miliband has been put there as a small source of entertainment in an otherwise dire parliament, a rare area of relief of a bunch of Borg replicants with Coco the Clown in the middle of them desperately hooking on kitchen utensils on himself to pretend he is one of them, but they can all sense he is only a clown. Personally the remainder of the fun was from my friends, and they have melted away compared to the first 41 years when there were always a few around whoever and wherever they were at the time. Then the last family left and I had to learn making friends from scratch as the others had all moved on and become busy and out of the area by then and am still wondering if that will ever change to how it was when I did nothing and people just arrived on their own. Of course I have friends but no longer on the doorstep and always available. But if a spiritual journey then if you are given something and lose it then besides never taking any of it for granted again we are forced to find ways to learn how to do it. The harder exams are the most advanced levels.

Having Ed Miliband as the main source of entertainment in life is probably not a good place to be in...

Thursday, August 29, 2013

The news is our enemy

Today (and I don't think it will last very long) everyone is talking about Syria, but the reason just offered for a possible retreat by the west has begun with Britain's decision (for now anyway) not to get involved, before the debate even took place. Obama may go it alone, and I hope he does as it'll be his problem and possibly reduce his popularity among the idiot left supporters who are blind to his absolute agenda of evil. The fact it's almost certain the side Obama supports actually carried out the chemical attacks which he may use as a reason to attack the legitimate government is another marvellous potential nail in the coffin of his arrogance. Lateral thinking involves among other tricks reversing a situation to see how it would play out if that were the case. If you assume Obama or anyone else is the enemy of their citizens and using them to both destroy their country and hand it over to their opponents, then whatever actions they carried out can be seen to be consistent with similar agendas but include saying one thing but doing another. When you operate this mechanism and it works better when turned round you can be almost sure that is the actual situation. Try it with a few and you'll see how easily it does.

I personally aren't the least bit worried about Syria or any other tinpot bunch of savage bastards competing for the top position over all the other mafia tribes. The east-west hotline set up in 1963 after the Cuban Bay of Pigs incident has worked pretty well since, stopping any outside countries pitching in against the countries the west invaded for whatever reasons, and keeping each conflict within its borders. Why anyone thinks it would be any different over Syria is a mystery to me.

So that aside, I look at the news in general and continue to maintain the position it is filling space for the great majority of the time. Unlike our blogs, which expand and contract in relation to what is around to fill them, the news has a fixed slot every day and the papers have a number of pages to fill which people expect to have news in them whatever happened. So rather than replace some of the programmes or pages with cartoons, which most people would prefer anyway, they kill themselves either looking for it or making it up on quiet days. The general public are not discriminating enough to even notice most of the variations in quality, and treat surveys people are happiest in Elmbridge council on a par with the new royal baby. Or thereabouts. I do as well, I don't give a shit about either, but sadly most people do. I freely admit there are vast gaps in my life which the news used to tease at filling, but it's crap. Every few years like the lottery a decent story pops up, like the government finally making squatting illegal and Julia Gillard getting booted out recently. But the rest is no different from watching the activity during the day in the average office or school. The same disputes, accidents, intrigues and cliffhangers are part of all aspects of group dynamics, and world news simply trawls the large and small scale areas finding what they consider to be the most significant.

Then even when you whittle down the few decent stories then how many affect you directly? Certainly since the short time I let my flat in 1989 when the market crashed I doubt I'll ever have tenants again or would anyone in my family, but it's a moral situation and feel happy for all the previous victims unable to get into their own houses without waiting months and then having to pay to repair all the damage caused in the meantime. But no, it doesn't really affect me. Julia Gillard shows at least my discretion is not unique as enough other people could see the evil woman for what she was and kicked her out before she lost them the election, much like the way everyone can see what a useless piece of wet toilet roll Ed Miliband is. But it doesn't really affect me unless it means the other lot win Australia's next election and get rid of the carbon tax if they do, which again is closer to getting 5 numbers in the lottery. I expect one or two news items did help me over the last 53 years but I can't think of one besides giving us back the odd thing we had taken away from us, like the right to drive through the west of London without paying (which I still don't think I've needed to do since). And I expect the same applies to everyone. But the bad news usually affects me. Lowering interest rates, being in the EU, charging to drive through the centre of London which I did use a lot before, every carbon tax, and half the other stories. So you'd hope the good and bad news would even out, but in fact it's either bad and directly affects me or totally irrelevant. So the bottom line is I personally would be far better off not knowing any of it. I'd still pay the same massive taxes and earn the same fraction of what I ought to, but I wouldn't be reminded of it every day when they announce the interest rates won't go up for years and the carbon taxes are rising exponentially.

Gossip is personal news. What happens to friends and family, like being in a soap. Again, if you've got a friend with a lousy wife you can't stand (like Julia Gillard) and they finally split up, so bloody what, it doesn't help you- you didn't live with her or will benefit from not having to see her again if you even did that often while they were married. It's just filling in the same empty space I tried to fill looking for interesting news stories which never happened, the lives of those around you do not usually affect you or are any more or less interesting than any others or people at work, but fascinate most people far too much, even though if some bird you've fancied for ages finally splits up with her awful boyfriend it doesn't mean she'll go with you instead. Life is not a fairy story and carries on the same whether you are there or not, much like a real soap opera.

My personal addiction was grown on having no one to talk to on a very long term basis, so only the media was there to occupy my spaces on a constant basis. Unlike watching old films or random TV series at least it is not scripted and only partially predictable, so as it could directly affect me (even though 99% that did was negative) it became the best available drug. When anything almost kicks off (it seems far worse when things look like they may happen than the extremely rare times they actually do) it seems most people are also addicted as I was, and flood the radio with comments and opinions, even though they only know the tiny fraction the media chooses to let us know. Then most of the time nothing actually does happen and everyone goes back to whatever they were doing before until the next piece of garbage floats up from the depths of hell. I know I shouldn't do it, and no one else should either. If you didn't know what was going on would you notice? If not then you don't need to, and if you do then you would anyway. Probably best to wait till that happens but it's a bugger to avoid it if you decide to.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Climate change has admitted defeat indirectly.

I do tend to notice things once I've become sensitized to them, and once the small connected ones are put together in the end it forms a complete web. The latest trick which is actually working on the same cloth headed buffoons who swallow every single root, branch and fruit the less scrupulous authorities feed them is science by consensus. It is technically good news, as when you have to lower the bar to replace nothing with even less then it means they realise there is now nothing substantial to offer, but as the system they have built depends on maintaining an illusion our climate is frankly fucked to hell, then when more and more evidence comes out it's actually quite OK and almost certainly will stay so whatever we burn and release into the atmosphere they need new ways to cover it up. This is in the way instead of cleaning up a mess on the carpet you lay a cloth over it and after a few weeks it becomes part of the furniture and eventually isn't noticed but still always there underneath and always will be. So we now have almost 17 years of no temperature rise, after greats as Phil Jones and Mike Hulme said it needed 10 years for a significant trend, and then it was 15 years. In science experiments have timescales. Each period produces new data and the theory adapts to it.

Outside science, in politics, policies are created, presented to the electorate, and voted on. If a policy then proves to be a failure, whether it loses more money than it gains, or causes more problems than it helps, it is either discontinued or voted out. That means in a democracy new policies only last as long as their usefulness. So in both science and politics any idea is only as good as it turns out in practice, and ought to be abandoned once obsolete or worthless. They begin in different ways but end in the same ways as whether by choice, opinion or observation all ideas are only as valuable as their results in reality and when they have run long enough to know then there is enough material for a conclusion, and the bad ones ought to fall when discovered.

So technically climate science has passed a level in credibility. Global warming is required for CO2 to cause problems, and the UN put that point at 2C above 1850. CO2 is rapidly rising, but the temperature is faltering, and if you magnify the hockey stick it still fell from 1940-70. Oddly enough the 60 year oceanic cycle produces 30 years of warming and then cooling, and that is still reflected in the temperatures. The total rise is struggling to reach 0.8C, on a 50% rise in CO2 and existing rise in temperature underneath it. Meanwhile people are phoning the radio pleading with businesses to switch to renewables as there are forest fires in California, meaning you can fool enough of the people enough of the time to convince them there are aliens living in their pants should you really want to. This guy genuinely connected forest fires (annual, mainly caused by arson or cigarette butts) with global warming, and imagined trying to replace fossil fuel with nothing (renewables either produce nothing or burn biofuel which is what we did in the stone age onwards) would be able to stop this happening. That represents how the mission works on its empty headed victims, who then become programmed like Borg to spread the virus of global warming mantras.

