Extending the climate industry

Following a suggestion of climate change dating and training for pets, my suggestions for widening the scope of the climate machine was as follows.

There's already an unofficial climate drama movement, TV programmes and films with subtle or overt messages designed to frighten the kids to do something about their parents' carbon footprints and freeze to death as a result if they actually do by turning the heating down. There's already a very successful Climate Change Investment Fund, run by a BBC director, so that niche is already filled, as is the proposed UN climate currency, annual credits which expire when are left over and stop you using energy if they run out too early.

Then I would open climate change wards in hospitals for those so terrified of the consequences (I'd prescribe an umbrella myself but where's the profit in that once the demand has been exhausted?) where instead of driving ordinary people crazy the whole time and then calling them murderers when they are politely told after the ninth time of harrassment to go fuck themselves, could share predictions and compete to imagine the worst of the worst case scenarios, like Mount Everest being the only place left above water, or the gulf stream sweeping away Al Gore.

In fact not only would the patients benefit (well we would as the world could be eliminated from the worst believers) but the doctors could go on grant funded courses to become climate therapists, trained to administer therapy to those obsessed with different weather at an unspecified moment in the far distant future. In fact they would only lessen the symptoms rather than find or administer a cure or they'd lose a rich fund of customers. If a cure existed the last thing they'd do is share it let alone use it as then the funds would dry up within a few months or so.

Then the UN could coalesce all the media worldwide into a single Climate Channel, run 24/7 through every free TV system, preaching non-stop about how the seas will rise and IT'S YOUR FUCKING FAULT FOR BEING HUMAN AND WANTING TO LIVE AT A CONSTANT 22C INDOOR TEMPERATURE. And finally the ultimate application, the climate change prison, for everyone involved in misleading the public, and taking their money and energy systems away from them.

Guided by an outside force

The first thing that hit me in various conversations tonight was the larger force driving us all, whether we are aware of it or not, to our personal missions in life, and in some cases like my own can see how nothing I could have done would have stopped the force, as every single aspect of my life directed me to complete the mission even long before I knew it. I'll add details tomorrow, but basically after losing my job twice in the late 90s/2000 I used the difficulty of returning to work to raise my level of qualifications, following a letter from my organisation I was now entitled to do so. I stretched it out to take one for the other group after, and then a two term weekly course in spiritual healing (only as the teacher left before the year was up, but we got the certificates anyway). Then came my meeting with the British UFO expert, who by total coincidence was my friend's brother from the 80s (ie when I used to see him, not when they became brothers), which led to a series of TV appearances in the late 2000s. That dried up and he now lives abroad since he got married, although other people within the community still put me up for programmes none have yet succeeded although even I'd admit they were all variations on a theme but with different people.

By then I'd got hooked on global warming, which led me to seeing the network of international conspiracy generally, staying up reading and discussing, and then writing half the night, much to the annoyance of friends and family as I ended up getting up at lunchtime, but I was being swept along by the larger system, with at no time any more idea I'd be used in the media besides trying to publish my written material while a thousand similar people also write about that sort of thing.
Then David Icke set up a web TV studio a couple of miles away, and while I was considering volunteering (my nerves were the reason I didn't go straight there as per normal), and before I did his regular presenter announced on Twitter he'd done a programme on global warming fraud, I told him I had material on it, and bingo, many year's worth of material ended up in a 30 minute interview, hopefully the first of more as he's asked me to, and I have at least 1-2 more prepared.

My point is at no time since losing my second job did I either expect to drift off into research, get on TV and into the media through it, and learn so much simply through being concerned about global warming and how it hadn't done what they claimed. And now the current long process has completed I've looked back on it and decided it was something I was part of, rather than random or planned by me, as everything fitted perfectly, like all my other known short term examples of guidance, and even my financial needs were totally looked after to allow me to get on with the work only I could do as it drew on my legal work and knowledge of psychology, and tremendous persistence and compacted memory. That means the facts (mainly due to learning cases) are all in boxes and mainly able to be recalled and strung together to continue the thread once I start at any point. And I love to speak and teach. Therefore due to my innate qualities and specific education it was down to me to do this particular job, I was then provided with the means- time and money- to do so, and shown after the event how it was guided and completed. It is so tidy even a script would be considered unrealistic as supposedly nothing in life works so cleanly, but I've seen in many cases it certainly does.
That goes full circle to my spiritual work, as those lessons continue to be taken as well, and state we are only part of infinity, and as such are directly connected and accessible to any and all of it as required. My mission is not to convince anyone of it, but mainly become aware of it myself directly as part of my own development. Of course that is called enlightenment, and although that is the ultimate human goal you then start all over again learning as an enlightened person, as infinity never stops growing its knowledge and power.

It's called discrimination for a reason

The BBC are now calling for ethnic minority quotas, along with a few others. It is technically illegal as all discrimination is, but why no one has bothered to use the Race Relations Act (I expect they found a loophole, they always will if it suits them) I don't know. Unless it excludes white people from it, which presumably it must do. But that would mean if a black club in Brixton or an Asian shop in Southall refused to serve a white person they would be allowed to, and how could that be legal?

Legal or not, by setting the precedent of social engineering the BBC are creating one of the most dangerous and totalitarian rules we have seen in the 21st century. Think about it, besides women and ethnic minorities, like everyone else, only applying for the jobs they are qualified for and interested in, they must now reject qualified candidates for the only criterion of being white while there may not even be a qualified ethnic candidate to replace them. And then imagine if this extended to professions like medicine and law? Would you really accept doctors' jobs being restricted to certain races as they hadn't yet reached their quota? But the really clear picture forms when you turn it round the other way, and not just in Britain but any country in the world. That could allow quotas for white footballers and boxers, and a minimum number in the 100 metres. And if not why not?

Further consequences of such policies mean white unemployment will directly fall, with more accusations they are lazy as a result, and calls for even more immigration to do those jobs they will not, except they are not being allowed to. This in turn will continually increase the ethnic makeup and increase the quota ad infinitum. Using the principle fairly and evenly you would have to make sure every third shop in Southall was white run, schools in Brixton had to have a quota of white pupils (schools are already making efforts to introduce at least some mixing with ethnic minorities, since a school in Devon was classed as 'too white'). Imagine them saying it the other way round, yet they easily got away with that. In the end once you outlaw discrimination then women, ethnic minorities and the disabled have a free run at every job as anyone else, it is a level playing field. Simply comparing the ultimate numbers with society as a whole, complaining if it isn't the same, and then forcing more people in until it is, despite there being no tolerance of deliberate exclusion, is simply creating discrimination by law instead of stopping it. There are endless reasons certain types of people prefer any job. The latest study saying forcing women into technical jobs is pointless as most simply aren't that interested in them is the first example of solid academic evidence. Just as not many women I spoke to cared at all about the World Cup or competitive sport in general. You may as well force every football crowd to be 50% female for the same reasons, dragging them off the street each Saturday and kicking men out until the numbers are even. If you think that's crazy why don't you think the other ideas are as well?

Take back your freedom, without it you have nothing

I realised something the other day, the major reason for my entire attitude to life is based on the freedom my parents gave me from day one. I was never told what to do in any way, just guided and advised, and was trusted to go out and come back whenever I wanted and never did worse than get lost when I didn't know where the bus went. The contrast when I spent a month away with my grandparents, the exact opposite, who watched me the whole time and interrogated me- have I washed my hands, combed my hair, been to the toilet, why do you want to eat that, why are you wearing that, told me (they actually phoned my bedroom every morning) when to get up, and I was so relieved after a month when my parents arrived on holiday and I had my freedom back. The same thing applied when I worked in their shop. The manager had a daily schedule which kept us busy cleaning and stocktaking every spare moment for years. I assumed as it was so busy we needed to do this, until he went away for a couple of weeks, no schedule, and we got everything done on the list in half a day a week. What had been a really tough and demanding job turned into a relative holiday although exactly as much got done. This taught me a lesson that people are best left to their own devices, with simple rules for work and school and otherwise trusted to know or learn themselves. We are not designed to be ruled by anyone, but helped and guided, our governments are our servants not our masters, and this has set my philosophy in life through direct experience at home and at work equally. You can either enjoy your life or it can be a chore, but it's the only one we've got so may as well be left to make the most of it with as few restrictions as possible. The difference is total between the two.

