Education, education, education

My knowledge of world economics, focusing on the EU as that is my location, has not unearthed any conspiracy theory, but a system which favours a handful and steals from the others to do so.
The whole affair is pretty well dictated by UN Agenda 21, dressed up for the environment but containing the mechanisms to bring down everyone's standard of living, and the population, while redistributing their wealth to the leaders and their friends and associates. This is now well into its stride and after the energy taxes we've been paying now for years (petrol would be 82p a litre without them for example, not 1.32p) food had to be next as if you keep them hungry and poor you can pretty well carry out anything else you like as they will be too weak and busy surviving to stop you.

I don't think it's ever too late to stop them. At the moment 99.9% of people aren't aware of these plans, and most who are reject them as a conspiracy. Our fuel taxes and renewable subsidies aren't a conspiracy, they're the 2008 Climate Change Act. VAT on food isn't a subsidy, it is an EU working document. A world currency is not a conspiracy, the plans are already drawn up by the UN. All this is already going through while people still worry about which Miliband brother should lead Labour. I don't want to get myself targeted, but that's a bit like worrying which pile of dog poop you want to tread in. Enough said. So while everyone's busy reading what the papers do want us to know and watching ice melt all day on the BBC (if you channel hop it's virtually possible 24/7) the plans are already some way to controlling us all not from the EU but the UN itself.

I have written a single article on this, virtually everything I say and a lot more is included, and not a single publication has touched it. I doubt all but one who asked to see it (and took no notice when it did) have even bothered to look as they must get heaps of this sort of stuff and only publish what their staff and their friends write, and see no need to write further on related topics as the direct plan to invent a problem of man made warming to create a world tax and currency pretty well covers all the smaller areas in itself. The banks being fed almost free money despite losing it all last time continues to sap the world's economy and prevent any recovery as they can still manipulate the market with ghost bids, short sell commodities they can't deliver if lost, lend five times more than the standard amount they should hold in deposits despite risking default if enough people cash their accounts, do not have to separate customers' money and their own for trading purposes, can still sell mortgages of 100%, etc etc., all held up by interest rates 5% below the market requirement, which mean anyone who has worked for decades can no longer pay all their bills on retirement as investments can't guarantee more than a few percent, well under inflation.

You can teach most people basic economics if they want to learn, my problem is not they can't follow all this, but no one wants to. That is how and why it is still happening. I actually believe just my single article (with maybe a page of the economics of market manipulation based on the structure of the mafia) is enough to show everyone that their governments are working for the same ends, pretty much the opposite of what they say they are doing, and as working on a majority vote the few honest dissenters are always cancelled out. So you don't need everyone to be dishonest, just those with the power to make policy. And people can't say they haven't noticed it now. Energy prices across the board have more than doubled regardless of wholesale prices. And if they manage to get VAT on food then everyone will pay 20% more for it overnight. That will drop Britain a good few places on the richest country list instantly as the power of the same income will be reduced accordingly so we will be drifting towards Poland and once the petrol taxes come in again in August maybe the Poles will start leaving and British people will head there to work instead. It's all relative and Britain is getting relatively poorer.


Some economic disasters are unavoidable, oil shortages, strikes and the like. But low interest rates and high taxes are not out of control outside events, they are policies. The same policies which caused he crash the last time and unchanged since. Who can spend your money better, you or the government? And they can't even spend it on railways and water pipes now as they don't own them. So besides the NHS and benefit payments, a huge amount of government spending vanished when they sold off the public services. And why train and bus fares are now the highest in the world. Those two alone should tell people all they need to know, but the Post Office will follow when they find a way to do it, and Air Traffic Control if they didn't do that already and I missed it. So basically we have the lightning strike, the act of god, and then the flood, and the differences are whether or not you can be insured for them as to the consequences. But the low interest rates and travel taxes are not acts of god, but had David Icke been right acts of the devil. Someone has chosen to impose these austerity measures on us all and actually make the vast majority of the population poorer. Of course the kickbacks to energy companies and EU mafiosi mop this excess cash up continuously, and like a tapeworm continue to collect a portion of our wealth and for all I know may even cause segments to come out in our shit. But these are all concrete planned methods to cause a worse economic problem for nearly everyone when they don't have to.


