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.

Self harm and Munchhausens by proxy

All my life I've been surrounded by what can best be called Champagne socialists, the North London professional elite who would sit around their Norwegian designer dining tables in Kentish Town and Highgate talking about how they could create more equality by taxing the rich. Their misplaced or nebulous senses of guilt, for doing well while still aware of poverty around them, was a motivation for something but they were (and still are) never quite sure what. Some did something positive and joined charities, many back then like the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace attracting thousands of middle class intellectuals from similar places around the world who used the opportunities to return some of what they had to the animals and the third world as a direct way of putting something back, while others got involved in mainly local politics.

The one thing they all had in common was they were always talking about ways to remove other people's money and freedom, while sending their children to public schools (many as their efforts to wipe out the free alternative of grammar schools were a success by the 1970s) and paying accountants to avoid paying as much tax as possible. I am not exaggerating as I grew up with them for many years and was the proverbial fly on the wall watching and listening and taking it all in. It was like a discussion about an execution, with Marx and Lenin being compared in their merits of 'wealth redistribution', akin to offering the choice of an electric chair and a firing squad. But it was always for everyone else, as none ever realised they were the very type of victims they had it in for but at no point ever realised should their policies actually become reality they would be the only type of people to lose, and their actual behaviour proved this was the last thing they actually wanted.

Till fairly recently they were a vocal nuisance, able to block roads and charge people more for driving in local councils, as that was where they all ended up when motivated to put their misanthropic views into practice. Few if any gained power in national politics simply because in a democracy very few people want to see any possible future wealth removed at source. But come the 90s and the theory man's industry itself was going to wreck the planet and must be curbed at all costs and suddenly they woke up. Forget the fact that none of this had (or still has) reached any point of possible danger, and even if it was en route (which it isn't) we couldn't know in our lifetimes so a totally futile effort regardless unless the temperature was actually rising at a rate likely to exceed 2C when they said it would (which it didn't). But the proposed 'solutions', which involved a major redistribution of wealth from large companies and allegedly to the third world, meaning a vast reduction in industry in the west was the divine intervention they could never have imagined possible. Now without a single political campaign, all they needed were a group of top scientists and politicians to create a problem whose solution was pretty well exactly what they had been plotting for generations, and now regardless of the reasons they all jumped on the bandwagon, ie not because they believed (or even understood) any of the science (how could they, it's got more holes than a Berlin brothel) but because it offered a major world form of the collectivist dream they had been promoting by pure chance.

Therefore we now have a political movement, which uses science to justify what would normally be considered totalitarian policies. Banning cars (as planned by the EU), travel restrictions such as flying tax, enforced carbon credits, removing a sum from every energy user allegedly for green projects home and abroad, and basically more and more grotesque versions of communism and Stalinism as the policies grow and mature, bringing more and more support from The Guardian and its readers. But bringing us back down to earth, science is no more political than shoving the same thermometers up your arse and then suggesting the weekly results mean you should be taxed more, and only right wing oil barons would ever support a rising temperature. Yes, it's madness, nothing else. Had they not already had such views they would have seen the vague and varying nature of the case for global warming just like everyone else not afflicted with socialism has who has spent any time looking into it. So they accuse us of being right wing, while in  fact everyone who is not left wing simply hasn't got any dirt in their eyes which stops them from looking at the policies without the science which drives them.So basically they jumped straight to the solution and were so enamoured and intoxicated by the first mass imposition of collectivist restrictions on the first world they had to support the cause otherwise the solution could never be continued.