The same principle applies in every single aspect of life. Rules and limitations must be only if necessary rather than by default. This means you can do everything you want unless it isn't safe and only applies the minimum amount of force and restrictions required to do so, while if you look around you you will see this is far from the case, especially compared with the last ten years. Try driving in Britain, and perfectly safe roads used for a century with no problems have now had their speed limits reduced, often to 20mph, and covered with the enforced cancer of humps.The excuses given of increased safety etc are not even justified by reduced accidents and injuries, partly because the emergency services have an annual report (actually published a few years ago in the Hendon Times, much to my amazement) of how many people die or lose vital treatment as they are delayed by having to slow down for them both on the way to a call and with a patient in the ambulance, often with tubes or needles attached to them which would be displaced if they went over a hump at more than 10-20 mph whatever the speed limit. Anyone wanting to extend their house in the last ten years will also find it a lot harder, with the building regulations now imposing combinations of EU and local impositions of added insulation (which often causes condensation and reduces ceiling height), fire doors and smoke alarms in every private house despite no others ever being there until the extension is added, and bans on new side windows even when they overlook the street with a hedge between them. What are the reasons for all these increasingly restrictive rules on what was till now a fairly safe and harmless set of activities (driving) and physical requirements (building) making it harder and harder to both get anywhere easily (remember public vehicles all have to use the same roads as well as everyone else) or choose what you want to do and pay for in your own house which does not affect anyone else besides the immediate neighbours? The reasons for my purposes are less important than the principles. Wherever you pay a greater price for an item or a service than you get in return you have been shafted. You do not spend twenty pounds to earn fifteen. The simple answer is it is based on power for its own sake, and politicians and businesses working together to provide work for each other and keep the businesses supplied with work to build road humps at £10,000 a go, and double the time required to convert a loft as so many more materials are now required. Cynical but true, as if you look back to the 60s or 70s when speed limits were generous, road humps were illegal, and new rooms had to be built so as not to overlook or block the light from neighbours and not fall down, rather than become a fortress ten times stronger than the rest of the house which was clearly fine as it was. Look at the MoT test for cars. When they brought in emission tests they were either passed or failed by all vehicles. Then, when under an EU plan to remove cars from cities, Boris Johnson brought in new requirements for vans and lorries which either cost thousands to convert or were impossible, despite every single one of them already passing the MoT test. That meant legally he had declared by implication the MoT test was inadequate, or his test was superfluous. You be the judge of that. A normal road journey, as well as my initial example of a job which can be done better without a slave driver in charge, is a fairly easy to follow one to represent every single other area of life, where the welfare of others has to be considered, but especially in the case of drivers, their own welfare is reduced equally when having an accident as all parties suffer. We are all familiar with the uncontrollable traffic jams, so when the council narrow roads and remove lanes, they are creating more ways to ruin a journey by a fairly large amount. The humps are not suitable for road vehicles as the suspension and bodywork were not designed for a vertical drop more than occasionally, not many times a day. Councils have a fund for claims which costs each hundreds of thousands every year for broken exhausts and suspension which they rarely dispute as the damage from them is well known. Even small alterations, like fixing the traffic lights to stay red longer all add up as negative marks to spoil a journey. You get the general picture. How many drivers would have not missed a hazard without the humps to stop them, or worse still the barriers that make people have to overtake them and face oncoming traffic head on. While you're busy watching them and speed cameras your attention is diverted from children and animals running into the road, so they do the exact opposite of what they are supposed to. So to sum up, whether bringing up or educating children, right through the workplace and public and private spaces, every journey is harder to gain exactly the same things with more rules than the bare minimum. It is the principle of libertarianism, which we all enjoy but few understand and many wish to impose the opposite on others while not wanting it themselves, (it's called hypocrisy, conscious or unconscious), where left wing intellectuals whinge about equality while paying accountants to reduce their tax bills, or send their own children to private schools as they abolished the free grammar schools which they would have gone to otherwise. People are generally not stupid and all aim for self preservation. So once a child knows why it's better not to stay up late before work the next day they will self police, as will drivers or anyone else going about their normal lives. Businesses need regulations to stop them cutting corners with shoddy goods and waste dumping etc, as they are dangerous and need regulating as a consequence, as their interests conflict (in their eyes, they don't really) with the customers. In fact any business who supplies what people want at a fair price will do better than the ones trying to cheat them. But as citizens we are all working together, we are not essentially enemies however many cults and religions tell you otherwise, and apart from criminals and idiots who the law has no effect on anyway as it does not stop them breaking it, just punishes them if they are caught doing so, meaning everyone else will drive safely and look after themselves without an outside authority both forcing them to, or using measures ten times more than required to enforce it. Think of that next time you go on a trip somewhere and apply the comparison to everything else.

Are the liberal left founded on fear and immaturity?

I rarely see anyone on the right demonise individuals they don't agree with, those on the left have the dirtiest mouths I've ever come across and that only represents what's in their hearts. They are at base scared misanthropists who trust no one and believe you must curb human nature in every possible way to protect the world from humanity. They are pretty much stuck in one of Freud's earlier stages of development and see the world as a terrifying place full of potential danger while in fact most people are quite nice. This was extended even further to its ultimate conclusion in the 1970s environmental movement, led by Margaret Mead, Stephen Schneider and the current proponent still going, David Suzuki. They have refined liberal (funny how so many political labels do exactly the opposite of what they say) misanthropy to its ultimate level, seeing all humans as bad and need to curb all their power and ideally reduce their numbers to a bare minimum, as they are a threat to the planet, useless eaters (what about all the other animals I wonder) and ultimately a cancer on a planet which of course is made of inert minerals and would be like Mars or the Moon without life which we can see makes them a far less inviting place altogether as a result.

Going back to the mainstream (although it is more and more becoming infected by the environmental virus) elements of fear and loathing abound, the poor (and ironically many of the ultra-rich) despise anyone with more money than the average, see society as divided into them and us groups- black/white, women/men, bourgeoisie/proletariat etc, and then sets off a class/race/gender war as they always claim one half has the advantage over the other so must be cut down to size or the others won't ever succeed on their own efforts. That is called social engineering, which believes mankind is so awful on its own every possible part of their lives from birth to death must be uniformly regulated by the state (ironically again made up of people identical to those they are ruling), as otherwise there will be exploitation, slavery and chaos. Of course history shows such attempts such as Stalin's purges and Mao's great leap forward did nothing but kill thousands of people and imprison many more for not going along with state requirements. There is little difference between sacking a state employee for saying the wrong word for black people or women and wrecking their careers and imprisoning enemies of the state. It is the same mechanism and only a matter of degree. Bearing in mind incitement of a crime is a crime in itself, if someone uses a currently bad word or phrase it does not mean they want to hurt that group or are calling for others to do so. There is a huge difference. Similarly words used 50 years ago were the norm, and anyone of that age who still uses them does not mean anything different to someone using the current buzz word today, they just aren't under any legal duty (yet, thank goodness) to keep up. But they are treated no different to any political extremist who has just managed to be part of a group who is hateful but knows how to do it within the law. Your grandma could be treated with the same contempt as Nick Griffin for calling someone coloured, even though that was the accepted word till the 70s.

I would say taking a maybe single number percent figure (probably in the low numbers) of actual nasty people and extending them to around 90% is bound to wreck ones view of the world and humankind. They trust their own (until they go out of step), and everyone else is mistrusted, and they look for examples to prove their theory every time by scrutinising every word and action to try and catch people out. I see it every day online, idiots mining other people's pages looking for any dirt, just as the media do for politicians. This shows they expect most people to let them down sooner or later, and therefore en masse they are like a herd of wild bulls. The state must be strong and powerful to contain the dangerous mass urges of humankind, greed, the need for power, fraud, theft, slavery, you name it they'll think of it. Of course with such a fearful view of humanity, presumably everyone else except yourself as you're right on and would never take advantage of another human being, everyone else, as the feminists say, is a potential rapist or racist, or in the case of god forbid white men, the cause of all ills in the world apparently (see Monty Python's "What did the Romans do for us" for a similar accusation taken apart). Then the hard liners narrow down their fear and hate and home in on the enemies of the people, who nearly always turn out to be Jewish ('The Zionist Threat'). Then the really far gone claim because the Zionists created all our current problems they must also have invented the holocaust (never mind the bodies and death certificates connected to millions of real dead people) to gain support and carry on with their evil agendas as an apparent victim.

