Wednesday, May 21, 2014

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.

Thursday, May 08, 2014

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.

Friday, May 02, 2014

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.