That, then is the formula. It seemed on the surface as self harm, as nothing they support helps them, but being hypocrites who will no doubt turn sides when the taxes affect them enough, as if they can't aford their own holidays and gas bills they'll soon go off the idea and start finding the same faults in the science (it really should be called something else as it is anti-science), so is technically inadvertent self harm but actually Munchausen's by proxy as they are inventing the illness in others and treating them with the painful and harmful chemotherapy, which nearly always kills the subject before the actual illness (yes, look it up). So the reason has been totally leapfrogged and the solution alone adopted by the left en masse as it was what they always wanted to do anyway, so despite not even usually knowing the figures, simply parrot the memes such as 97% and big oil I see nearly every day as they haven't a clue really. This is the most dangerous combination we have ever seen in the world, as it unites every single lunatic and megalomaniac worldwide and handed them power to do exactly what they all dreamed of but was always dismissed till now. The scientists however are trained so know perfectly well if you dream up an experiment which won't be possible to complete, even if they won the bet in another dimension of time they are taking the piss. So it is totally understandable how nearly all left wingers suddenly think they are scientists and repeating every word Al Gore and James Hansen said not because they understand or even care about global warming, but it's given them the power they always wanted.

Seeing the big picture part 2

Following my first entry about seeing the big picture, I can explain some more, and simplify the system I discovered and hopefully allow everyone reading to understand the mechanism clearly. There are two elements to this, firstly the political machine which I discovered to be working like a well organised Mafia, and since then can see who is part of it and what policies are related to it and how each one fits in. The second is the general one of philosophy itself, with not a single lesson in philosophy beyond being an observer of life. We all have the same tools to observe right and wrong, and separate facts from opinions. The second can simply be learnt by training and practice, the first tends to be more innate and a reaction of the heart or intuition to what goes on outside you.

Paper qualifications are more useful for the readers than the writers, as they do not affect the legitimacy or otherwise of the observations, and technically the material would be far better offered anonymously to avoid unnecessary focus on the messenger. No one has the monopoly on common sense, anyone capable can become qualified in a specific subject but however much they may know about it does not automatically give them awareness over either the outside areas or how their own field fits in with them. But because of their achieved status many people simply assume because they are experts in their field and may have doctorates they know or understand more than everyone else, which is the first illusion and error. Anyone suitably equipped is able to see such issues,  qualifications may give insight into specific areas and give the opportunity to see more, but besides the mental discipline required to complete a degree which means a minimum level of ability has been shown, they are not at all required to see the big picture. It is more like IQ, anyone can be tested and find out straight away what their overall capabilities are. Intuition goes above direct knowledge, as it is knowing something before you have the evidence, and may or may not ever discover enough to actually prove what you know to others. I won't try and go into the mechanism it works as that has troubled researchers since the dawn of time, but its presence is recorded in all spiritual teachings and I have enough direct experience of it myself to accept it.

I find the best way my own intuition works is answering questions and responding to news incidents. I can then put it down to basic principles, the main ones being the simple golden rule, of treating others the way you would be wanted to be treated, and secondly never stopping anyone doing anything that doesn't harm other people just because you don't like it. No one has the right to enforce their opinions on others but laws are still made which do that as society has not seen this principle to be as important as the first. My own discretion allows me somehow to assess most of these events in relation to these two principles, so it is very simple and basic, and anyone who questions them tends to primarily have an emotional reason to fear or object to any action or decision simply because it offends them in some way. There is also the element of deciding on a lack of information, so creating a belief system based on no more than inadequate evidence and filling in the spaces with assumptions, and then treating the entire picture as as genuine as all others. Once someone is affected with the disease of assumption, their reality takes on superstition as if genuine, and if powerful enough will then convince an entire group following them it is based on their trust alone and biased presentation of the few pieces of information they have used to jump to their conclusions.

 In relation to the previous entry, one feature of the big picture politics wise is cheating. The world is becoming dominated by a system just the same as the Mafia. The evidence is clear, direct and overwhelming, once you are aware of who has done what everything before and since fits in nicely, and the original sense things were not right became confirmed, especially when some of the top operators openly boast about doing so. The minority in power have none as they are outvoted nearly every time by the big guys, just allowing the odd concession and also throwing a curve ball every now and then to give the impression they aren't doing whatever they are. All they do then is give with one hand and take away with another, spending a pound to save 75p and knowing most people won't notice. When they just reduced green taxes they didn't really, all they did was take a little off energy bills and pay it through the treasury. As it goes the EU wouldn't allow them to reduce any green taxes as it's not their place to do so.