Back to the equation. There was always the backup meme 97% of scientists agree with man made global warming. That was less than a sample of 100, as it took maybe 1000, dropped the ones they didn't believe they were qualified, and then used the remaining ones to represent the view based on the question 'Do you believe mankind can affect the climate?'. Now as cities heat up the local area then that's hardly an opinion or even an uncertainty, unless a 30 mile diameter is too local to qualify as climate. If the temperature rose 0.01C from CO2 assuming we ever became able to measure that amount then again yes mankind can affect the climate. Had they asked the two part question has man's burning of fossil fuel caused the temperature to rise to a harmful level I'm sure the percentage agreeing would not have been 97%. So that's the source of what is only a false statistic but again sufficient to convince those not able to think unaided. But the government led media have now been given a new study which although has dropped to 95%, is now replacing the majority of actual articles on data as the data is no longer agreeing with the consensus. Over the last month or so the emphasis on climate reporting has almost totally shifted to the reason it is important is because the latest study says despite the temperatures failing to rise for 17 years or so 95% of scientists still say global warming is real.

As I said at the beginning, science works via observation, and then explaining causes and effects, ultimately allowing repetition and prediction of future repetitions in any related experiment. Nothing outside that format is science, as it doesn't qualify the strict requirements. So for example if I say I'm running a chemistry reaction which will produce an explosion or wormhole in 100 years, had peer review done what it says on the tin, my peers would simply strike me off the scientific school as no one alive today would be able to find it out either way. So when they say the temperature could reach 2C in 100 years, then what is the difference (ans., there is none). Even attempting to predict such things outside a linear system is void as impossible by its nature. But when they have no local ice melts, heatwaves or hurricanes (based on warm seas) to induce from (again, breaking science's rules) they can't show last year's melts or whatever as some sod will have saved the photo and post it online with yours showing you cheated. There is no material. Science would say sorry, we didn't know enough, we got it wrong, etc etc, and moved on. Politics however, would return to democracy, and say well you voted for carbon taxes so you will still get them even though all they do is redistribute wealth. Of course if they worked then the CO2 would have reduced by now but only by using less energy can that happen and that needs a recession permanently.

The recent shift to the consensus as a primary argument for climate change rather than a backup is a crucial change in response to new data. It means there simply can't be enough data to maintain any illusion, so they have left the realm of science as consensus is a political mechanism used to reflect the wishes of the voters or elected governments, and not able to relate to a scientific theory unable to be proved by the normal means ' because most scientists agree with it'. They have, probably without a clue they had, admitted defeat. If you try and use a political means to justify a scientific theory then you have lost it entirely.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Multicultural diversity

As they're talking about it on the radio again, and the last caller's said the state has no right to order us who we can and cannot approve of, I thought that deserved its own entry by me. If your disapproval (something which is a thought and not an action) does not lead to harmful actions it is both impossible to legislate against in practice, or moral to do so. If someone disagrees with homosexuality (what the programme was about) or any other forms of behaviour, then so what? You can't force them not to and why should you? Take the time back a decade at a time and societies disapproved of many things they do not now and vice versa. Only the extreme political thought police claim the clock now stops and what is right now will always be and what changed over thousands of years in history is no longer relevant.

When did you see suburbs of Tokyo, Peking or Bombay with the Italian, Pakistani, Polish, Somali and Nigerian enclaves? I would say never, and probably never will. So why do they insist on creating them here in London, as if this multicultural diversity is a model for every city in the world? Unless they actually live here of course, as it's simply small groups of tightly knit communities, many who do not or will not speak English, mixing and employing their own people and running down the natives in their own language so only a chance translation by a friend would even allow us to know it. My class I taught  at school were half Indian and half everything else, with a few English boys just to represent history, and one day the Indian boy I used to take home as we both lived in the same direction told me they used to all sit and run the rest of them down in Gujurati and he would teach me enough to know it and answer back. A few weeks later I think my little performances showed they couldn't get away with it any longer, plus the other kids got to know the words so if they called someone a white bastard or cocksucker they wouldn't ever get it past them again. The kid who didn't know I was Jewish, and spent his time putting on a speech Mosley would have been proud of, who also happened to be Greek so arguably should have known better. The Indians and Chinese (I taught in various places and most of the kids were imported to do our exams and then go home and rule the government or stay here and become accountants) ran down the blacks and basically whoever wasn't present got the full treatment for who was, including the ongoing flame wars between Indians and Pakistanis.

This is 100% normal, families and racial groups are wider forms of those families, and we are designed to be familiar with them and relate to them better than those from hundreds or thousands of miles away from a country almost as foreign as Mars would be. But Labour have decided to invite them here, and spin the whole idea as if it's the only way society should be. Not the best or preferable, but only, and if you disagree you're a racist. Like the Indians who run down Pakistanis, or Chinese who would kick their daughter out for going out with a black man. These are all known situations, which I would never cast any value judgement on, but as a sociologist would simply describe what I have witnessed. So when each race in Britain either becomes the majority in their own country, or continue to behave in exactly the same ways the British are accused of to the races except their own, I would call it normal human behaviour. Before now migration was the exception besides waves of conquerors or refugees, while the conquerors tended to do their best to convert the country conquered to their own cultures and make the natives speak their language. Hardly what they'd now call tolerant either.

What the left now refer to as racism is as close to real racism as preferring carrots to cabbage. It is part of human nature and development to be tribal and stick with their own kinds, and unless forced by social or economic conditions the great majority always will. If you want to impose forced multiculturalism on a society, with all the inbuilt difficulties of adjusting to totally different values, interests and backgrounds, let's look at the greatest issue I am aware of which is guaranteed to occur when inviting blanket cultures from abroad to your country, intermarriage. I don't know about other countries per se but know Britain is certainly very unconcerned with it. We have always been only too happy to either travel abroad for work and come back married, or marry anyone suitable who has come here, but your average Muslim or Oriental isn't quite as tolerant. So while it's the British who are only too happy to date as many immigrants as available, their families at least are generally not in the least bit happy for them to even speak to us, let alone get into a relationship, serious or otherwise. That seems to me rather like looking for trouble, and if it's the minorities who object to their daughters' (it's usually the daughter) choice of partner (or they are forced to attempt it in secret) who exactly is the racist?

These problems are not exactly a surprise if you learn the religious and cultural rules of anyone before welcoming them here to one of the freest countries in the world (but gradually losing it). I would have said they were guaranteed, yet the left insist it's not just the best way for us all to live (I'd love to see what happens when it hits Cornwall, they haven't come to terms with the people from Devon yet), but the only. Do you agree?
Anyone who is offended by anything I say has to ask themselves the question have I said anything incorrect, or are they brainwashed? 

Rambling

As it's not quite bedtime, I've got a video running and little else required I thought I'd do the old trick and open the box (as there's no one real to talk to here). The video is the return to my old spiritual route after completing the two photographic projects last month, getting every known old road sign within 50 miles and doing the final long required trip to cover what I planned on my photo map of Britain. The claims made by the new collection of alien abductee witnesses and the like are either schizophrenic, fantasising and a few which could actually be true. You only need one good one of course, as it's a precedent situation, and with this organisation publishing all its interviews I now have many hours ahead of material without even leaving my office room. I am hoping if I see enough one may be verifiable (there is a document from the US government confirming the finding of an alien ship with three aliens which has turned up and looks real so far), but I'm looking for far better than that.

I have now officially dropped the campaign to educate those programmed on global warming online as I discovered I don't have the required authority, so will just sit back and leave that one. You can't do more than you are designed to do. I'll keep collecting the general material for fraud as there's a book in there besides the rare chance I may teach someone something they can use to reframe their picture of authority, and there's nothing better than a convert to spread the word further. Otherwise my teachers who send messages online every day remind me to accept the present moment for exactly what it is. That certainly isn't related to dismissing pleasure or pain, but transcending it by not trying to avoid the pain. That appears to be one basic form of active meditation designed to leave the duality, but a heck of a long haul, while the complex meditations must work faster. But because for me there has been enough evidence my life is now being guided, I must presume everything which happens is a lesson for my own development, and maybe the higher you want to go the harder you have to work, which includes more suffering than average. So all the conditions around me ought to then be designed for this task. I am aware of my knowledge of world affairs, which is enhanced by being able to tune in to individual personalities of total strangers of politicians I may have never come across before, and feel how each fits into the picture. I haven't been wrong yet, in fact after calling Julia Gillard as a disaster area and total liability so did her own party and kicked her out. Others see all these things as well, but we are the minority (or they wouldn't be voted in in the first place), and some less sensitive than others, able to call extremes like Gillard and Mandelson, or the utter flaccidity of Ed Miliband, but maybe not the more subtle ones like David Cameron or Kevin Rudd who are softer versions of the thorough psychos. That applies to good and bad equally, so Nigel Farage and more so his assistant Lord Monckton are the cavalry, as is the now universally hated by the dark side colleague Godfrey Bloom, who certainly speaks for me the short time he has been speaking in the public arena.