The anti-Zionist trope is just one (and probably the worst) example of where pure misanthropy can lead. Of course it caused the very real holocaust only 70 years ago, when we actually had films, recordings and fields full of bodies as well as the soldiers who arrived to see the camps four years after the allied powers agreed not to do anything about them, so technically Churchill was partly responsible for it as he knew about it long before then and decided to do nothing to make sure Hitler didn't realise we'd decoded their messages. But it only represents one extremely nasty branch of what are equally nasty roots, and it just depends how much fuel in the way of unfounded fear and folk tales such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion will inflame the built in fear and convert it to hate. But ultimately it is a psychological failing, a lack of maturing in individuals who still believe everyone else is potentially dangerous so needs controlling to protect them. Whether it is stopping people from putting the lights and heating on to protect the planet from global warming, or councils printing 'anti'dictionaries' with lists of A-Z words they must not use. The reason people have been tested to become less left wing with age is because they discover most people can be trusted to manage their own lives without strict rules and regulations, and only the right believe this so they literally grow out of their assumptions. Freud described such steps in development quite clearly, and psychologists have refined them ever since, including Karl Roger's ladder from blaming everyone else to taking full responsibility for your own life.

If you compare the average lefty on Roger's ladder you will see they all share the second or third rung on average as they all see society's problems as someone else's fault, whether the rich, the bankers, Wall Street, The Zionists, or any other powerful (or imagined powerful) group they feel impotent against. Those on the right have long since worked out if a black female lesbian with cerebral palsy from a council estate (to roll every imaginary drawback to success in one) is as talented as Albert Einstein, Whoopi Goldberg, Helen Keller or anyone else in one or more similar situations, they will probably succeed as western society (unlike the third world where people are ruled by tribal or religious dictators and everyone outside that group is enslaved equally) everyone pretty much has the opportunity to convert their individual talents to results, given we have free education (although some now charge for degrees, which is a retrograde step, after abolishing grammar schools which had a similar effect in the 70s for poor talented people) and universal benefits for the sick and unemployed. If anyone genuinely believes one or more 'disadvantages' (how can being female actually be a disadvatage outside the Muslim world, where the majority of women claim to consent to being treated like slaves?) can hold back a single person whether black, gay, disabled or anything else, seeing as the most important element of success in this society is education, and they both allow readers for the dyslexic and most importanly mark papers anonymously  so officially at least the examiners can only mark the words and not the person. Once anyone gains such qualifications, which are impossible to fail eventually if you are good enough, it is an equal playing field afterwards (albeit with the best work going to Oxbridge graduates, not from bias but they only accept the best to join them initially) whatever people try and tell you otherwise. Forget the toxic positive discrimination, which is much as an oxymoron as 'happy cancer' or 'fun tooth decay', if someone is really that good then being any of the above cannot stop them succeeding and the glass ceiling is an excuse made by failures. And any glitches in the system which do exist, such as the long gone 'old boy network' had been addressed by equality legislation decades ago so are no longer possible without the threat of major redress usually in five figure sums (remember loss of an arm gains a few thousands, loss of a job you never had can be ten times higher or more).

Judge my words by your own experience. Do you really think your own failure was because of your race or gender or because you didn't try hard enough and gave up too easily? If you put an imaginary glass ceiling in front of you that is all you will see. No one else has created it but you and using auto-suggestion whatever you create in your mind becomes real to you but to no one else. Looking in reverse, very few gay or Jewish people can be picked up that easily by outsiders so 90% of the time (unless you are stuck with a very Jewish name and had the guts not to change it to prove it didn't stop you)  it can't be used against you, while if you genuinely think you have been stopped in your car (at night) or given a yellow card not because you did something wrong that would have been the same for everyone else, but because you're black, again, only you have the problem. No examiner has the genuine ability or motivation to mark anyone down whatever their race or gender, and why on earth would they? And if you are qualified, why would an employer really care what ethnicity someone was if they had a decent CV and attitude? But in fact if you are already defensive and go into an interview with a chip on your shoulder expecting to be discriminated against, you will give off bad vibes and lose out because of your attitude alone. Again a totally self-fulfilling prophecy.

So standing back from all the specific examples I could think of, the basic premise you can only believe in a powerful collectivist state if you believe individuals cannot be trusted to run very much of their own lives, and are at base dangerous to others so need strict controls to stop them taking advantage of their power. It is all a matter of degree, but if it goes from sacking people for using the wrong words to wiping out most of humanity to save the planet, anywhere on that scale is still part of the same viewpoint, and like psychopathy just a matter of where each person stops on it. In a way you can compare it with prison hierarchy, where they have all hurt someone (or themselves if in for taking drugs) but still sort out the levels of each crimes into bad and worse and attack those they see as the very worst. The fact they are no different, like the leftists are, blow me down, human as well, goes straight over their heads. Whatever they are like everyone else is different, a threat, and only trusted if part of their small tight similar group.

That is currently what the world is in the grip of, you can't reform the far gone, but you can recognise and avoid them if nothing else.

The left- divide and rule.

Karl Marx, class war. Look for every possible difference in society, tell people about it, and tell them they're being persecuted. This took some genuine and some not so genuine problems in society and either way even when most of these problems had been addressed and dealt with by things like anti-discrimination laws they refused to go away. They make an art of searching meticulously for every possible group causing or suffering discrimination, letting them know, and even, in some cases like the disabled and many Muslims make rules about how to treat them whatever they actually want for themselves. And then they use or invent 'isms' to accuse anyone not on their side to demonise them regardless whether all they are doing is presenting a different opinion to the 'right' one. This has the main effect of setting groups in society against each other, and seeing those on the other side as the enemy, leading to such results as claiming 'all men are potential rapists' and looking for racism every time a white person opens their mouth.

So each formula works to destroy society, the working class despise the bourgeoisie, and are told never to trust them as they are slave owners, and rather than have aspirations to succeed mistrust anyone who has done well, especially those from their own backgrounds who have done so and as a result could be ostracised. The absence of such false or exaggerated differences allows people to be themselves and succeed or otherwise on their own unique merits, and not blame imaginary discrimination every time they fail, rather than the current fashion of playing the race or gender card each time a person gets stopped by the police, doesn't get a job, or a promotion. Instead of taking individual personal responsibility for being a unique person capable of doing anything and everything they could do, they look for trouble and assume anyone who does not offer them more than the average is discriminating against them, and anyone who does not give them anything has to be a racist or a sexist. This creates a permanent perception of 'them and us', the paranoid cloud hanging over their eyes seeing a group of men hanging around in the street at night as potential sex offendors, or any white person holding an interview or police officer being institutionally racist. As if an institution can even hold an opinion. The abandonment of individual values and opinions to the collective, 'The police are institutionally racist' 'Men are all potential rapists' etc simply means the 'victims' genuinely begin to believe huge groups of people, up to half society in the case of women, and nearly all of it if all white people are racists, and what does that do to their psychological makeup and welfare? It makes them see trouble all around them, which is responded to with a combination of fear and anger, and ends up with riots and wars. No  one at all benefits from imaginary and false divisions, society becomes a collection of different 'them and us' groups, so a Muslim woman for instance can see both rapists, racists and religious bigots every time they go shopping in exactly the same people, and then think and act towards them as if they genuinely are at the extreme end.

The left basically work on principles of division and difference, and mistrust and suspicion of those who are not 'us', with their policies designed to force society to react as if these delusions are correct, attempting to outlaw any speech or opinions different from their prescribed templates, forcing companies and organisations to employ black people and women above white men and poor students above others for example, regardless of the individual's suitability for that position. Besides the obvious legalised discrimination the psychological effects of such attitudes are toxic to the individuals and society around them, seeing more and more people as the enemy, and stirring up others to fight against them. Rather than allow society to arrange itself naturally and have laws to stop discrimination against anyone, they go beyond making everyone be treated equally and try and reduce the chances of those they perceive to have an advantage. That is the same as shortening the legs of high jumpers and giving people drugs to reduce their intelligence to make them get similar exam results. Fearing difference between people is behind so many wars and discriminatory policies worldwide, being terrified the powerful will subsume the remainder so will do everything they can to reduce their power down to the average, including spreading false beliefs everyone is the same whatever their background, race and intelligence, which they all claim are only produced by their environment besides science proving they are not.