So politically the big picture is based on organised deception, allowed only because most people trust them and can't figure out what they're doing as all they see are random pieces and don't know they all fit together in a big jigsaw. Put them in a whole and it says 'You've been had'. Right now as temperatures plummet every winter and in the south pole they are saying it's because of global warming, and the herds of sheep around the world bleat in unison 'oh yeeeees'. Oh bloody no. Picture a spider's web, as in my climate fraud page, with all the organisations and individuals connected and streams of money flowing from the public around them via wind turbines and carbon credits. Throw in some worse motives trying (for reasons it really isn't worth trying to figure out) to reduce living standards in both the developed and third world, making people freeze to death and starve while their crops are being burnt to provide fuel to the west. And once we discover the geoengineering is taking place then spraying poison in massive quantities into the atmosphere will confirm the very worst of their ambitions.

But back to the main point, there comes a point where things just click. The final example fits into place and it all becomes clear, like solving an equation. The previous events which may not all have made sense are now all part of a known plan and system. Strange events and decisions now mean money and power were changing hands in exchange for contributing to the plans. Like hearing a confession after a crime, all the earlier acts which seemed strange or out of character all make sense casting the light of the present across the past. This is a confession of an entire world system, and once known you can test any and every other event before and since and see how it is part of what is one grand conspiracy. The philosophical grand design is quite different, as it shows how to make the best of life and wipe out such conspiracies at every level, ideally until the world becomes civilised and there are no enemies. No one will judge others for doing things which do not hurt anyone but they don't personally like the idea of. No one will physically hurt others for power or property. No one will try to take what others have worked for because they want it themselves without working for it. And no one in government, business and sport will feel they have to cheat to get where they want without earning it. You can but hope.

Theory vs practice. How would they really like it up 'em?

Today's question: Do political policies you want or get actually affect you directly, and if so how?

My long term study of politics (beginning with A level in 1977) has shown me a large gap between theory and practice among those most politically active, and from them nearly all on the left. The right is really anti-policies, as the purer you become the fewer actual policies you want, as you believe the people can pretty well govern their own lives with a strong legal system and safety net for the poorest and sick. More than that is simply interference, so technically the libertarian right have so few policies the consequences can basically be seen as freedom.

The left clearly do not trust others to behave nicely without a lot of direction. Therefore their fears feed upon every threat and develop a constant stream of new ideas to patch holes in society wherever they see it happening, as well as building an entire social system from the bottom up.

Now my own parents are examples of the absence of policies, as both came from fairly poor families who worked hard and did well with barely a qualification between them, my grandma could probably have become a doctor but even though she got a further education scholarship her family could not afford the compulsory uniform and instead she qualified as a book keeper. But they certainly could not pay for my parents to go to private school as I did, but as they were both highly academic simply went to grammar school, and whizzed through with top marks, my father ending up at Cambridge as a result. They had no spare money or privilege, just the brains combined with education and hard work to do it.

Wind forward to today. From a relatively lightly governed 1950s we now have a growing level of restrictions, ones I remember watching in the USSR in the 70s onwards and wondering how a massive country could actually be run to restrict everyone's freedom for many decades and nothing was done about it. Of course the actual reason was Stalin simply killed serious opponents and put the rest in prison camps so the opposition was simply mopped up until whatever caused the shift in the 90s (I have no idea why it suddenly fell without even a slight push). Technically the policies just went westward from the Soviet Union to the European Union, but without Stalin's purges had to be subtle and mainly secretive. How many British laws do you know were from the EU? They don't stamp it on the papers, you need a lot of effort to find who makes each new law now, and believe me most of the big ones are neither ours or voted through any parliament as that is not how theirs are made. Drifting off the main issue a little, besides the fact one consequence which certainly affects us having been voted into the EU as it now is are the fact we no longer make most of our own laws.

I will list some of the major themes of interventionist ideas, the greatest being redistribution of wealth. Beginning with the fact the majority of those in Britain who promote this policy are actually the top 10% and probably far less of the wealthiest is more than ironic, but moronic. As if they did get Labour in and ramped up the top rate to 50% then 60% or more, as well as reducing the threshold it came in, they would lose more than nearly everyone else, and no doubt do all they can right now to pay as little tax as possible.