My communication of the dark and light sides (and all between) has to be certain in the same way a surgeon or lawyer have to be certain, or a journalist. If I am vague and offer alternatives and maybes I am simply muddying the water. I wait till I know and if I'm not sure about something I qualify it. Basically if I'm teaching something then how many people would want their teacher to say there were many sides to an argument when discussing facts? When I say the government have ripped us off with low interest rates it's because the accounts they themselves provide prove it. When I say the environmental movement has been taken over by homicidal misanthropists (regardless of whether any of its followers are) it is because they have said so. But my status is not adequate. The internet grades sources above material, even when most information is linked back to its source with the authority, simply passing it on invalidates it for the believers. So as a result my internet factual teaching is over, while I have moved to philosophy which can be taught by anyone as you are not trying to overcome someone's existing beliefs with contradictory facts, which produces a barrier higher than I can get over.

Should my intuition explain my future guidance I'd hope the practice in writing will not be a lifetime of talking to myself on the internet (when's the last time anyone saw a comment here?) but building up my abilities for a proper publisher. As the major hurdle has been passed, ie knowing the material, hawking my knowledge is the long haul which is part effort and part chance. The same goes for my spiritual work, why meditate for half your life and end up no different to how you were before? That would have wasted most of the time just for a few minor peak experiences and views of energy in the air for thousands of hours of sitting doing it. They are why I never give up, as if they can do that at all then they can do more. My family tell me directly and my friends presumably to each other say I've never reached my potential (how many people have?), but like using the gym as an example, you can't compare yourself with other people but aim for the goals you can do personally. I have done some of those, and now armed with firstly the qualifications and secondly the skills am now ready for the third element, the usage. I still have some years left for that to happen, and am on step two now having taken the first step in 2006 being filmed for the first of four TV programmes as a hypnotist and researcher. That led to my first and only magazine article, and am now working to build on that foundation and have enough for the book allowing everyone to see through organised fraud, like a translation manual, and would pay for it to be published as the purpose is to undo a level of crime never before seen in the world at one time. All I want is my name attached as credit, as the material itself is not something designed to further my career but bring about the cleansing of society. I probably have twice as much evidence as is required already, I'm sure if it was so easy to find for me then the media probably have ten times as much, but someone is making sure they never print a word of it beyond the first example of the temperature being below the 1990 UN predictions making their entire modelling invalid. They start the job but none will finish it. That is where I step in, but I do not have the status.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

When in doubt, Ed Miliband

When nothing's much happening my mind wanders to the areas of life containing potentially entertaining material. Unfortunately for everyone one of the current richest veins is Ed Miliband, who at least has seen the entire media and the majority of his own party pick it up, but unlike his antiopodean rival Julia Gillard I am praying he remains for the next election as it'll save the others doing anything. I make no pretence I am not attempting to become a professional writer. Like the thousands of equally good musicians and actors, only a percent or so make it, although the others are all virtually interchangeable given the chance. I've written for pleasure since the start of primary school and although there are no levels of training like music you still learn formulas and the fact I have been published many times privately shows I'm not like the deluded X Factor singers.

There could be a competition, like Oxbridge entry exams, over who could take the piss the best out of Ed Miliband, faux racism accusations ("You called your cat Sooty, racist!), women complaining there aren't enough women in top jobs, men complaining there aren't enough women in top jobs (paid for by women to do so as they probably make a better job of it ;), multiculturalism (nothing funny there, it's the human equivalent of putting in road humps), diversity (ie giving one legged actors the role of Tarzan, for those old enough to remember the sketch), quantitative easing (there's a real challenge), the Green Party, Julia Gillard ex post facto (no, no idea what that meant either), gay marriage activists (I know they've got it already but they still apparently haven't stopped, someone tell them the bloody war's over), who Palestinians actually are (there isn't a country of that name), Shirley Williams (she's still going, like Brucie), and why people who label themselves 'liberal' work the hardest to restrict free speech?

There could also be a tie break on how to consummate a gay marriage, with extra points for the most inventive euphemisms. My own take would be to begin with looking at the conundrum of entering the opposite side of a mirror. Now Lewis Carroll aside, maths and physics could be prepared, taking the greatest brains in the field, to formulate a method where one is able to physically enter the reverse view part of a mirror. Money could be diverted from important climate projects and diversity promotion budgets among others, and the UN could even set up a department of entering the back side of a mirror, with a potential Nobel Prize in position for the first person to achieve it. Meanwhile men and women around the world are now enjoying their wedding nights, and only to be faced with the equally demanding conundrum of what goes where and how exactly are they supposed to do it. In the end just before the sun comes up most of the men give up and just stick it up their backside. Not ideal but tomorrow's another day to work something out, while the lesbians just give up entirely and go to bed with a headache.

I clearly failed the euphemism hurdle there but it was only a hypothetical entry.  I am considering preparing a script for the potential removal of Ed Miliband as Labour leader, called Ed, the musical. It seems the current trend is to take any random and irrelevant issue, like Gerry Springer or the rise and fall of Jesus (actually that's always been one of the most popular ones), so with the bold decision not to cast Rowan Atkinson in the role, but double the profits with a live reality show looking for the starring role called 'Who's the Ed?'. It would be possible, like the far more competent (insert any name here) and Toby Young to play himself, but I don't have much confidence in him remembering the script and most people probably would have difficulty understanding him. In fact why not do another Life of Brian, merging his rise and hypothetical fall with that of Jesus, however derivative would probably become the best presentation of all. You could start with his schooldays, borrowing scenes from Oliver Twist, while standing at the front of the class when the homework was set, and saying 'Please sir, can I have some more?'. His teenage years and love life, showing his first panic attack when he was informed if he wanted any sexual activity he would have to remove his trousers at the very least and probably show a lady his winkle. He never got over that one, which is probably why he remained unmarried until he became leader of the Labour Party which preferred that as a status.

His brother, who I'd attempt to fill with the American but highly appropriate Brent Spiner, even retaining the role of Data while having Ed as his partially human brother. Waldorf and Statler (as muppets) would play Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, both retired old farts kibitzing from the wings. The half time closing scene would be played out on the green fields of Tottenham Hotspur, with Ed appealing to the crowd at half time in the match how football should be more multicultural before getting rushed off by the SAS officers while being pelted with rolled up copies of the Daily Mail. The second half would begin with a burning bush, and the voice of the Lord, (I think I've found the role for Shirley Williams) telling Ed even though he really thinks he's joking he's been elected leader of the Labour Party, as the day before some cheeky angel implied God had no sense of humour so had to act sharpish. He then trots off to the only remaining Pullen's in Britain to buy a new set of pants and socks as his mother would be bound to check on his first week and probably year in office at the very least, and spends his final night before his new job finishing off the paintwork on his latest model soldiers and cars so he knows it's done.

The following scene spends an entire day of him being detained by the police officers guarding parliament, trying to explain you need a ticket in advance to visit and just because he knows what brand of toilet paper they use in the ministerial toilets and both of Tony Blair's middle names (Satan and Beelzebub although they weren't declared on his ministerial dossier) doesn't mean he isn't an obsessed fan, and anyway, he's not old enough to be an MP. When his mother finally calls the Prime Minister who has to curtail his innings on the village green to turn up in person before they will believe him, he enters his new office only to find the seat's too high and too hard. Not an auspicious start to his first day as head honcho.

It gets worse in the next scene, when BBC Question Time and Newsnight report the audience laughter records on his first appearances even though they're not supposed to be comedies. The offer from Simon Cowell to audition for Britain's Got Talent did not go down well either. His appeal to the crowd of 'I am not a comedian, I am the leader of the Labour Party' required two members of the audience to be administered oxygen and various changes of underwear. His first parliamentary question time didn't go down too well either, with only a few minutes remaining as the other side were waiting for his brother to arrive before beginning, and every time he said he was the leader telling him to shut up and behave like a good boy. By the end of the day comedians up and down the country were running tapes over and over again to get the nuances right, so they could crack up audiences with 'there is no doubt we are at the mercy of dangerous climate change' and 'no, I don't smell, you do', while various back benchers had to invest in protective underwear for the next performance. Then the fantasy scene, when, like Ebenezer Scrooge, he was visited by the spirits of Charlie Chaplin, Freddy 'parrot face' Davis, JFK, Max Wall, and a guest appearance from Woody Allen discussing how the great traditions of comedy and politics were now impossible to distinguish. Woody Allen made observations such as 'I think on the whole I would have preferred to have great sex by accident than become leader of the opposition', and thought even dead Charlie Chaplin would have done a better job.