All prices are driven up by fuel costs so the money the government gain in the short term is lost in the long term as people simply have less to spend and the retailers net less overall as more has gone on energy. They then have to lay people off so more claim benefits and don't buy things and it just feeds on itself like cancer. House prices go up as interest rates are so low, so mean people spend more on them anyway as the principal is higher before the interest is added. O level maths, maybe even primary school if my own experience is anything to go by. If you add the sale price and total interest paid over the 25 years or whatever then a graph used by all mortgage brokers shows you the comparison between higher prices and lower interest rates. But when you come to buy it becomes obvious. And over 25 years throughout history interest rates pretty well even out from high to low, and probably still will over the same period ahead. But the selling price is fixed the day you buy it, and you pay interest on that so if it's higher then the total interest will be higher regardless of rates as it's 5% of a higher number for the term of the mortgage. Obvious when pointed out but missed by the wallies who spend £250,000 on a house at 5% when they may well not be able to cope when it hits 7% let alone 12. If they spent £200,000 at 7% or so they would pay more for the first few years, and then less and less as it is only a percentage of 200,000 and is just as likely to go down in the future whereas if you buy when low can only pay more ahead.


Governments know exactly who gains and loses from their policies, and as well as using fuel everyone has to live somewhere. So put house prices up even more by lowering interest rates then people will all be poorer. Except those who buy and sell them for a living. So 100% of people live somewhere, less those on the streets and the like, while a few percent are property developers or estate agents, who get a percentage for selling whether high or low, and valuers. So utilitarianism (benefitting the most people overall) is not part of modern politics. High house prices help a few groups of business people. High fuel prices help even fewer as the energy companies still have to buy everything affected by inflation including their own fuel. Only the top executives make so much they clear a massive profit, plus the oil sheiks, while everyone else can't. So high fuel prices hurt more people than any other policy, yet is the greatest source of revenue for the British government and increasing annually. It's just a shame maybe 100 people will read this hear than a million or more in a newspaper. I am ready.

Low carbon economy

Britain has just got the latest climate change taxes passed, this time hitting businesses with phenomenal charges simply for using energy. The reason, to lower the UKs carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.

This makes me wonder how many people affected by this (everyone, it's happening worldwide) know what a low carbon economy means in practice?

1) Low carbon means low industry. That means cutting back on our industrial usage, in this case 80%. That seems self evident to me.

2) Taxing local industries has two immediate results. One is the taxes have to be recouped. Companies must make a profit, so will simply pass on the tax to the end user. Of course every country without such penalties will not include the charge so unless import controls are used (out of fashion currently) people will simply buy from abroad, causing local firms to go out of business. If all companies worldwide could be taxed the same then the costs would be passed on worldwide and first the public would go broke followed by the businesses. You can't get a quart out of a pint pot.

3) The increase in energy charges will have two consequences. If driving becomes too expensive it will eventually become limited to the rich. If home energy becomes more expensive (as it has) people have to spend less on everything else or freeze.

4) If you do reduce CO2 by 80% most power would be generated by nuclear. Like it or hate it, Philip Stott's estimate of 30 year's worth of uranium before that runs out (as it is destroyed in the process) won't get us far beyond 2050. All the coal lying underground will be available but gradually being outlawed.

5) If people prefer to live in pre industrial communities as a few of our local protestors do already, the population is now many times higher than it was a few hundred years ago. Sustaining such numbers by growing their own food and supplying their own fuel from wood and rubbish is hardly going to be viable. And what would they do with all the empty factories and make what they would have made without them?

6) The actual figures for what is termed alternative energy are tens of times the price of conventional at a fraction of the efficiency. The sun rarely shines, the wind rarely blows at just the right speed, and the amount of water required for wave power is restricted to very few sites. There may be alternatives to compare with what we have one day, but not today or for many years.

7) In the short and medium term increased fuel prices will gradually raise transport costs of all types making holidays, private cars and ultimately all transport unviable for all but the richest.

In the Soviet Union there were rich people, the money went to the Communist Party hierarchy. Of course if you remove huge amounts of money at one end it has to go somewhere. The rest of us will be gradually be deprived of more and more home comforts and cash until we will be living at subsistence levels. And even the government's own advisors expect power to be cut off for part of the week as there won't be enough legal fuel to run the power grid. I very much doubt more than a handful of the enthusiasts actually want to live like this, so why are they all pushing governments to make that happen? Do they really not understand the consequences?

Neither a borrower or a lender be

I like freedom, and when I sometimes put down certain political views it's because they restrict it for no reason except they enjoy doing so. Some sick individuals enjoy seeing animals in cages, all I can say is if they do then each should spend at least a week in one and then see if they do. The same goes for the rich politicians who like to make us poor. They can travel freely but when they make it so expensive only the most well off can do so. I know why they do it but will never approve of their attempts to increase the scope. The old economic policy of money equalling production has never applied to this lot, otherwise the banking system of leveraged borrowing and quantitative easing would be illegal. Ponzi schemes always were, as are pyramid schemes, but printing money to flood the economy never was, despite the total of production staying fixed. It always means the new money is worthless but because of the methods of accounting they use (very similar to the ones demonstrating global warming) people are fooled.