One word hits me in the head so hard it nearly knocked me out. Hypocrisy. The intellectual left are mainly rich and if they are fervent in removing the wealth of the richest few, then they are promoting a policy to give away their own money more than anyone else's, as most people are not affected by this policy except them and their friends and families. All of whom will join them in avoiding any possible tax payment. I can wholeheartedly say, simply from observation of maybe hundreds of similar London professionals, whose houses now nearly all are worth over a million pounds, these people act like someone prepared to cut their foot off if it argues with their hand. Or so they say for everyone else. They support a mansion tax, which would cost each and every one of them around £10,000 a year should Labour get in, and as soon as it does come in they will be at their accountants finding ways to avoid it. I have been surrounded by these types all my life, sitting in their Hampstead lounges mouthing off about how wonderful Russia is and how they need to march and support the workers and plunder the rich. Except they are all the rich they are talking about. Besides SW1 you can't actually be any richer than dwelling in Hampstead, so if they really mean what they are saying they would have to employ a government to remove their wealth as well, and after a few years of mansion tax they'd all be selling up and moving to pastures new as they'd have nothing left to pay it any more.

Free speech is another London grown classic. I am very doubtful if either such proponents of word banning, some councils actually now have long lists given to every employee of words they are not allowed to use (you know, the ones I roll out every time), actually both learn them by heart and then don't even use one when seriously intoxicated. But far more importantly, banning a bad word doesn't ban the attitude behind it. I don't have any major examples, but would bet my left testicle on the fact many such council employees and academics from the red band of north London have either considered moving or actually moved when their area became too, er, dark for them.  Those shrill androgynous ranters who stand up and harangue the staff and public on racism and sexism, diversity and tolerance, in private dinner parties and family gatherings, are quite probably echoing the exact words of their less deceitful neighbours in wondering how long it will be before there are fewer white people in Camden than blacks, and whether they should consider moving to Dorset. Again, the great demon hypocrisy raises its vile and ugly head. Flies on walls ought to confirm this suspicion, and I'm pretty sure when caught in relaxed states without witnesses I've heard comments to that theme, which in themselves are perfectly reasonable, unless from someone whose entire mission in life is to stop other people from saying it.

Travel restrictions are easily the simplest to observe. Those mountains in the middle of roads from Cornwall to Kirkwall hit the suspension of Porsches and Skodas alike. And buses and ambulances. They fuck up every single journey on the planet where in place, and the only possible explanation I can think of is those who place them on every road in their borough at a cost of around £10,000 each do not drive themselves so have little to affect them directly. But like spraying metal salts in the air to pretend to control the climate, they are breathed in by everyone and their own families so unless you are a fourth dimensional lizard being without human lungs you will also get respiratory and digestive problems like everyone else if you arrange spraying. But everyone uses the roads one way or another, and the delays and damage caused whenever traversing a road so affected also hurts passengers including using public transport. And the widespread idiot brigade trying to ban driving and flying altogether have nearly all been abroad and unless they live in the Antarctic probably use cars nearly every day even if they've ponced someone else to drive them as they won't own one themselves. They can't rely on a minicab if they are injured but not badly enough to get an ambulance, they will have to get themselves to a station or bus stop and hope it's a time when they're even running as some places have no bus after 9pm.

Unfortunately idiocy trumps rock, paper, scissors and even nuclear devices. Nothing, not even personal experience, will shine through the thick fog of stupid. It is not connected with academic ability, as most of the worst culprits have enough letters after their name to form a page of anagrams, but they have no common sense. They are simply very good at learning and repeating facts, but as a teacher myself am very familiar with the set of pupils who can do this but when you try and get them to explain what it is about haven't a clue, and can never fit the small parts into a single picture. Therefore they can easily think that person X has too much money and ought to share it, but even given a mirror they will never in their lives imagine they have more money than X so would lose even more as tax is not selective. They park their BMW in their private space in Camden and then post on Facebook driving cars is destroying the planet, and then go and lobby their friend's friend Ed Miliband to increase the restrictions on car ownership in their manifesto, which will usually be accepted as these people are who get Labour elected if they are catered to.