Coming back to reality, he decided to hire the remainder of and current Cockerel Chorus, the Tottenham Hotspur team singers of the 70s, to provide an impressive backdrop to his performance. Singing such hits adapted for Ex-New Labour as 'Nice One Edward', 'You'll always walk alone', 'They're not voting any more' etc, he saw his ratings shoot up from a dismal 4% approval to about the same, but a little higher possibly. He goes to bed and dreams of him giving a speech as Martin Luther King, with JFK and Woody Allen coming up at the end to congratulate him, to which he inexplicably replies 'Is it because I's black?'. Clearly cheese and onion crisps before going to bed are not a good idea. Like some of the best cliff hangers the final scenes have two alternatives, depending on whether he lasts till the election or not. The outcome is not different, as we see him having to use a compass and Ordnance Survey folding map to find the nearest job centre (they closed most of them you see), and when he finally joins the queue outside, opposite an old poster still standing saying 'Labour's Not Working' one of the less salubrious members of the queue turns round pointing saying 'I know you!' while he turns his head coyly a la Lady Di, so totally embarrassed to be in such a lowly position while his brother is now advisor to Barack Obama, 'Weren't you at the AA meeting last week?'. How the Miliband falls.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

What is offensive?

2013's buzzword is 'offensive'. Sorting into categories by the left, top of the pile is racism, followed by religious hatred and homophobia, then disabled and women etc.

Well for god's sake grow the hell up. Kids from five or six have no sense of offence or causing offence. They do not protect a single person in the playground or are protected, let alone from the class bully who actually does hurt them from beating them up, sheer rudeness, ignorance or just an opinion which differs from yours or your religion's.

So finding a blanket badness, even when totally legal, in any statement which doesn't compliment a group, individual, disability, or any of the other issues I've mentioned but are cast across playgrounds worldwide in every possible form without causing any harm to the apparently far weaker children involved.

My personal reaction has always been to rebel against oppressive rules and directions, so am happy to use every single possible outlawed word, partly because I can and partly to do my best to keep them alive as they are words which deserve to be used. Wog, coon, cripple, spastic, whatever they are are only words, and the ones I just mentioned, along with the thousands similar I know and would be happy to add, haven't hurt you, and can't hurt anyone else. The values assigned to them are not mine, but yours, as they only carry as much evil as the listener or reader sees in them. So as I see them as neutral then I have no problem repeating spastic, mongol, half wit, backward, cretin etc over and over again as if the Tourette's brake had been released, as no angels were killed in the process. If I spent an entire day playing a loop of one or various words to the general public not a single one could be worse at the end of it besides an inevitable level of tedium. The only harm from using them is the almost guaranteed backlash on the user from those who have the absolute stupidity to be offended and then take it out on the messenger.

As a Jew I've clearly heard the lot already, and can demonstrate the line between offence and crime. If someone walks into a bar mitzvah, or even a funeral, and shouts 'Yids/Hitler/gas chambers' etc is a fucking idiot, but the only offence is their discretion in bothering to do so. I use words, but don't direct them at individuals, as although that is harmless it is rude, so I don't. But no one on earth can tell me what words I can't use, so will use them generally as unless directed at individuals they are not being used to attempt to pick on anyone. But if that person went on to say Hitler should have finished the job and he wants people to carry it on he is inciting murder, so crossed the line. One is using words, which are empty, and the other is recommending actions which are potentially physical. So calling someone a poof is their problem if they feel offended, as if you're homosexual, black, Jewish or anything else people will pick on they will pick on it. But if someone then goes on to say it should be outlawed or driven out of town they are campaigning against those people. So call someone a word, empty, suggest they are hurt in some way, the existing law covers it quite well already and can always be used given the evidence required.

But anyone who spends time criticising others for the words they use alone are restricting everyone's freedom. A word today can become tomorrow's outlawed one, and the one which replaces it next, and if you're old enough to have lived through the average decade or so for this process to turn over then how the heck can you remember when one became non grata and what stupid neologism was coined by some twat in an American University to replace it this time? I've lived through the 'correct' terms being negro, coloured, black and who the hell knows what now (it's not 'person of colour' as most callers on LBC said that was last decade) although they all mean exactly the same thing and were the official term at the time. Why condemn an old lady who calls the radio (as they always do) who refers to coloured people, as it took them 30 years to get her to say that in the 60s. Anyone who follows this line of thought is by definition wrong as you can't take the identical word and say it's gone bad after a decade and needs changing to a new one every so often and anyone still using the old one is bad, racist, worthy of retraining etc, as they are simply using the ever-fruitless route of mental masturbation, but not just on their own minds but everyone else's open enough to be entered by their virtual fingers. But they're not getting into my mind thank you, and shouldn't be getting into yours. How can the 'proper' word for anything suddenly become wrong when the thing you are describing is the same, always was and always will be? Is calling a spastic someone with cerebral palsy (plus the grammatical issue of replacing a noun with a four word adjective, which breaks many other rules) going to make them better, or will they still be a spastic? Don't look at the words, look at the task of communication. If that breaks down what is the point of having a language at all?

Our problems are because most people will not grow up

I will now explain my theory of maturity. When we are children and all is new, we learn by assumption and testing those assumption where the rules are not clearly expressed by our elders. We see what is on the surface, and eventually check it to see whether it is as it seemed or not. That applies to every single assumption we make based on surface and little more information, and as we mature we gain more and more about each area until we discover how they actually are wherever possible. This is a pretty basic and simple process, I see it in myself for areas of politics, social interaction, basically anything where I began with a clean slate and pretty much had to work things out for myself. But having been through that process at the age of 53 and remember each one as it happened, I then see many others out there, incredibly similar to each other which is a separate but related issue, who only drop a number of their assumptions and hold on to the rest as if because they prefer them to the reality they then refuse to learn what is actually the case as they simply do not like it.

It is that form of delusional hysteria which has allowed politicians and powerful others to collect society by the balls in the 21st century and twist them tightly, holding everything in our lives to their will by a severe grasp of its beliefs which are then reinforced by insidious propaganda. No different from learning Chinese or Japanese, languages with absolutely no elements in common with English bar a few borrowed words, if someone lies to you in Chinese by showing you a picture of an orange and saying the word for prostitute, so when you go to the greengrocer's and ask for a pound of whores someone with a hidden camera will get a good laugh. But take advantage of that weakness and you have 50 million sheep walking into shops asking the assistant if they are pimps. Of course once you learn enough of the language to understand it this will not be possible, and the language of propaganda is infinitely easier to learn than a foreign one even using our alphabet. But the problem here is people do not want to learn it as they think they are fluent already and the authorities do not lie to them so they are clearly speaking perfect English which they already understand perfectly.

Fracking is today's propaganda success, with the first good news in a decade or more (actually besides the government making squatting illegal recently and the minimum wage I can't think of many more) that we have centuries of cheap gas available in the world, what I can only describe as immature minded programmed individuals are fighting worldwide to ban it. Forget the plutonium which is blowing around the world from decades of nuclear leakage, and the deep coal mines which have caused around zero earthquakes since the 19th century, it's new, it goes against the 21st century religion of misanthropy, and is against everything the modern Green movement represent.

It's just another facet of applying Agenda 21, cheap energy means free and wealthy citizens who are much harder to restrict and control, and like doctors governments thrive when people have more problems they are employed to solve. Like firemen who set fires to occupy themselves (they do exist) these politicians deliberately invent imaginary problems like global warming and create more like multiculturalism and mass immigration to then step in and use draconian measures which break economies to pretend to sort them out. The facts on fracking are also about 50 years old and no one ever noticed it, proving it is not actually doing anything which could cause more problems if carried out elsewhere. If it were causing a tenth of the problems these cretinous protestors are claiming then it would have been banned some time after it began.

So bringing it back to my initial point, the sheep the authorities use to allow them to bring in new measures to extract cash and reduce our freedoms are only able to be manipulated as they have never grown out of the imaginary beliefs they developed as children as when the new evidence arrived over time they didn't like how it looked so refused to let go of their original views as they mean to them the world would be a better place. I expect given long enough I could try and remember pages of examples, but as the wrong answers are non-existent I tend to drop previous errors once I learn the truth. But two examples I did mention recently which can be measured and proved are reasonable ways to illustrate the point, low interest rates and high house prices are good. See my previous entry to discover the bottom lines are exactly the opposite to how they are presented by the utter criminals who promote them as good things. Suffice to say when was the last time you thought a massive rise in the price of anything was good, so ask yourself again, why exactly does that not apply to houses as well (unless you're investing in houses or other assets, which like shares can go down as well as up). Low interest rates however are not directly obvious so a perfect example of needing to scratch the surface, which few tend to do. Firstly, people need never borrow except for a house for personal use. I will say that again, borrowing is a choice exercised by people who cannot wait for something they don't need and end up spending more so not gaining anything.