So clever children can no longer be sent to different schools (unless people pay, which discriminates against the poor majority who cannot afford it), police are criticised for criminal profiling, despite the fact large amounts of crime are carried out by organised gangs from a single cultural group, and everyone everywhere is condemned for pointing out the obvious like very few non-Muslims are currently terrorist bombers. It reaches full circle now, with the accusations from the left whenever someone associates a crime with the fact the perpetrator was a Muslim they are Islamophobic, when many Muslim countries (as well as individuals, as it is taught in the koran) discriminate against homosexuals, as they simply can't support both. The old primitive view 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' can never work in the end, so while they defend Islam to the hilt, protecting their rights and culture even when they were not called upon to defend it as non-Muslims, their total commitment to equality (read 'homogeneity') means they cannot tolerate any negativity aimed at homosexuality, which creates quite a problem where some of the most genuinely homophobic people on the planet are indeed Muslims. I don't care how they try and resolve the problem as frankly such outcomes become inevitable when a group who view all cultures as equal, and they should all live together, and do not have a solution as they are based on a false foundation.

Besides the odd banana skin the general weight of such views does nothing but create a society of small and large groups who all feel persecuted by the others, and do not believe they can succeed under their own individual merits so must stop the competition and bring them down to size otherwise society will not be 'fair'. They cannot see that strangling everyone's individual potential by claiming they are the same whether male, female, disabled or whatever, when in fact although every life is equal and every person must be treated equally, each individual is unique and ultimately responsible for their own fate in life. You do not fail once and give up, you have endless chances to try again and differently, and if you blame others for your failure that is the only true failure to every type of success.

Information, the current position

My new blog, the Information Revolution, is still a work in progress, as whatever your experience and knowledge it can always be refined ad infinitum. That's not saying it's wrong, but of course presentation can always improve as can some of the principles themselves. But the base facts which cannot be disputed form the solid skeleton of the material, while the others if nothing else are thinking points. But I can summarise that for example economic figures, where a large percentage lose out from certain policies, mean they are facts. Low interest rates hit 60-70% of savers, including everyone with a private pension. Therefore keeping them low is against the people. That in turn leads to higher house prices, where no one profits except property dealers, if you live in it then it's an illusory rise as you can't sell the asset and liquidate the money unless you downsize or move abroad, in which case forget any chance of going up the market again. Otherwise every single person loses from high house prices as it works as a multiple of your income and no one can ever spend more than a certain proportion of it before they go broke.

Shutting down alternative opinions and beliefs is the next element I highlight. Calling people names because they disagree with your group view is simply totalitarian and can lead to laws outlawing freedom of speech. If gay marriage was the only way it could be then why wasn't it there till 2013, only in a handful of countries, and voted against by many politicians who insist you cannot change the definition of marriage by government diktat. Or the latest radio presenter who said someone who cared about Britain's ethnic makeup was a racist simply for not agreeing it didn't matter. Dangerous territory. Speaking for others was an earlier version, where able bodied, rich, educated white people in North London told everyone which words they should use for non white and disabled people, even though they hadn't asked them and many weren't the least bit bothered about using terms doctors had used previously to name them for hundreds of years. But if you used certain of these words while working in their councils you'd be sacked.  Never mind the fact few Muslims care about people celebrating Christmas, or people with disabilities using the names the left have outlawed for themselves, this is about control and nothing to do with protecting anyone.

Other facts dressed up as the exact opposite include one of the worst known current examples, wind farms. Let's face it, without government rules to ditch burning fossil fuel, as apparently keeping ourselves warm is allowing nature to do it for us (it isn't, really) would never have dreamed of using a single turbine connected to the grid, as frankly, they do nothing. Actually they do less than nothing, as while they produce no actual additional power as the backup has to be on constantly and produce power for all the times the wind doesn't blow, so may as well just use the backup, they consume power for the brakes, motors and heaters, and waste all the power produced when not used as it can't be stored. Add the manufacturing, grid building and maintenance costs and the losses are eye watering. But try and tell that to a supporter and they accuse you of being a murderer or even a racist (yes, I have heard this as well). Madness grows, and this madness has taken over those on one particular side of politics, those who genuinely want to believe that as well as all being treated equally and fairly, every single person is born equal. The fact we have genes and DNA, all of which can now be traced to almost what we eat for breakfast, and separated twins have followed similar lives half way across a country or the world regardless of their environment falls on blind eyes and deaf ears. They are so naive they truly want to believe a disabled person can run in the 100 metres and beat someone able bodied, or someone with Down's can get a degree with enough encouragement, and it is totally unfair if we are all the same why some should have a lot more money and wealth than others, as we are all equal.

That is like inventing a society in a work of fiction, reading it for so long you start imagining that is real, and then trying to adjust the actual society to fit it. Das Kapital, and even more sinister works such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf are read by millions, and treated as gospel by many of them, as they are convinced those writing them were doing so as an academic work of fact, and again represent a long term pattern of treating opinion as fact and vice versa.

It is impossible to dispute the annual production of a wind farm less the costs and associated losses, and the association of genes with intelligence, but they simply shout all the louder as if disliking scientific material will make it go away somehow, while imposing their own version of nature on us in replacement, where men can marry men and maybe one day their relatives or two or three men or a man and a woman, and if you stretch marriage to include the same sexes why not more? Then you could legislate when death occurs (they have really with abortion, by pretending an embryo is not alive, despite it having its own DNA, not it's mothers, and many aborted foetuses which are aborted alive and left to die of neglect). It is equally impossible to claim it is racist if you personally prefer a society with an overall domination in numbers of the people who have lived there for millennia, rather than a random mix of growing pockets of ethnic minorities. It may not be very socially acceptable in some circles, but applied to the rules of most countries around the world till the 21st century so were clearly the majority opinion once, and can only ever remain an opinion. Therefore wanting mass immigration and a preference for a mixed society is one person's preference, while preferring the opposite, something which represented most countries until the mid 20th century where many populations were shifted during and after the war, was the norm until then. I cannot say either are right or facts, as they are no different to choosing where you want to live. But claiming mass immigration and multiculturalism is the only way to be is simply imposing your preference over others, and demonising the alternatives. There are plenty more examples, but all equally guilty of imposing a total lack of options over the opposing opinions.

I am not interested in good intentions if the results are bad. Societies in Africa, India, the West Indies and South America still grade their social status by colour, Brazil being the worst example, the reason they do is that is how their society has arranged itself. If the Brazilian government want to do something about it then they can do the same as we have in Britain with the race relations act, and make it illegal to pay black people less or banning them from renting accommodation, but beyond outlawing direct discrimination whose role is it to engineer society to iron out its current ills, as if there won't be others once you get rid of one? If there is a genuine problem you can legislate to get rid of it, and look elsewhere to see how they did it before you, but there is a limit to how far you can rebuild any society, more so anyone else's abroad. And if anyone disliking a gradual change in the makeup of our society is racist, then how different is that from all the people using skin whiteners to try and get further in their own societies, as even though nearly everyone is black or brown they are blacker or browner and discriminated against. That is more something universal in people generally, and not for outsiders to come along and try and cause a revolution, rather to recognise the only way to deal with genuine (as opposed to imaginary) racism is to legislate it away and then must leave society to arrange itself.

It is a complex area but not too complex to fathom out once you get the general picture and see the tricks the opposition use to try and confuse us. Once you see one or two examples clearly the rest are all variations on a theme, lies presented as truth, opinions presented as facts, and enemies demonised. They want society to be the way they wish it could be, and then extend their wishes into actual claims that is how it is. But you can't beat nature, you can only shackle it in chains.

How judgemental is it OK to be?

Having three blogs now will explain why if you only check one they may not update as often as before, as they are now split between fraud, information and then anything else goes on here. They're all on my profile here so can check them directly.

Being a therapist one of our foundations is not being judgemental. But of course we are both human, and although we don't express any judgement doesn't mean there isn't any. But then again there is another area treated like judgement but is actually a motivation to encourage certain people to help themselves as no one else can help them as well as they can. There are a few areas in particular, whatever the research we can all (especially those of us who do it for a living) find exceptions, with the main one for me being addiction. Now the amazingly surprising news has been revealed Peaches Geldof probably indeed did die of the dare I say top option of a fashionable heroin overdose, twitter and other places have been going mad divided by people for and against. To me it represents the entire area, and can say that addicts go through three stages, the pre-addiction phase when they aren't yet aware they are addicted, the full blown stage where they live for their addiction at the expense of everything else, and really don't care about it, and the recovery stage when they realise they have a problem and want to stop.