In the end it is pretty easy to imagine the world of the politically correct anti-success anti-individuality left as we know their views so bloody well it's impossible not to. Taking their most pure or extreme form I come across frequently enough to know if they get in they will go as far as they can, we will end up in a country with:

No cars for private use. A wealth cap. Taxation based on property value. Using banned words will be a criminal offence. Every public (and probably private) office must employ staff representing society as a whole. Racism will be a crime simply by inference, with serious penalties. It will be a crime to state the race of any criminals. Fossil fuel will be banned totally leading to permanent energy rationing. Remaining energy prices will be so high only the people with the most remaining wealth after tax will be able to heat their homes constantly when required. Most if not all foreign businesses will leave the country, leaving many offices empty and vastly raising unemployment. Many people will be employed by the government to constantly scan the internet and publications for dissident speech which, like Russia previously, will be a serious crime. Ultimately a constitution may be drawn up being almost impossible to amend, writing in the new permanent values of society which must be followed at all time. There must be no mentioning of racial differences. Immigration is a universal right. No person is born more talented than any other so must not be treated differently through selective education or tuition. Denying climate change will be a capital offence as more dangerous than murder. It is illegal to be obliged to reveal your birth gender. It will be illegal to document your birth parents as no individual has more rights over a child than another, anyone taking up the responsibility of parenthood automatically becomes that child's parent. No area will be allowed to have a different racial mix relating to the country as a whole, so if an area has a lower number of black people they will be moved into the area until it matches up with the total. The same will apply to every place of work. There will be a universal wealth limit based on the number of times above average income and capital reach, after which everything will be returned to the state.

I've come across nearly every single one of these ideas many many times, and added a few extras of my own (can you tell which they are?), and can guarantee on my family's life not a single person's life would be better had their entire set of well known and expressed wishes been granted by this or any other magic fairy. Not that I'm magic. Or a fairy.

Traditional values are now evil?

It is very sad that in the 21st century anyone with what used to be considered traditional, even family values is not just considered wrong but often evil by the mainstream. What I mean by this is the simple, old-fashioned way of life before the 1960s (not that I was there, but it only slowly began to change a couple of decades after that when I certainly was), where the ideal way of life (although far from exclusive) was a family of parents and children, where the mother stayed at home and looked after the children before they went to school, and then may have worked afterwards but could normally afford not to if they didn't want to. The cleverest children got a free selective education, courtesy of grammar schools, and if clever enough were then able to take a degree and be paid to do so. Granted immigration only began in large numbers from the 70s onwards, and in Britain (whether or not by coincidence) also came with gradual and then more radical changes in our society. Such changes which are not just celebrated by the left, but actually set out as if they are the only way to live, even though we lived very happily long before any such areas were present.

I suppose apart from the policies which affect everyone, such as flooding London and places around with immigrants from anywhere and everywhere, should really be down to personal choice, and if someone wants to live in a family of two men and a transsexual and their children from various means of production it is entirely their business, but there are also studies which may show the optimum environments for raising children which do not include them. Getting rid of grammar schools most definitely destroyed education from that point on, as now unless they are given the money only the rich can now get a decent education. There were also simple pleasures associated, even in London, with a lower density of population. The queues or waiting times for medical and dental appointments and council offices etc were never as long, (although admittedly my surgery did not have appointments so we just went and waited), parking was normally free outside the centre of London, and the roads rarely got jammed besides the old bottlenecks now bridged or tunnelled. Petrol and energy was cheap, electricity prices were almost negligible and car insurance was in two figures. If you'd earned money and saved enough to invest you could get 5-10% interest, which was normally above inflation and if not still provided enough income to select what you spent it on, as inflation is not uniform so can be partly avoided.