I can't actually think of a single exception to that. If you need a car, then you need petrol and insurance. Borrowing for a car won't pay for them as well as they are regular outgoings on top of the car, after you've already committed £100 a month or so for the car so have less remaining for the upkeep. So if you can't afford it however much you'd prefer one then bloody well save up and wait. A car can be argued as the closest thing to an essential after a house as many areas mean it's the only way to get to 90% of the places you need to. But if you can't afford one then you must do what children and disabled people do, ie whatever has to be done instead. As for washing machines, TVs and least of all holidays, who on earth has the right to blow hundreds of pounds or more on something which is not actually required for their lives which is going to risk their wealth for a few years ahead, because they can't do without one? Yes, life is better with them, but it's better with a wife and millions of men like me have to make do without one as money is not a factor. You have to learn to manage without what is probably the most helpful luxury in the world, a partner, but these sheep insist on risking their chances of going broke by getting a TV or washing machine before they can actually afford them. Borrowing is like car crimes, people who break one law tend to break most of them, so no tax= no insurance and frequently no licence. Borrowing is the same, people with the mindset they can't wait of course don't just have a desperate yearning for an X Box (whatever the hell that is), but fourteen other items them and their usually larger than average families want as well. The income of such people tends to also be in inverse proportion to their spending habits, so most likely so irregular some level of default is almost inevitable.

So back to necessary borrowing as houses are simply normally too expensive to save for and essential, why aren't low interest rates good? Because estate agents do not work out prices by the value of the house alone, but directly because people must borrow the price is calculated by the cost of borrowing over a year, and what the customer can afford per year or month. So if the interest rate goes up 5% then the house price must fall as the customers still have the same maximum outgoings per month. If they go too high it means older borrowers will suffer, although the related problem of inflation actually helps them out as they are still probably paying far less than you as they bought at a fraction of today's prices, and when buying used to be advised to only buy if they could then afford future maximum rates or around 15% in historic terms. But as you can now see, low interest rates firstly encourage total borrowing, and even if they don't go up it burdens millions more people with items which could blow up in their face like time bombs at any point in the future. House buyers won't actually pay less as unless they remain that low for decades they'll be hit with a far higher hike than had they bought at mid to high rates, and have no choice but to remove that from their monthly budget or they'll become homeless. So, in a long and winding way, low interest rates do not help even borrowers, but the killer fact is 2/3 to 3/4 more people save than borrow, so the lucky winners when interest rates are low are outnumbered by the losers by 2-3 to 1. So even if it were possible to argue in some complex way borrowers could ever gain from low interest rates (which they can't, as prices are related to monthly total payments, so will be pretty much the same regardless when you buy), if most people lose then it is accurate to say low interest rates must be a bad thing.

The sheer effort required to weave a story complex enough to make people believe high energy prices are a good thing though, which they clearly have, shows the maturity quotient (related to the IQ as it reflects common sense rather than academic ability, something clearly shown not to be required to get marvellous exam results, much like social skills) to be far lower than expected, as the imaginary guff such greats as George Soros, George Monbiot, Al Gore, James Hansen and just the long list of usual suspects spout day after day persuading the already chronically hard of thinking masses paying more for energy of all types 'as you are saving the planet' is the greatest scandal since the holocaust. I am not exaggerating for effect, 3,000 poor and old people are killed by cold every year in Britain as they can't afford the heating bills, thousands of farmers are dying in the third world after having their land cleared for biofuel, and as prices rise annually we next have the promise of power cuts when the coal is banned. If people are dying of cold so much when they could turn the heating on, imagine the increase in deaths when there isn't any at all so even the rich old people can die of hypothermia, or have their home dialysis machines or oxygen generators pack up for a few hours or more. Yes, this idiocy is allowing a new gradual holocaust, worldwide in application, and so subtle it is almost impossible to tell it is happening, like the 20-30 year incubation period of cancer from low grade radiation leaks. If you wanted to kill millions of people undetectably, simply allow a nuclear power station to secretly or 'accidentally' breach its bounds, no one more than a few miles away will get the short term results beyond the high radiation limits, but for miles and miles beyond, carried by wind and water, long term low level exposure will kill as many people as a concentration camp.

If a way cannot be found to unravel the minds of these uneducable individuals they will vote through more and more legislation allowing any atrocities the governments wish to perpetrate, and block any rare good innovations their existing mindset is programmed to reject as it is outside their general programming. Because fracking is one of the few things which does not unanimously unite corporations and governments, as the profits available are far higher than any governments could afford to bribe with subsidies as they do for wind and solar power, we have the situation where the governments still disagree with cheap energy as it allows them massive revenue raising opportunities, but their usual friends the massive corporations can provide incredible economies of scale by fracking, making money by selling vast amounts of shale gas at reasonable prices just like we had in the 60s for coal and gas. But the governments and previously corporations had already programmed the sheep (as opposed to the goats who can think for themselves but a natural minority so void in effect) to be against cheap energy so while the governments do not unanimously want to ban fracking but are 50-50 split on it, simply due to a combination of conflicts of interest and sheer ignorance, the apparent majority of people they did persuade to 'go green' are doing their level best to nip it in the bud, at a cost to everyone.

I have identified the phenomenon, provided both an example and the result of its application. Hundreds of studies have been made on human judgement and the cause of errors, but although they explain how it works perfectly it does nothing to address actually solving the problem but simply describes it. I could devise a teaching programme for it myself for schools but trying to crowbar open the closed minds of adults for me seems near on an impossibility, if you grow up believing a falsehood it's very unlikely you'll ever drop in without a miracle.

Friday, August 16, 2013

How the world has been screwed by politicians.

I remember in 1991 when I began my psychic classes after finally leaving college and was trained in picking up people's personalities in a few seconds. It builds up with practice, and although we can all do it naturally unless it's learnt directly most of the time it's either unconscious or dismissed as guesses and assumptions even when we're on the button. I find it operates best with politicians, as most other people have little or no power over my lives so if they are a bit iffy I just walk on by and leave them alone, but can't with politicians. I've been pretty good in my opinion, and although the two I picked the most were so bleedin' obvious I can imagine their own parents apologising on their behalves, it's not hard for the others but my problem there is because they're not as obvious to most people as the once great Julia Gillard and the never to be great Ed Miliband, I believe I am just as accurate. The simple reason I know everyone else can pick those two as well is self-evident for Gillard, who was given a run and performed without her human mask on and frightened every horse within the solar system, while Ed Miliband was either chosen by mistake and too late to fix it, or as a fall guy for some really stinking changes no one else wanted to put their name to.

So the totally unknown in Britain Kevin Rudd replaced the previously totally unknown but wished we still didn't know Julia Gillard, and I pick up someone unable to understand deception, and simply has his deeply held policies he is determined to impose on the country without the slightest realisation of the fact if you directly present every single plan you have which lost Gillard and anyone else attempting to put them through either an election or their job no one will vote for them. So thankfully Labor (as they eccentrically spell it there) have got the Ed Miliband factor bang on in Australia, but with the massive bonus he is standing as leader in the election. By dumping Gillard the worm turned, not just for Australia but the entire world, as it is the first example of a 21st century UN led Prime Minister getting the boot, and not even by the voters. Fingers are crossed they convert this into a massive loss for Labor as a result, and we have the first actual country with a less UN led government than every other one worldwide which has been democratically elected.

Unfortunately, like in any other organisation of power, the really good politicians I can pick just as clearly, such as Peter Lilley, Ann Widdecombe, Robert Halfon, Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davis, all by no coincidence Tories, but real ones unlike their Labour-lite ministers, are forced to the back benches or lowest levels above as they aren't allowed to lead due to the UN-led government agendas. I'm sure this is reflected across the western world, with the loss of Ron Paul's challenge despite winning over more Democrats than most others I'd imagine past or present, and the total subjugation of the anti-EU factors in the Greek and Italian coalitions. It shows if nothing else decent honest people still join politics, but so much in a minority unless they somehow find a means of joining numbers to such an extent they could run a movement of their own (eg UKIP) they could never currently wield any power to clip or even remove entirely the massive UN wings intent of flying us as a planet into the sun.

In a way these desperately corrupt and corrupted individuals only reflect the corrupted knowledge and discretion of the effing idiots who elected them. They know the policies, they could choose the rarer and rarer alternatives (none in Britain besides UKIP), but instead accept whatever they are told, ie the majority of voters, while as always the small capstone of intelligent people at the top can never be enough to win an election, even though they are nearly always right. Of course if you have long enough to try and test policies, maybe have solar panels for a decade and lose all the money you spent on them, or have wind farms for a few decades which never produce more power than they consume, or wait 50-100 years to see there is actually no global warming whatsoever you will then know and vote accordingly. The fact it is also possible to find these things all out right now isn't applicable as you firstly have to have the brains to want to check what you are told, and secondly the brains to know where to look and find the information behind what is shown to us by the media. So as long as the majority believe in global warming and renewable energy (which unlike global warming can be measured directly and doesn't work), think low interest rates are a gift from god, high house prices make them rich, immigration helps the country, it's worth borrowing twice as much as something costs to get it now and not in a couple of year's time, and you can't judge whatever scientists tell us unless you're a scientist in their own field, then we will keep getting more of the same.