Until stage three then we can't do a thing, as the rule in both counselling and Buddhism is you can't help people who are content as they are. They may be abusing themselves, and certainly those around them, but they are introspective and only concerned with their next hit, as if they are in an actual trance. Once they reach the recovery point then they either succeed or fail, and that's where the judgement comes in. The rule here is it really is a lot easier to not do something than to do it. Otherwise you would hear people being accused of being addicted to breathing or drinking water. The things we need to do to survive are clearly not the same as addiction, as we'd die sooner or later if we stopped eating and drinking, so by denying ourselves food as anorexics we are addicted to not eating as we have to eat to live a healthy life. So that's an inverse addiction as the urge to eat is so strong it takes an addict to override it. So technically an addiction is an addiction however it expresses itself, and the question is to me, how can any urge to do something once you know it's harmful be too strong to overcome? Using hypnosis I am aware, whether or not I can fix it, there is a feeling before giving in to an addiction, an illusion that you won't be able to relax unless you do it. Until stage three you give it no thought, and neither know nor care you are hurting yourself and others, so are not treatable. But once you do and still do it, is it fair to be judgemental then in order to provide the extra energy for the person to get better, where they clearly can't on their own?

I am not a parent but understand parenting, and that is the approach you would use when treating addicts, a parent loves their children and wants the best for them, and as a result neither allows their children a free run at the sweetshop however much they would eat, as they know it would hurt them, and ditto with heroin, cigarettes or gambling. The fact parents have no training in treating mental health issues means they usually fail, but their motivation is both genuine and often judgemental, but in what I see as a positive way. A therapist cannot stop someone doing something, only they can. We can provide foundations for dealing with other problems as they generally work from previous trials, but only an individual can control their own actions. Therefore once you both know that action is negative and harmful, and the desire (except with a very few short term physical addictive chemicals) is a total illusion, then how many times do they make the same mistake before you start to judge them as responsible for their own actions and not an illness?

I would say based on past experience no one is not strong enough to stop doing anything, therefore if they don't after many times intending to, it is their own choice. If for example their children suffer as they are not looked after as the parent is drunk or high, then are they judgmental for wanting to be fed when their parent is lying on the floor unconscious? We are not living as isolated units, and our deliberate behaviour does not just hurt us, but nearly always hurts others, from the wasted time of NHS staff and those they can't treat as they are treating your overdose, or your children who are hungry as you gambled away their lunch money. Isn't accepting that sort of behaviour actually collusion with the addict and only acts to encourage them and say 'it's an illness, nothing you do is your fault even if you kill your child indirectly as a result'? I don't think so. I would say classifying a gambling addiction along with cancer is an insult to people with cancer, as you can't use will power to cure an illness, but thousands of people stopped smoking and drinking either suddenly or gradually as total addicts where others did not. It is not like passing an exam where some will simply not have the capacity to do it, but simply not doing something harmful.

I leave the opinions to the readers.

The three horsemen

The three methods of control by the extreme (there's no doubt about that once you read on) left of the 21st century have been the three horsemen, racism, sexism and homophobia. Between them they are like 'browns, seasons, thickens, all in one go', or 'beats as it sweeps as it cleans', ie can be used to cover every situation they oppose and block it.

How exactly can three forms of discrimination manage to work to cover, like rock, paper, scissors, every issue the left feel is eroding their view of society, and accuse its perpetrators of a combination of the three, sometimes bringing in an inappropriate second just to enhance the impact of the tenuously relevant first. Such as comparing climate change deniers with racists.

First we must begin with the definitions. Sexism and racism refer to treating those of a different race worse than others, or as inferior. Homophobia appears to have been invented in the 21st century as an essentially meaningless term, as no one sane is actually scared of homosexuals, but technically they range from a mild discomfort to direct discrimination, with no distinction being made in degree on their part.

Clearly genuine discrimination is a bad thing, and as a result the Race Relations Act and sexual discrimination laws were brought in long ago to make these all illegal. Job done. But this did not satisfy the left, they wanted to ban even mentioning such views in conversations as opinions, shutting down all sides they disagreed with although had they genuinely been discriminating then they could be prosecuted for doing so, and clearly are not. However, in practice these transgressions are not entirely restricted to their opponents, as what they call racism and sexism is not applied universally at all, but just to the groups they see as their chosen victims. Anyone else is fair game, so rather than apply the same rules to themselves they claim to enforce against others, they throw their full force against anyone not 100% positive about any black person, from a footballer to president Obama, regardless of the fact they are deserving of the accusations of being useless or incompetent or whatever, if they are black then all attempts to criticise them are closed down, even though for example there are plenty of black US Republican members who are totally accepted by their own supporters of all races. But like the black drivers who complain to the police they only stopped them because they are black, until it is pointed out it is dark and the police couldn't see who they were till they were stopped, the race card has become the blunt instrument of the left in attacking any criticism of a group or individual regardless of the validity of such criticism. And the new phrase adopted by the liberal left, first heard a year or so, describing Newcastle as 'hideously white' was repeated only again today on BBC Radio 4 about the BBC itself. Imagine getting away with that about any other colour at all. Yes, the left are at least as racist as those they claim to expose, but only against white people. Is that any better? Not in my eyes.

However, when they then go on to enforce rules forcing ethnic minority police and female board members by law, meaning the right candidate may be rejected for no reason other than they had to have someone different by law, they are simply discriminating differently. And as for racism the greatest anti-semites I have ever come across are on the far left, blaming the Jewish lobby for running the media, like Jenny Tonge and David Ward from our LibDem government, repeating the same memes straight out of Mein Kampf, which led to the destruction of six million Jews, and apparently trying to finish the job the Nazis didn't get the chance to complete. Then they further devalue the holocaust by calling people who refuse to accept the certainty of man made global warming deniers, as if claiming the Nazis didn't really kill 6 million Jews, all dead, bodies and property thoroughly accounted for, with something which hasn't actually happened at all and doesn't look like it ever can.

In the end it is nothing more than an attempt to say 'Our opinion is the only opinion', and pervert genuine methods to quell discrimination as weapons to maintain order in society their way. They are far more dangerous than a single person they are fighting against, as if the BNP or even Ukip (as if they would) are genuinely that racist then just let them say it and judge them as a direct result, not as the champion of the thought police, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown wants to do and silence Ukip altogether, a valid and legal political party set up to expose the lies her own side have been using since the 70s in North London council chambers and trendy universities onwards. If you really think someone is anything -ist then let them say it and the law deal with them appropriately. Stopping debates on immigration or even leaving the EU, let alone the validity of gay versus traditional marriage by accusing anyone raising them of being a dangerous criminal and who should be silenced by law is far more dangerous than making jokes about black people or not having equal numbers of female MPs as not enough want to waste most of their time doing it unlike men.

Crying wolf like a professional

My life, like most people's, has heard news of impending disasters since day one, and without exception not one of them has ever happened. There have been plenty of disasters, but these were all sudden and had no possible way to foresee in advance. I also had many periods in my younger life where I was unaware of the news, so until our lights went out in the 70s wasn't really aware of recessions, inflation, and most government policies generally, knew there were wars in places like Vietnam but didn't touch our lives here, and was basically going about my life the same every day and year whatever did or didn't happen on the news. In fact, apart from the power cuts and petrol shortages I wouldn't have known virtually any of the news if I hadn't read it or seen it on the TV.

Some people have gone to the effort of listing the media-led impending disasters since time or newspapers began, the millennium bug, SARS, swine flu, the third world war (still waiting), acid rain, the coming ice age, basically anything either based on what was happening on a small scale they were unable to control, so assumed it would all go out of control, or worse something based on whispers from interested parties whose stock and power would rise sharply if people thought their oil was running out or they would run out of sugar so have to stock up in case. Whatever the cause, from trivial media led shortages due to saying the Finnish wood crop had failed and there would be no toilet paper left in a week, to scaring the shit out of everyone imagining they were all going to die, the single element they all had in common was nothing more ever happened. Not once. The 2008 financial crash of course will be costing us for decades, and no one at all (except Vince Cable and a stockbroker who got sacked for spooking the market) who saw lending rise from 7 to 40 times the total held, and company borrowing, with mortgages rising from three times annual income to 10X plus, along with mass marketing of credit cards gratefully accepted by most householders who mistook the plastic coming through their doors unrequested for actual free money.