Back then the environmental movement was literally protecting animals and keeping the environment clean, something even I would call givens and something society needs to enforce on the less enlightened areas who give neither area any concern. People saved up for cars and holidays and debt was the exception to the rule for the rare expensive item paid for by working in the same job for so long you could rely on meeting the payments in most cases. Only a small minority of students and sociologists criticised the middle class values of the time, wanting to make the best of yourself and improve on the previous generation's position. The far left were considered a fringe on the extreme, who wanted (usually from the highest positions in society they told everyone else were wrong) to remove the differences in wealth and force all poor children to go to the same schools. Somehow, under Harold Wilson and following governments (including Conservatives) these policies became realities, with 98% supertax and the abolition of grammar schools in the early 70s. Margaret Thatcher reversed the high taxation at least, but by then we were deep into the Common Market and losing more and more of our own ability to make national laws.

The academic London left never stop. Having worked in Haringey and Camden, two of the richest and furthest left councils in the entire world, I saw the beginnings of political correctness in the 80s, following the extreme anti-Semitism expressed by fellow students at college in the 70s. Words and attitudes became gradually outlawed, first racial, then social (like 'backward' and 'subnormal') and medical ('mongol', 'spastic', 'cripple' etc), and then extended to covering up bad behaviour by racial groups, as if a high percentage of rapes or muggings were carried out by a certain group it was actually (and still is) attempted in every possible way to hide their racial origins, and then deny it was relevant if not possible to. You then heard of councils deliberately hiding crimes carried out in the ethnic communities, as they didn't want to create divisions and reactions against them. Of course to them keeping the multicultural dream alive was far more important than protecting society from criminals, including a huge gang of organised child molestors who only just began being prosecuted in 2013 after being hidden for years.

What we are now left with is the left wing view of the only way society must be, otherwise described by me as hell.

We are either in or heading towards a country (and any other where the same policies have been adopted) with no dominant racial group in numbers, but each racial group sticking in tightly knit local communities with a minimum amount of interaction with any other group, an education system where only the rich can make the most of their abilities, and then the degrees everyone does get are devalued as they pass half the population even though till the rules were changed only 5% of all students were capable of completing them. This means a generation or more of professionals mainly incompetent in their chosen fields but let through as the standards had been dropped secretly. We are looking towards swathes of professionals and their employees not understanding much of their subjects, making simple errors, and in the case of science and architecture making extremely dangerous miscalculations. Only the better off can afford to drive and travel for pleasure, while more and more people can no longer afford adequate heating.  And should anyone dare to complain, whether about how their area hardly has anyone speaking English and how long they have to queue for the doctors while the receptionists are using interpreters for many of the patients, or how they can't afford to visit their families as the costs of transport are too high they are called racists or told not to travel to save the planet.

The Soviets or Chairman Mao could not have created a worse society if they'd sent in all their troops and ordered everyone to integrate at gunpoint, mainly as this revolution has actually distorted people's minds as well as their lives. The longer this situation is maintained the more people actually start believing it is the right way to be, and they join the leaders, nagging people to reduce their carbon footprints and calling anyone who makes the slightest complaint against modern life a racist, homophobe and possibly a murderer. The Russians were also not allowed to speak freely, but it is debatable whether many of the citizens believed much of what Stalin or Brezhnev made them say was true, unlike today's herds.

The socialists and greens would not want to have their money taken from the either, and if anyone dared to block the road when they were driving to their family for Christmas as they had exceeded this year's carbon emissions, they would probably try and fight them as much as every other.

What those at the bottom wish for everyone else will hurt them as much as everyone else, the Russian Communist party members did not suffer from the poverty or lack of freedom of the masses, neither do Al Gore or Chris Huhne suffer the same restrictions they legislated on everyone else. None of the Greenpeace elite, UN committee members, climate professors or London council leaders will suffer much of the policies they are imposing on us, as they make the rules they can make the loopholes. So by betting against the market they can own wind farms, collect carbon credits, and basically suck all the money out of society everyone else is forced to hand over for themselves. That is why supposedly left wing green activists will force severe restrictions on everyone else's lives as most if not all will benefit from it directly, otherwise why would they create a hell on earth unless they were immune and exempt from it? Now it makes perfect sense.