I have spent hours typing and calling the radio explaining these simple and besides global warming directly demonstrable truths, without a single new person getting it. It's simple accounting, low interest rates steal money from the citizens, high house prices make everyone poor and bankers don't use credit cards. Primary level maths here, yet people still think having a house worth three times more than they paid for it makes them upper class. Then they have two more kids or change jobs and need to move and they can't afford it as the other houses all cost more than they did before as well.

If you can't teach them that simple equation you can't teach them anything.

Ed Miliband. Why?

I don't quite know how I've become so hooked on Ed Miliband, but probably after so many years of Blairs, Mandelsons and Obamas when a fluffy teddy bear (literally as it goes) of little brain finds himself elevated to the second highest position in the country, the leader of the opposition, it is a great oasis in the dirty mire of 21st century politics. But in a way he also represents 21st century politics, an empty, hollow shell of meaningless words and dangerous actions the majority (as they vote the bastards in) believe are in our best interests.

So Ed Miliband has become the figurehead for world politics, a sort of rejected Obama, one who neither knows nor cares about their country but is employed by others to do what they ask in return for unlimited power and money for the rest of their lives. He of course hasn't quite made it, and I would say never could, as it looks to me his appointment was an accident, as he can't deliver a pint of milk, let alone deliver us from evil as a prime minister. But his ineptitude, lack of actual knowledge or principle, and willingness to follow whatever his elders and better endowed intellectually tell him to say and do do perfectly represent the current state of world politics, but just minus the personal qualities required to carry them out in practice.

I probably became interested in politics when our local MP gave a speech at school, was part of the old generation of decent and honest genuine people, and got me into the idea of joining myself at the age of 13. I quickly picked up libertarianism, then shared between the Tory right and the less political wing of the old Liberal party. I clearly saw the Common Market were no different from the impositions Germany wanted to put on us had they won the war, only gradually and without military action as they'd only keep losing. I paraded outside Chelsea Town Hall the day we had the vote to leave, purely by coincidence as I was taking an exam there, and the very polling station used by Margaret Thatcher, although I was locked away writing when she arrived. I took the first ever A level Government and Politics exam in Britain in 1978, allowing me to designate terms to particular sets of views and know the difference between fascism and Nazism, and socialism and anarchism. I also studied sociology up to degree level as a minor topic, adding the start of a masters I sadly had to quit through overwork finishing me off. Combined with the law degree and three years studying counselling since I can see how and why laws are written and the psychology behind those who follow and support those law makers.

Ed Miliband (it's becoming an obsession) does not fit the mould then or now. It is the same as had Mr Bean gone through the Oxbridge system but still been Mr Bean (as Private Eye also present him way after I'd noticed the uncanny similarities) and somehow by accident (as always happens in his life) become leader of the Labour Party, quite probably as someone spilled water over the ink over which Miliband's name was in front of the surname, so everyone voted for him instead of his brother by mistake. I know just enough of his political record before his sudden rise to obscurity to know he has absolutely no capabilities to lead a crocodile of primary school children without even needing to cross a main road, and imagine the party now letting him speak and act as leader while twenty other people under him actually carry out his duties, probably without him even realising or noticing. It's similar to any impostor spending time with the enemy until they slip up in a small way an expert can spot, and know a genuine German/British soldier/spy would never do it. If he slips up at all all he can do is slip up, as that is his entire foundation. He makes it up as he goes along once instructed, doesn't understand what he's talking about, and when left to his own devices is only able to respond with childish put downs.

He is every other party's greatest asset if he remains leader at election time, and will be utterly amazed if he does as everyone else can see exactly what I can. Even without noticing the few policies he's mentioned (which can also change from time to time and he probably can't even remember) he's just wrong. I expect they'd find a way of saving face one way or another dumping him before the start of the campaign, but hope to goodness they feel it would be even worse to admit defeat and let him go than the embarrassment of confirming what everyone else was already thinking.

Now in America some blame Sarah Palin for ruining the Republican's chances of winning the previous election, but the difference there was although she was totally naïve and unprepared for anything (how she made senator I will never know, she could never have managed it here in Britain) her policies were as they needed to be for their purposes, just not her apparent level of education and sophistication. But had she been as lacking in political knowledge as general knowledge and presentation she would then have been a lot closer to who we actually have now. In the same way a three year old is harmless you still wouldn't want them in a room on their own with an open fire or matches, so regardless of Ed's apparent total innocence, that also means ignorance and can be manipulated and exploited by every bugger in his name, so if it goes tits up he's the only one who gets the blame. Maybe that's exactly the reason, like Obama, he's been put up as the front man, but the difference is Obama is too electable as a person, like a gold covered turd, while Miliband is just a donkey. You wouldn't be scared of a donkey but wouldn't vote for it as leader of the country either. So maybe the policies they want to bring in can actually be carried out simply within Labour itself as opposition, kick him out in time, and then get a real leader in to take over who would ever have allowed such rubbish while they were in charge.

I think I may have cracked it.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

How to destroy a country

I didn't think describing in great detail how someone would go about deliberately destroying a country from within, until I realised if I did then people could easily recognise the signs and see it being done to their own right now. In no particular order you would (any or all):

Reduce freedoms including:

Movement: Make it expensive to travel, whether by car or public transport, by raising fares and fuel, plus taxes on both. Then restrict the roads by narrowing them and damaging them with concrete blockages on or by the road reducing the speed of cars to almost walking pace in order to avoid causing damage or accidents. Deliberately force cars onto the wrong side of the road to encourage them to either avoid such roads entirely or cause an accident. Then start banning cars altogether, as they have begun to in Paris, and in London for older commercial vehicles so far. The Liberal Democrats want to do this entirely in Britain in 2040 although as lame ducks would need one of the major parties to support them to get it through.

Speech: In Seattle certain words and phrases are now illegal, while in Britain professional bodies and councils will sack any staff heard to use any word like spastic, backward or anything connoting race outside the words designated by them, despite most being technical terms previously used in the medical profession and general usage. In the end the press and citizens in general will be so scared to be heard using the wrong words in public they may avoid mentioning certain subjects like immigration and local crime altogether, while both rise like rockets.

Morality: If I'm not hurting anyone then whose business is it who I have sex with or what we do? Or talk about, encourage or otherwise promote any forms of harmless and natural activities? So although it's nigh on impossible to prosecute someone for oral sex, making it illegal as in some US states probably deters many people, but why? They may have religious reasons but in Britain there are plenty of other areas of life censored and banned by laws old and new, including many relating to prostitution. Rather than legalise and regulate it it carries on regardless but run partly by organised criminals who pay off the authorities to profit from it underground. The more you impose on people's morals, which by definition are personal and not universal, the less freedom the people will enjoy.

Building: In Britain it can take 10 years to get permission to build a new public building, and 20 for a new station or airport, while the Chinese have built three of each including permission in the same periods. It's fine to zone areas to keep the density thin and industry separate from housing, but more than that (despite allowing rooms with no windows or room for furniture) the size and style should be entirely free for the owner to decide, up to certain limits. But make it unreasonably difficult to build and you open the doors to bribery and corruption, and end up with similar buildings anyway as long as the correct palms are greased, but for far greater cost and delay.

Making life difficult for people, although everyone would prefer a free run either along a road or through life in general is cruelty for the sake of it, making impossible excuses such as safety and security, to justify actions large and small which make the poor suffer the most in sales taxes and ration their use of travel and heating as they spend more of their total capital compared to everyone else on it. And try and make food expensive to, maybe by making it the law to burn 20% of corn on fuel instead of coal and oil.

Give rights to criminals: When a burglar enters your property then they have violated your rights in every potential way, yet they still have them, often more than you do. Why not simply make it almost impossible to try and stop a burglar in any effective way by allowing the police and victim to prosecute you instead of vice versa. That shows the side any government is on offering criminals such rights. And allow immigrants to enter regardless of the crimes they have committed or been accused of in their own countries, even allowing fugitives from the law to seek asylum and offer them benefits and council housing above people who have been waiting for years. Then do your best to hide the ethnic and cultural origins of the organised crime gangs once some are caught and reported in the papers, so again the victims look more guilty than the perpetrators for daring to suggest allowing gangs of foreign criminals in deliberately in the first place is actually an act of treason.

Debase the currency: Currency wars are the tool of the lazy government everywhere, instead of competing fairly an exporter will do all they can to reduce the value of the currency to make more profit on the same goods, while raising the commodities traded on the world markets in dollars almost beyond the means of normal people to afford as a result as the dollar rarely drops. Then create vast amounts of inflation through printing money, as in pre-war Germany and current day Zimbabwe, so whatever savings people have gradually becomes worthless while bankers and traders hedge against the falling currency they lobbied to create, making them the net recipients of everyone else's losses. Keep the interest rates at rock bottom to reduce everyone's pensions and savings and force up house prices as they are fuelled by cheap borrowing which only causes inflation, and again people are forced to spend more buying a house or renting and less on everything else, while the bankers and governments take it in cheap money to invest for themselves.