So, when our world temperature has risen less than a degree in 160 years, which is pretty standard really, while the CO2 has risen 50%, which as far as we know (we haven't measured it long enough to be certain) hasn't been standard, it's still assumed this will be many times worse in the future, and as they know the rate of CO2 rise, set the danger point so far ahead we can't know either way anyhow so a totally void experiment. But of course they were saying this in the 90s, so surely by now in 2014 people have seen the temperature stopped rising in 1997 overall and the CO2 did not, and new data on things like cloud cover show the sun is being blocked by evaporating oceans thus cancelling out any effects from CO2 on the downside.

But unlike every other scare story, this is a long term one. By setting the end point at 2100, even though anyone with a brain can tell the experiment cannot ever be completed, it allowed the governments and media never to let it go, even when 25 or so years later the expectations of the 90s were proved to be utter bollocks. The sea level rise has crept up the same rate at 7 inches a century, proving beyond all doubt it can never break a foot let alone a yard as without a few degrees of temperature rise there's nothing to melt the Greenland ice shelf (the Antarctic is below -40C so can't join the party) or expand the ocean to make it rise any more than that. But instead of reminding themselves of every other disaster which never happened and working out this one's had far longer and hasn't happened either, because the consensus among not scientists, as hundreds of them (just the ones who published papers saying so) disagree, but politicians, the real 97%, has stayed so solid the people assume it's still going to happen, despite the evidence of their own eyes, although admittedly apart from one article last year in two papers they do otherwise have to take the effort to look themselves, nothing is happening, and I can say exactly why as the water evaporating from the sea has not created the humidity they relied on for more than a very minor warming.

Until people remember the past they can never understand the present or ignore the future as we never know what'll happen tomorrow, let alone a year or century ahead unless it's astronomical.

Lifting the veil

One thing about members of any group is they can usually recognise others, as by being a member those traits are so familiar and distinctive it doesn't usually take very long to spot the others as you meet them. Now the phenomenon of lifting the veil of illusion of society, that which commends the inadequate and incompetent, and creates unlimited imaginary problems to control and hold back members from succeeding, means those who have already done so share the same clear vision beneath the veil, and say it how it really is.

Unfortunately the veil is so thick and heavy those behind it are in another mental dimension, and any suggestion from the other side they are not actually seeing things how they are are treated the same way as telling someone their mother's a whore. Even if she is, you don't like to hear it, so those actually equipped to have witness the act followed by money changing hands will usually be rejected in total for passing on such disgraceful but accurate material, and if actually accepted, even though only a messenger of an unpleasant fact, will probably be shunned for the rest of that person's life for doing so.

Mankind suffers from immaturity, not from age but development, and as the older kids bully the younger ones at school, the more mature in society but without any morals will exploit the gullibility and unconditional trust of the majority of society who have not and probably never will mature emotionally, and take advantage of them forever. Because the veil is opaque, those the other side witness it the same way a pantomime audience can see the villain behind you but the victim pretends not to be able to hear them. But what I do is at least to be aware of those free from the virus of misinformation, a couple of statements tell me the individual is grown up emotionally, and outside the influence of the backdrop which for example paints Barack Obama as a decent human being, nay, a hero with a Nobel Prize for fuck all, a category created especially for him, so certain they were he would do just that they awarded it before he had even been the president.

So, when anyone says gay marriage cannot be real marriage (it cannot be consummated, you cannot reproduce and children cannot have more than two parents in reality), immigration is a bad thing in general and races and cultures tend to stick together with their own people by their nature wherever you are in time or location, global warming appears not to be happening and probably never did, poor children who are good at school do better if they are educated with others like them from better backgrounds without even having to pay for it, most racism, sexism and homophobia is in the eye of the alleged victim and an excuse for their own failures in more cases than not, and women are probably not best designed to fight in the army.

The left and beyond want society to be a Utopian vision where everyone is equal and every culture is equal, which as every person is unique can only be treated equal, as unless we were all the identical height the entire argument would fall at step one. No, no one is equal except for their life itself, once you go beyond the right to your life being as good as everyone else's, you become what the left hate probably more than anything else in the universe, an individual. By being different from every single person now and beforehand you are destroying their entire means of existence, as they don't want women to be better at looking after children and tidying, or Indians being better at accounts, but put a thousand women and Indians in a test against a thousand others for those tasks with a checklist of a hundred criteria over an entire year and I think we can guess the results before we start, just like dare I say it black athletes (look at the medal tables if you are having racist accusatory thoughts). No, every group and individual within it is different, and instead of trying to shoehorn women into directorships in the EU by law despite the fact they do not want them, or get Jewish men to play professional sport, they will screw up if they do as they were not designed to do so as a general average rule. Families are similar, so individuals within any family will have simply inherited traits as all closely related groups must by scientific decree. If your parents were both athletic, without a single lesson more children will be than average, academic, whatever. The combination of millions or billions of other traits will then make the individuals unique, but with a bias towards their inherited traits. DNA analysis now recognises more and more of these and has only just begun.

All these illusions, from religion (regardless whether god is real or not, there's no need to worship and pray to him every day or at all) onwards, especially politics, are imposed on the immature masses by mature criminals to control and exploit them. And until you see through the veil you will be one of them and attack everyone who sees it and as a result refuse to open your cell door even though it was never locked and never will be, as that cell is your own mind and no one else can lock it except you.

Time for some more 'isms'

As usual I randomly came across a quote based on the furthest liberal left foundations, and so complex unless I'm particularly off form tonight I couldn't figure it all out but do know the general meaning, and pure anger behind it:

"It is an absolute impossibility in this society to reversely sexually objectify heterosexual men, just as it is impossible for a poor person of color to be a racist. Such extreme prejudice must be accompanied by the power of society's approval and legislation. While women and poor people of color may become intolerant, personally abusive, even hateful, they do not have enough power to be racist or sexist."

-Ana Castillo

 

The beginning starts using double negatives or mixed metaphors, or similar grammatical convolutions meaning the intended communication is partially lost due to an unnecessarily complex wording, but once you persist it's yet another angry rant by a clearly personally offended and affected individual, or more so a privileged educated elite member who likes to patronise those in society they feel require their pity and misplaced empathy and support. So who is this Ana Castillo? A left wing feminist political activist? A lesbian sociology professor? I have no idea, so based on my own hasty assumptions, let's see how close I was.

 

"Ana Castillo (born 15 June 1953) is a Mexican-American Chicana novelist, poet, short story writer, essayist, editor, playwright, translator and independent scolar. Considered as one of the leading voices in Chicana experience, known for her daring and experimental style as a Latino novelist. Her works offer pungent and passionate socio-political comment that is based on established oral and literary traditions."

 

Well I wasn't too far off. Details, "Castillo argues that Chicanas must combat multiple modes of oppression, including homophobia, racism, sexism and classism, and that Chicana feminism must acknowledge the presence of multiple diverse Chicana experiences" Yep, a PhD educated sociologist, second try lucky.

 

Anyway, this motivation to find imaginary barriers and divisions in society, and then demonise and attack the alleged perpetrators (financial penalties and castration being the main two weapons) is part of the most insidious malaise of the world, in fact one I am basing any required thesis on for the future should I ever secure a place on a course. Imaginary barriers are based on a few plausible observations, and then enlarged and widened to cover almost the entire panorama as if it represents the standard picture, which it never does but simply highlights some of both the worst and most exaggerated issues within any and every society, past, present, civilised or primitive. People have always been divided among tribal lines, and not always dominated by men, women, light or dark, but basically under Darwinian forces allowing the strongest in any area to dominate, until the Marxist forces allowed an opposing force to depose them ad infinitum. So this is nothing new, 'isms' are just focusing on a few natural tendencies in all groups and individuals, and then focusing on them as if they dominate, where they are actually generally personal views held by individuals who may or may not (far more so in primitive societies) form a powerful group and indeed dominate society, but only in places like pre-imperial India with the caste system, and Muslim countries who repress Sunni or Shia minorities.