Now to me once this was pointed out it was never in doubt, yet when I try and do so, I either preach to the converted who also worked it out or am faced with abuse. Why do people want to be robbed and would rather believe the the rat in the kitchen is their fairy godmother? Human bloody nature. As Shakespeare's rose will always smell as sweet even if you call it Al Gore, so Al Gore will always be the devil's rheum even if people call him the saviour.

One by one people familiar with David Icke but critical are beginning to realise he knew what he was saying. Again, like the biblical sheep and goats (I never understood the meaning by the way) we are divided in two camps. The believers and the understanders. Belief means trust and faith, understanding means knowledge. I know man burning fuel and farming can't make the climate change. I know restricting people's freedom is bullying. I know lending people money they can never repay and then getting the taxpayers to foot the bill is theft. Most people vote for the policies that allowed this to happen and then whinge when it did. Including EU membership. It's like leaving the car door unlocked and then moaning when it's been stripped the next morning. The best I can hope for is one person who was sucked in saying they've realised I was right but may wait a very long time. That's how they get away with it, people hate to be cheated and hate even more to be wrong, so they close their eyes and whistle dixie while their bank accounts shrivel up like autumn leaves. It's like trying to tell someone the answer on a TV quiz knowing they can never hear you. I really feel like giving up but as long as I have a voice I can only repeat, repeat, repeat. If not then everyone will assume we agree.

I wonder how when all the political fraud is so obvious to me why so few others get it? I can explain it instantly and easily and when junk mails offered me grand loans every day for years I wouldn't want or could afford it was clear every bugger in the country was as well. It never used to be like that, the people who needed loans (apart from housing I don't believe anyone does, but they felt they did) never got them. Then it changed. Or the law did. Banks were allowed to invest and speculate and previous barriers to bad debt creation were removed. This is now the result. Just like 'Life insurance' is actually death insurance, so the credit crunch is actually the debt crunch. Earn not enough, borrow what they offer you and then (adding vast amounts of interest) realise you can't pay. Multiply that by millions of similar idiots and the sensible guys have to pay as it's our safe money the government can take from us in taxes.

So as always the bright subsidise the dim, locally and worldwide. This is a form of socialism and another reason I could never endorse a single left wing party as long as I live. It's organised envy, puritanism and control and I like my freedom and to earn my money honestly and be allowed to keep it. People will never again believe it's necessary to save until they have luxuries like decent cars and holidays, but always believe the sensible owe them a living and basically steal our money by taking out loans they know they can never repay while the banks and governments who subsidise them take our money to fill the gaps. If a revolution was ever needed now is the time, before we are all equally poor (besides the bankers).

A little Nazism is OK

I was just asked by a fellow campaigner for the truth on climate change about how there can be a correlation between increased taxation and affecting the climate? As the major (only?) political weapon against perceived climate change is taxation then they expect us to accept that raising money can reverse the harmful effects we have had on the climate. Watch this space.
Secondly, and I said it before in the forums and nearly got my head bitten off, one of the highest causes of CO2 in the atmosphere are animal exhalations. While plants breathe it in and exhale oxygen, sadly animals do the reverse, so the most effective way to repair the delicate balance of the atmosphere is to remove all animal life from the planet (nb, plants will also die as there won't be enough CO2 left for them, but a small price to pay I'm sure).

When it comes to political power, Europe lead the world in unification. They are slowly unifying an area the size of the Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire and if it had succeeded the Third Reich. One by one countries are asked to change to fit in, first the currency, then the measurements, and when each is in place something else will be added until we have a homogenous and increasing area speaking the same language, driving on the right, and using the same currency. Then of course principles will be extended to previously imperial measurements for harmonisation within the community. Time, being base 12, is an anachronistic reference to imperial times, so will be decimalised with 100 seconds in a minute and 20 hours a day. And as time is not restricted to Europe the UN will declare the rest of the world will have to switch instantly to harmonise intercontinental flights and trade. And one further step, suggested by my deputy Roger Hooton, is that rather than have time zones which are divisive and isolate nations, from now on all countries worldwide will be on the same time. Then each country will be able to make appointments to call and the time will not vary between nations, and flights will be able to be timed universally with no alteration for local differences.

Communication is also vitally important with local variations excluding outsiders, so Europe will lead the way, democratically choosing the language spoken by the highest population, which of course is German. Because of the political correctness not allowing any country to exclude others through language barriers, a UN diktat will therefore order every country in the world to follow, as it cannot be enough for one continent to speak German, it must spread to all corners of the earth, and if other planets are colonised or found to be inhabited, as the established world language then become the universal language.

Some people may say these regulations go to far, and I agree. But if they do, where do you draw the line before they become unreasonable?