Infiltrate the authorities: Like the mafia, if each authority from the judiciary, government, civil service and police contain a scattering of Dons, then they can work together as a smooth running machine and protect their own and carry out organised crime with very little chance of conviction, as the chain of justice will be broken at any point, from witness to judge and between, while the top men are allowed to run any businesses they like without any threat from above, as they are at the top with no one above them.

Propaganda: If the government own or run the press behind the scenes, they will both promote shady businesses and policies, and use it to ridicule or block any opponents to any corruption seen in the system. In the end (although the internet makes this harder and harder) you can pretty much close down certain subjects being mentioned to the minimum, whether 'legally' through fake injunctions, or stick and carrot methods used by the mafia, allowing the people to rarely get a clue what is really going on besides what the governments want them to know and think. Whenever someone pops up with the truth ridicule them, if that doesn't work threaten or smear their reputation, and then if necessary find them dead by a mysterious accident.

End free trade: If you make cheap foreign or even home produced goods expensive through tariffs, or find ways of banning them altogether, then the people will have to pay far more than they really need to. If necessary use excuses like saving the environment or anything else the people could never discover directly for themselves just to keep some social order in place. Then add a profit into all public services which are not open to competition and allow companies to profit needlessly for essentials like water and electricity which can only be provided by a single system whoever you pay up front. How many water pipes enter your house to choose the best, and when you do what's the difference between the water in one or the other? Then manipulate the commodity and currency prices through false bids, inside trading and every other means known to the industry and you can raise and lower most prices at will within reasonable boundaries.

Restrict invention: If you make laws banning engines over 80% efficiency (check current US patent regulations) or anything else needing far more testing and regulation than required, many simply won't be able to find or afford the added costs and end up being bought for pennies from rivals who will simply save them till their own business model becomes obsolete. And when nothing legal works and they manage to go ahead anyway simply revert to plan B as with the whistleblowers. After all, if the people become rich and powerful who would need governments to run them and look after them when they can afford to live and travel cheaply and easily?

Poison the ecosystem: If there was no reason to do it, spraying toxic chemicals over vast areas of land would be one of the few things likely to cause a revolution. But tell people it's necessary to block the sun from burning the planet (you know, like it did before they started), then say it's only a theory and never mention actual activities (they fly high enough to be impossible to catch specifically) who could ever prove it, besides some lucky random scientists who took samples and were then dealt with by the propaganda machine to make sure their findings never got beyond the internet. But bees and fish and birds die in thousands and no one can imagine how or why. Then better still get into the inside of the ecosystem itself and alter it genetically. Then either the seeds are sterile and sold to the third world as cheap food but can't be reproduced so must pay another company annually for a new crop indefinitely, using the monopoly system of pricing, or if not sterile can make all nearby crops spread whichever alteration you have inserted over a larger and larger scale over time.

Divide friends and family: One of the oldest and best, if you think of policies and ideas which can be taught to children, for instance, who then turn against their parents unaware of such bogus policies, then the government and education system will become more powerful than the parents. Tell a generation of schoolkids to tell their parents to cut their carbon footprint (potentially allowing them to get hypothermia if followed to the letter), and it will not just create some massive rows but actually make children suspicious and wary of the motives of their own parents. Add a course in political correctness and then you can also have children accusing their parents of being racists, and ideally reporting them to the authorities for it. And of course touching children must be illegal to reinforce the breaking of the bond between parents and their children, and their nurses and teachers as well. And if any are caught doing so then make sure the press report it immediately with names and pictures even if they haven't even been charged yet, to further divide the community. You can also deliberately allow in hostile groups to take over small communities from abroad, such as Romanian crime gangs, and then accuse the entire town of being racist when they complain about thefts and vandalism etc. It works every time. And create outlandish theories about the world no one can prove one way or another, and watch friends and families fight over them, like gay marriage or global warming, where no issue ever existed beforehand but you manage to create one from thin air.

Restrict wealth: Make it almost impossible to become rich by vast progressive taxation and put everyone off trying or find ways of cheating. If you want to be inventive think of grand ways of spending the money on everything except what the people actually need, like cable cars, cycle lanes and road humps while the roads themselves actually decay and there aren't enough bridges to get across the rivers. And then charge to use the ones there are.

Charge for becoming ill: People have little or no control over becoming ill, but charge them for treatment anyway, and if it makes them bankrupt and lose their house it's just bad luck.

Overpopulation: Allow anyone and everyone to come to the country, and advertise in particularly backward and obnoxious countries to get some of the very worst and criminal gangs, who then barely speak the language and form tight pockets of local groups keeping separate from the local people and then employing each other and sending much of what they earn abroad. It clogs up densely populated areas and stresses public services on both infrastructure and personnel. So what if everyone has to wait twice as long for the doctor and dentist, if they can actually find one. And it takes twice as long to get everywhere as there are so many more cars on the roads which you haven't increased and narrowed already to reduce the flow of traffic.

Monday, August 12, 2013

They are not our friends

I was told years ago the government are not our friends, and do not look after us but themselves. Anything they do in our favour is either a bribe or a coincidence. Once you have that view you start looking for examples, and every now and again in a policy or a throwaway comment they prove it, in the form sometimes of an open confession few will even notice.

1) Low interest rates. The current UK rate of 0.5% helps a third to a quarter as many people who borrow as the great majority who saves. The banks and governments however do borrow at 0.5% while others still pay a few percent to a few thousand depending on the nature and length of the loan. So in this example, there would be no logical reason for any government to hurt the large majority of society, unless it helps them instead.

2) Renewable energy. Wind turbines cost around ten times more per watt than fossil fuel, and even then by their nature can't ever produce the small amounts of power, often in short bursts (like the wind, basically) which ends up wasting half as it's produced when not needed, and staying idle the rest of the time. They need power to start them up, turn them to the wind, heat them when freezing and stop them when too windy. Then a real power station must be on permanently to back them up, again whether or not the power it uses is drawn on. They can't produce on demand so waste their energy as well while they are not being drawn on, wasting energy twice. The maintenance is vastly expensive when they go wrong and use millions of tons of concrete for the foundations. They will never be able to produce more usable power than they cost.

Solar panels only work in sunny areas during the long days, which is stating the obvious unless you've bought them already and clearly forgotten. People buy them for the guaranteed subsidies simply taken from everyone else's bills, and in the winter when they are needed the most can hardly work at all outside the tropics. So you have a system which produces a weak amount of energy (the atmosphere reduces the sunlight by 25 times) and if stored can only be released when there's enough time during the daylight to build enough up. So their production decreases directly with the amount required.

Wood chips are supposed to be a waste product of the building industry, yet besides costing three times more than fossil fuel Britain can't produce their own and import them from the US. As trees are a restricted commodity there will be a point reached where the annual requirement for wood chips can never be met worldwide as the trees can't grow fast enough to be cut down and burnt.

Biofuel clears either existing crops or rain forest, and creates monocultures of corn and palm oil which instead of being used for food (they don't grow more corn, but take a proportion of it) is burnt despite there being hundreds of year's worth of coal at the very least.

Again, the figures are absolutely known in every aspect. Everyone, even the buyers, know for example an electric car can only be fuelled at a point (even if you have to wait many hours when you reach one), but still buy the things and somehow wipe from their minds the inevitable point when they will find themselves, probably on a cold winter night when they need the heater and maybe the wipers on, and forget the usual 50 mile range is down to 30 or 40. Even if they run out a mile from home, they may be able to walk home, but how will they get the car back? Answers on a postcard please. And wait till the battery runs out, a new one costs the value of the car.

3) Unemployment. Throwaway comments can be the destruction of any criminal's career, as when you're a crook your truth is criminality. You lie to appear genuine, and your victims who believe they are your customers pay for the products of your front business, while the money is almost certain to never reach its final destination of a full return plus profits. So for example someone spends £8000 on a solar panel, despite the maths explain on the brochure you will only save £300 a year (based on subsidies and average annual output, which cannot be known in advance), meaning they can't produce a profit for well over 20 years, and how many people will still be there by then? I don't think you can take them with you, plus the wiring and inverter to convert DC to AC. But some solar power drops off after a few years, and some pack up long before the 20 years is up. Then they need cleaning every year, and guess what it costs to get a man up to wipe them clean. Whichever way you arrange the figures the only person making a profit are the sales chain. Now if someone like, say, the managing director of Siemens, said to his staff "We all know solar is a waste of money but the profits are so great we must get involved anyway". This was reported by a number of staff at a meeting when it happened, but for the economic realities of reducing subsidies and maybe customers waking up to the figures gradually then they didn't do it for very long. And the simple observation very few bankers own a credit card. Follow the insiders, they know, and if they don't buy GM food or aspartame in their drinks then neither should you.