 

But since equal opportunity law such isms are no longer a significant part of any western society, but these whining feminists and leftists of all colours and genders (they have added more than our given pair) try and paint a false impression they still dominate society and hold back all victims from success in any areas of society, from getting jobs to having racist and sexist remarks made to them. Yes, all this happens, but firstly as I said it always has, and secondly it is very rare nowadays outside what we would consider third world countries. Deliberately magnifying and inflaming imaginary divisions in society removes power from affected individuals who start believing firstly everyone is against them, and secondly it's far harder to succeed in their chosen field as such prejudices will hold them back in their career regardless of their ability. Adding a chip to ones shoulder simply makes you carry more weight and slows you down generally in every area, making you suspicious of others and tendency to join small special interest groups of similar individuals as a form of protection and solidarity, thus reinforcing the generally imaginary view most of the world is against you. So instead of doing your best and trying again and again till you succeed, listening to such academics will create a general paranoia among women, gays, ethnic minorities and religions, who can and do ultimately kill either someone else or themselves at the extreme end of the spectrum.

 

Divide and rule is a sick and tired method of controlling the masses who cannot think for themselves. Blame men, Jews or now even the whole of mankind for the evils of society, and of course they will become the enemy for doing absolutely nothing and absolutely nothing will convince those affected they have done absolutely nothing. All men are rapists, all straight people are homophobic, putting your heating on will destroy the planet are all memes which take maybe a percent or two of truth or so (as the best lies always do), mix in some scare stories and generalities, and to a greater or lesser extent you can get enough people to believe you to vote in a politician. Then such dangerous and divisive views can become law, such as attempts to make speaking against Muslim criminals and even global warming not being dangerous into criminal offences. These initially lunatic assumptions and claims have gripped western society so deeply in the late 20th and early 21st centuries that laws are now beginning to reflect such imaginary divisions, with the Labour party and BBC deliberately choosing women and ethnic minorities over white males for their top positions, as if they aren't good enough to compete equally on their merits.

 

Such results materialise nonsense views and opinions into solid reality, and the more they spread the more restrictions will be brought in on our freedoms to ostensibly deal with the alleged issues which barely existed in the first place but if a PhD Mexican says so people would rather believe her over real figures. That is the real tragedy.

 

"The tree of life is dying"

"The tree of life is dying, prune the top 1% and feed the roots"

This is what we're up against, a protest poster representing the massed minds of Occupy, UK Uncut, the Greens, the liberal left, and basically every sod who either hasn't got and believes taking it from others is the way to get it, or the others, arguably worse, who are part of the 1% and still campaign to remove it from their positions high up in the Labour party and similar.

The third world, where this current idiocy appears to originate, is one situation, one not really our business beyond the weak attempts we could make to patronisingly civilise them and then get called imperialist invaders for doing so, or do nothing and be called uncaring fascists who are only interested in themselves and profit. Basically you can't win in relation to third world issues as whatever you do or don't do outside haemorrhaging money to be squandered on riches and arms in unlimited quantities, any genuine attempts to physically help and sort out their problems are seen as an invasion unless sponsored by pressure groups, I mean charities, like WWF and Greenpeace who go there and clear land for climate projects and burn their food. Nothing like invaders would do.

But back at home where I far better understand the economy, this is the politics of the playground. Ten year old style 'I want' mentality, from those unable to succeed in a relatively free society by their own efforts, so do the sums, realise the successful people are only limited in their wealth by the top tax rates, and assume as they have so bloody much it must mean everyone else doesn't. I've dealt with this false equation before, but as they insist on raising it constantly (someone mentioned it last night on the radio in typical fashion), I will take what it represents about the collective immaturity of society, as unfortunately it appears such views do make up the majority view, considering most European election results with either far or centre left governments bleeding each dry and ending up with no one getting anything more, rich or poor. That is the alternative, they take even more (they're taking a fucking huge amount already, if you want to experience someone taking 45% of your bank account see how you feel afterwards), which translates into a society void of incentives and encouragement to either do as little as possible to survive as once you do more than average you won't get much more anyhow, or learn to cheat and break the law. Both are negative enforcers, and discourage all forms of creativity and motivation as physical success no longer leads to financial rewards of any significance. These themselves are ancient propositions made by free marketeers from day one, and thoroughly rejected by all who genuinely appear to assume if the rich are made less rich, to a degree only depending on the whims of the leaders, everyone else will get it and be better off.

How much more would we all get if the richest were to be stripped of their wealth and kept at say 25% above average? This could and would not only skim a large percent of their income, which is bad enough, but now they want their savings as well, backdating wealth taxes on their existing capital, first based on property values and then who knows what else? I can't answer that directly as I don't have the staff to do the research, but remember there isn't a direct intravenous drip from the rich to the poor, the government collect the money, give some back in benefits and welfare, such as tax credits and housing benefits to the lowest earners, welfare could be increased for those not able to work, and the rest are pretty much still left to their own devices as nearly all the positive tax breaks go to the poorest, while everyone else earns all by themselves and then pays some back in taxes. The rest is spent on wars, lunatic building projects like shaky footbridges, cable cars and buses which cost ten times more than the ones they replaced. Governments prefer the power to enjoy spending your money than actually giving it back to those who have less, and looking back to the good old days when education was both free and selective, anyone academic could get the best state education followed by a free degree and grant on top of it, available to every single person. Now we pay for selective education as grammar schools are banned (except a few old remnants) and to reduce unemployment long term students are farmed at £27,000 a degree despite the value now being a tenth of what it was as ten times more people (50% over the original 5%) take them as the exams are made so easy that many more people get the qualifying marks to get in and assume they must be the ones who would have passed before anyway. No, they're not.

Encouraging this mentality grows divide and rule, as once you demonise the 1% then as there are so few it creeps to eventually demonise around the top 50%, anyone above average income. As a result our own government dropped the threshold for the 40% rate by about £4000 in the last budget, meaning people only slightly above average now pay nearly half the added amount above it, making far fewer able to have a reasonable standard of living as many more people earn just above average than the top 1% and they have (by a centre right coalition) been made to suffer, admittedly as the debt was so high they were desperate to collect it in every possible way regardless. Suspicion is cast over anyone with a nice car and house, as the implication is if they can get it either they simply inherited it and didn't work at all, or cheated. Of course virtually every doctor, dentist, accountant and lawyer does not cheat and studied for 4-7 years with gruelling exams (I know, I did them) and nowadays an absolute duel for further training and apprenticeship as the competition is huge (ie many more degrees being handed out) and the funding is vastly reduced, with tens of thousands needed for professional courses on top of graduate fees. So now these top few percent start with about a five year defecit, needing to work at least that long just to break even. Of course these a-holes whose parents probably earn that much to allow them out on the streets day after day urinating on public memorials and swearing at the police haven't thought of that, and the bottom line is the vast majority of successful people either studied or practised their art for years and lived on very little, and then worked very hard for many more years before they even caught up those who had worked after leaving school.

Reality has no bearing on imagination. If people imagine the rich cheated and don't deserve what they have, and furthermore by removing most of it you can have some instead without having done a small fraction of what they did you should simply have your right to vote removed. We don't need people with double digit IQs or pre-teen maturity being allowed to dictate government policy, that is not elitism but like employing a doctor or lawyer only allowing people capable of doing a job safely the privilege of doing so. If someone genuinely believes taking other people's money outside direct theft will give it back to them then they don't deserve anything.

Elitism

In my view elitism means 'favouring a section of society at the expense of others with no reason', ie getting jobs for family and friends, only employing people from certain backgrounds, basically picking and choosing favours for people you prefer who are no better than anyone else.

The dictionary says "government by an elite, consciousness of belonging to an elite, the favouring or creating of an elite" which extends the same principle, such as the hereditary House of Lords who govern by birth alone, and only allowing men to vote in the past etc.

Imagine my surprise when our current government (ie not the left wing opposition) said they would never bring back grammar schools as they were elitist. Now where exactly in the above descriptions does educating the best academic pupils with specialised teaching come up? No, the present system of the rich paying for selective schools which need Common Entrance exams to get in are elitist, not because they need to pass an exam to get in, as every single profession on the planet requires passing exams or a practical course, but because only the rich can afford them, unlike grammar schools which do exactly the same thing for nothing.

So why would a government shun any successful (as proved by decades of past success of poor students) system because it does not appeal to the masses. Ah, that was it. Just like Labour want 50% tax (more in France) knowing the total amount collected will always be less above 40% or so as people no longer work as much or hide what they do earn. That is physically bad for the economy, but appeals to the masses, who believe the rich should be punished, unless they win the lottery or rob a bank in which case they suddenly start voting to help themselves, unless they are so hidebound (like the middle class professionals who are left of Labour) they blindly hate so much they will always vote against the rich although they are the very people who will suffer if such a policy became reality. If they hate money so much very few give the same amount to charity even though it is theirs, which they could all do, but all hire accountants to squirrel away as much as possible for themselves so they can pay even less than they are supposed to.