Our great new leader, Mark Carney of the Bank of England, for the first time ever gave conditions for the rise in interest rates he wasn't planning to do. Unemployment must fall to below 7% from 7.8%, subject to various other conditions. The Daily Mail reported how investors are dreading this week's unemployment figures, as if they are too low then it could mean an earlier rise in interest rates.

These are the bankers who gain from low interest rates, like property companies gain from high property prices while the owners never can, and are both a tiny minority of society. The government and the bankers work in tandem, sharing the low interest rates and passing bonds and futures between them to enrich whoever wins the bets, while it's our money they're gambling with as they stole it from investors in deposits and pensions. So we already know the government are not looking after us with low interest rates, but the people they are looking after, the bankers, want the country to have high unemployment as they make more profits from it. You can't please all the people all the time, but surely you should look after the majority wherever possible, and never try and profit from their misfortunes. As Mark Carney has now guaranteed will happen.

It is one thing to spend years of detective work tracing money and tracking down perpetrators to spend weeks or months presenting evidence in court before possibly winning a guilty verdict, and having policies which openly admit 'We are ripping you off' in ten foot tall flashing letters. How much more evidence does anyone need, that you can not only prove our government is looking after a small group of already successful people, but probably the great majority of all its other policies are doing the same thing in less obvious ways? We can elect new people, and the rise of UKIP is proving this with their growing support ahead of the next elections, but until the majority actually discover how the current three parties (as they don't disagree on any of these policies) are all out to get us, or at least not out to help us, things can never change. Unless you want them to.

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Redefining words

So politicians are now redefining marriage as a union between any two people, and pollution now includes CO2, a gas essential to all life. What next?
Maybe they'll include death as a form of life. That should produce some interesting results. And exam passes could include failures?

Once you change the meaning of words then anything becomes possible, except in actual reality. For example you can extend the legal definition of any word to mean whatever the government wants, but you can still never consummate a gay marriage. They could redefine cancer to include warts, and then say they'd managed to cure 80% of cancers. Would they be right or wrong?

Basically once you start altering the official meaning of any word, the actual thing it referred to must by definition remain the same, so calling a cat a type of dog will never manage to get them to interbreed, as although the new cat is called a dog in law it still will not be able to do anything different to what it could when the word reflected the actual difference. Even blurring the edges a little, like raising the number of people who can pass an exam doesn't make the extra ones any cleverer, it just makes the exam less representative of academic performance.

This is nothing to do with politics. Gay people wanting a legal partnership is something they campaigned for and got, in the form of a civil partnership. Not marriage, simply as the definition of marriage was a lifetime union between a man and a woman, which came with the added condition of consummation through sexual intercourse, or the contract would be void. Forget having children or not, as that is not compulsory, but having different chromosomes is the expected requirement combined with exploiting the results of those differences in a marriage. Something which cannot be possible for the same sexes. So the governments simply said 'that's not a problem, words are flexible so we'll change the meaning of them to keep up with a changing society.'. Of course in marriage this opens the door to groups, incest and animals at the very least, and technically once you've set a precedent to alter the meaning of whatever you like to fit an agenda, someone else with an agenda will then come along and using that precedent as their basis, campaign for their own to then be fulfilled.

Technically it does not have an end. Taking any new idea to its extreme conclusion will show you the potential of starting a new thread. Tax something for the first time at 1% and most people will barely react or notice, like parking in your own street. Then once they've had a year or to to forget about it charge properly at market rate or above and then it's too late to stop. I would imagine newspeak, taking a recognised word with a fixed meaning and altering it to fit something the government want it to was described by Orwell and with CO2 pollution set in stone by Obama, followed by gay marriage spreading across the world like Asian Flu, as if one country sneezed the law out and the wind spread it around the world, means technically no institution or definition is any longer safe. Certainly for me if someone had suggested people of the same sex would be able to become married like anyone else I'd have said there are some boundaries which even modern governments couldn't cross. How wrong I was. Nothing is now sacred, governments who still practice discrimination could in theory label any group they wanted as either favoured or persona non grata, because they have defined who they are by diktat. Like the gypsies killed during the last war, a country could decide who were gypsies (much like Switzerland currently is doing against asylum seekers), and just as Hitler included many non-Jewish people as Jews who had a single Jewish grandparent but not the correct one, you could then get distant relatives and the like of actual gypsies and spread the definition as widely as you wanted to.

Like all or any other power, it is neutral until used. Whether you think gay marriage or calling CO2 pollution is good or bad, wait till the next redefinition. It has the potential to allow governments now to simply change the meaning of anything to fit what they want to do, and make it law so the previous meaning is simply wiped out at a signature. They have done this twice now, and the world is currently divided over the merits of both decisions. But they are extremely unlikely to stop there, why would they now they've managed it successfully twice at the very least?
 

Friday, August 09, 2013

Happy Ed Miliband!

Reporting from my new location in Bongo Bongo Land, as I have discovered the London Borough of Brent has now been called, I'm sure I heard people on Kingsbury High Road saying to each other 'Happy Ed Miliband' or something like it. Now Ed Miliband would make an ideal candidate as the new leader of Bongo Bongo Land, having pages of relevant qualifications, such as a BA in banana studies, MA in totalitarian politics, and a PhD (failed).

His qualities of leadership alone, capable of taking a -3% lead and turning it into the required +50.01% is nothing short of miraculous, speeded by the winds of rampant climate change and fanned by the flames of burning wind turbines, plus the money spent to build them. His grasp of public relations alone is something to behold, his ability to peak just at the moment of vote calculation, like he had been holding his breath, to let go and return to around a healthy +/-3% afterwards when it doesn't really matter. Rumours point to fact finding missions in darkest Africa, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Sudan, rubbing shoulders with some of the greatest names on the charge sheets of crimes against humanity, and learning all he could to bring back such ideas to be modernised and applied to what was once called Great Britain.

But Ed only represents an experiment in outlandish politics. The test actually being how much will the public take, and he reached a previously uncharted level, failed by greats as Neil Kinnock, Michael Foot, and the equally left wing (don't let anyone tell you otherwise) William Hague, who were all treated as laughing stocks and fired accordingly. But Miliband is different. He has convinced at least three people since becoming leader of the Labour Party he would make a good prime minister, while the reaction of his brother David was to leave the country. He would know a lot more than anyone else so would strongly advise anyone to follow his lead than anyone less well informed. But the establishment of Bongo Bongo Land in August 2013 has been a crucial moment in both the career of Ed Miliband and left wing politics in general. As I write, the combined armies of the People's Democratic Autocracy of Odinga-Odinga and East Banana (the country was split in 1971) are in talks over whether to support the new state of Bongo Bongo Land or write a petition requesting a return to its previous name of Brent. stating the name 'Bongo Bongo' to be based on an obscure poem by Kipling casting aspersions on Cuban cigar manufacturers alleged to be skimping on tobacco in order to save enough to roll a tenth one each time to keep for themselves. These were then either kept for personal use, or used as a form of currency in exchange for the local drums, bongos, which were collected and sold at weekends on market stalls as a form of early money laundering. As a result, the term 'Bongo Bongo' could be inferred as insulting, although as at least one person has pointed out it may have been referring to the almost extinct gazelle of the same name.

Plans are said to be afoot regardless of the results of any talks or following elections for the total independence of Bongo Bongo Land, as an example to the world of modern 21st century values, led by Ed Miliband in perpetuity, setting an electoral term of every 80 years to ensure the semblance of democracy but total impossibility to actually apply it, something planned to extend to the remainder of the planet (should he manage to save it as he claims) if successful in its first trial. It would become a statutory example of equality and multiculturalism, and presently in negotiations with the BBC who if successful would be moving their entire headquarters to the now vacant Brent library. There would be no official language, but shared between English, Welsh, French Canadian and Palestinian, with subtitles in Urdu. Baroness Tonge is already recruiting the Bongo Bongo army among the hordes of Occupy warriors now trained but unable to find new employment, and has approached Anjem Chaudry for the new post of foreign minister. Rumours are buzzing around that William Hague is also considering crossing the floor, as a long term supporter of radical totalitarianism (although in a closet sense) feels after forty-three years in politics batting for the other side may finally be able to come out as a full-blown totalitarian. And possibly gay. Overall the new possibilities created by the formation of Bongo Bongo Land in what was previously part of England is a revolutionary move which could only have happened in the 21st century, after decades of planning behind the scenes by such greats as Shirley Williams, Will Self, Peter Mandelson, George Soros, Piers Morgan and most of all Tony Blair in imperceptibly removing every single element of Britishness until the land was clear to allow in both the entire might of the EU and create the new Utopia of Bongo Bongo Land in Britain's red and pleasant land.