Now the general opinion free selective education is elitist is not restricted to one specific issue, but represents a general attitude, one which would work to remove the general elitism, quite properly, such as reducing hereditary peerage, but then once completed then move on to what they like to call positive discrimination, where political parties and the BBC alike work to employ women and ethnic minorities because they believe they need more, so reject competent applicants who tend to be white and male, crossing the line between creating a neutral balance where everyone gets an equal chance (as in grammar schools, as everyone could get in as they all took the same exams) to, well, an alternative elite of women and ethnic minorities. All elitism is identical, tribes in Africa have the best jobs in some governments because of their family line, much as our House of Lords. Sunni and Shia Muslims are selected in many countries in the same way, with both frequently leading to wars, and the Indian caste system which was so successful in its elitism it could cripple someone's future for life.

Now tell me I'm crazy, but opening the doors equally to everyone and letting them succeed by their own merits sounds to me the exact opposite of elitism, and the art of doublespeak, saying the exact opposite of the truth as people trust you (like global warming causes colder winters and more snow), means by saying a policy actually designed to counter elitism is elitist just shows the proponents to be outright liars who should never be trusted under any circumstances to run a country or a pissup in a brewery. Imagine being led by rulers who not only know it is not correct, but deliberately claim offering all children a free good education if they need it is wrong? If they lie about that, then how much else are they lying about, and what do they think of you believing it's OK to do that, possibly as the opinion polls tell them it makes them more popular, like Labour raising the tax to 50% even though it raises less money. And guess what, by denying poor kids a good free education only the rich can afford one again so they are literally promoting an elitist result by doing so.

They're almost clever, but not quite.

Global warming, the predicted armageddon

I realised recently that rather than begin with the bible and apply it to all of life, which requires faith and religion, I see real life events and then notice the bible was either correct in general principles or specific predictions. The ultimate, the final battle between light and dark, good and evil, truth and lies, is upon us right now, as with the entire world in the grip of deadly plans to enslave us all under the fake cause of man made global warming (which the longer you wait refuses to actually happen), they have so far persuaded the percentage of people worldwide it is true as a consensus, rather than of scientists, who nearly all know it's a load of hooey.

I've dealt with the reasons enough times to save repeating them yet again, but the actual phenomenon of the greatest world deal ever, one which attempts in one stroke to wipe out the rights and properties of all but the chosen elite is fulfilled in total agreement with the formula for Armageddon. I won't get bogged down in the detailed theology, you only need to read Revelation 16 and the simple description is there. Taking the elements one by one, the common mark of the devil forced on all the people could arguably be compared with the plans to end cash, replace it with electronic chips, and ultimately implant them in our bodies. Further plans to make wealth obsolete by replacing cash assets with carbon credits lasting a year will complete the enslavement by making it impossible for anyone to amass any capital whatsoever as any credits remaining at the end of the year simply expire. This is free to read online under the UN framework for the future.

Of course as the bible is written as a script with the ending already set, if this is the case we would already know what is going to happen, and of course the truth sits there forever while the fog of lies will blow away sooner or later so has to ultimately prevail as there is nothing there but that.

"The Bible teaching about the Battle of Armageddon is one of tragedy, evil, destruction – but of the ultimate victory of good over evil. It is pictured in the Bible as the final world war which will play out on the earth in the plains of Esdraelon near the city of Megiddo in central Israel (Revelation 16:16). Obviously, there are heavenly elements as well."

Taking these elements you can see the buildup over the last 30 years or so from the initial US and UN briefing to the announcements and presentations by Al Gore to legislation on national and international scales, and while the models produced phenomenal disasters beyond our lifetimes, as time passed those models became further and further separated from the growing reality of the genuine timeline. The sea level figures were easily the worst example of total fiction, as without the Greenland ice sheet melting and a great enough rise to cause it, the sea level would and does continue to rise pretty much as it did in the 20th century, 7 inches. That was irrelevant, and as you can't easily adjust or hide sea levels as every coastal point can measure it themselves, compare it with others, and always have, the records are far more thorough and complete than any others. Many areas have never risen in over a century while others have fallen, as it fluctuates constantly and requires various averages over a day per location and then all rolled together for the general world figure. They can tell you almost to the cubic inch how much ice must melt to cause an overall foot of sea level rise, and the temperature required to do so. I don't have these to hand, but the evidence speaks for itself. If the sea level isn't rising more than usual (ie 7 inches a century or therabouts) then it isn't much warmer, however much they adjust the graphs to look as if it was.

This is the uncovered truth. The sea remains where it is, continental drift and subduction mean as some land rises, others fall, and ones near sea level which are falling (most places are always doing one or the other at some degree) appear to be sinking, not because the sea is rising but the land is falling. In 2014 we have now seen each year the temperature does not rise it means the CO2 forcing must be weaker than the natural causes, otherwise it would keep rising whatever else happened unless we were actually entering a full ice age by total coincidence. But unless we are, then the CO2 is not pushing the temperature up very much at all, as it hasn't, and every year it hasn't even longer. That is the unvarnished truth. Whatever local and short term weather events and statistics the leftist papers roll out whenever it's going a bit quiet is no different to people saying a cold winter means there is no global warming, quite rightly so. But when it's warmer, and now colder as well, it's down to global warming according to the promoters of it. They know it's a lie, but most of us don't, as if someone with a PhD in anything (many aren't even scientists on the panel but they still get accepted for every word even if they tell you your parents are killing your children with their carbon footprint) says it is then it must be. No one bothers to check or test these assertions, if the northern hemisphere is getting colder winters it's because the north polar area is warming up. Yes, of course, and I won't come in your mouth either.

But it's only a matter of time. The damage is growing annually, the suffering from rationing heating and raising food prices, and even the damage to vehicle engines from alcohol which attacks metal and corrodes it from within. The next stage of blackouts and energy rationing has been promised by the EU as soon as our CO2 reduction falls below a certain point, as there won't be enough remaining power generation to be constant. Genocide is still genocide however slowly or indirectly it is caused. When more people's elderly relatives die of cold and people have to ditch their cars as they can't afford the modifications more and more governments are requiring, they will firstly realise the 'solution' costs far more than the removal of the 'problem' as why suffer definite hardship right now for a possible warmer planet where energy will cost less as you won't need to burn so much (IPCC report), and then as time passes each year the temperatures is stable then more people will simply drop off the system as they wake up and see nothing's happened so probably won't.

You can't hide nothing forever. They are currently revising temperatures down from 30 years ago in the US to make current flat lines look sloped. But that ice can't melt from adjusted graphs, it needs real warming. So does the sea level. Anyone living by the coast now can go to the coastguard station and probably get a printout of the last few hundred years for it there, and many will have lines on the dock to show the sea level at any point over time. If everyone shares it they will then see without a single satellite or computer program running the local and world sea level is pretty darn stable, meaning without thermal expansion and land ice melt (read 'Greenland' as the Antarctic is -40 degrees below so even Greenpeace can't claim that is going anywhere) it simply can't be warming more than it has for centuries.

Looking ahead maybe 20-30 years, when all but the most committed loonies will have (literally and figuratively) cooled off, it won't just be a quiet retreat and return to normal, but a few great reporters and politicians, such as Jim Inhofe and Ron Paul's descendants, will do all they can to remind everyone who would normally turn round and forget the entire situation, they have been lied to by every single political leader besides about three countries, from the entire UN down to all ruling parties. If so, all trust in our original leaders and methods of leadership will be gone, and a new system based on continual policy making by the people and flexible leadership, ie out as fast as in if they prove inadequate, with no waiting five years or so for the next election so they can keep their filth going for their entire terms.

If this is published and even given a tenth of the publicity of 'An Inconvenient Truth' then everyone will remember the fiasco forever, like the fall of the Roman Empire or the rise of Hitler, and say 'Never Again'.

This is not a prediction or a projection, it is a declaration of reality, the only doubts are the timescale of how many decades it will take of no significant rises in temperature before enough people drop off to allow the system to end and reality not only return but remain as a lesson on a worldwide scale.