Following up from my observation the left have hijacked their side of opinions as being the only valid ones I am listing every area where this is the case, to demonstrate how a belief has been attempted to be presented as the only right way things should be.
Gay marriage: The actual reality is it is entirely personal opinion whether marriage is between a man and a woman, in its original sense or more than that. But there is no right answer and never can be as marriage is a totally artificial concept anyhow.
Equality: Who is equal? Every human life. Then every individual has a chance to make something of that life. After that there can never again be equality as each person is unique in their achievements so can never be equal to another, and unless the state removes all their money after a set level, which they have no right to, there can be no financial equality either.
Diversity and multiculturalism: I don't think these existed before maybe the 80s, and if it was fine not to have them before it clearly can be now. Both are false qualities born purely from a narrow ideological band, with absolutely no inherent merit, let alone unique in their correctness for any society. Like maybe Saudi Arabia or Congo who as yet have no plans for either.
The right wing is bad: This is the latest assault on the growing movement against the early 21st century dominance of leftist philosophy. As people gradually get fed up with it the old guard simply heap playground insult after insult on them, as all they have are their emotions and no actual basis otherwise for their personal views. But to the left, there is no other correct view, these are not opinions, they are right and everything else is wrong, often to the point of them actually recommending the death penalty they normally condemn on the other side, who don't all actually believe in it. But the difference here is they would never use it for a crime, but for holding the wrong opinion. That is psychopathic.
Homosexuality: If you even hint that heterosexuality may be the default position and anything else, including gender confusion, be a diversion, you may be condemned to a curse of death. Daring to look at areas such as nature and parenthood, observing the norm is two parents to bring up their own children gets people labelled as Mengele and Goebbels by the left who think everyone should simply do it their way, except oddly not paedophiles, which goes against their own principles of equality for all. Oh, and incest as far as I know, although both involved would be consenting adults. Maybe that'll be next, it certainly should follow logically now men and women will soon be able to marry each other.
Two parents of two sexes is best: Sometimes the right holds an opinion they feel is fact, this is probably the closest, but based jointly on nature and thousands of years of evidence of children from one parent families suffering and failing later in life. Sorry, but that's how all higher life was designed, don't blame the observer.
Women should work as mothers: This is originally based not on anyone's actual opinion, but the British phenomenon of houses rising from 3-4 times annual income to over ten times. Do the maths, this means on average it needs two incomes to pay for them. Had this never happened most married women would still stay at home as housewives as that was how it worked naturally. They don't like that though, everyone is equal and must do exactly the same as everyone else even when they don't want to.
Women should hold half the jobs in society: One word answer, bollocks.
Everyone is born equally intelligent: Over a hundred years of rigorous scientific experiments have destroyed this from every possible angle, and new DNA mapping is finding more and more traits are genetic. Unfortunately for the wider view, it also applies to different races as well. And that's not opinion, it's simply the same as inheriting within any family. Again, it's an area where they treat your own facts as your opinion as they breach their own opinion of how things should be, which is the entire foundation of leftism. When reality ever disagrees, kill it.
All cultures are equal: Again, history has enough to demonstrate the Indian practices of suttee (killing a widow on the husband's funeral pyre) and thuggee (organised crime gangs), as well as the caste system, female genital mutilation and honour killings elsewhere are pure savagery, and all serious crimes in Britain, so why not when people do it as a matter of course elsewhere?
Had I lasted the course and got my master's degree this would have been published as a scientific paper, but as I diverted to another branch I now have to compete with established journalists but only concerned with getting the message out. Once exposed and recognised, these phenomena will die away as go from being implicit to explicit. You can't maintain illusions when exposed.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Saturday, May 11, 2013
The world's biggest intelligence test, failed
I am absolutely amazed and disgusted over the general level of human intelligence I've discovered through the means of global warming. The standards of proof normally required in a court case or scientific experiment have followed the same rules since ancient Greece and Egypt, are documented, taught and known universally, yet have been totally abandoned while the world now heads straight for the dark ages at the hands of those who know better and exploit it.
Originally the media were very clear and simple. They stuck with the headlines. We have put out huge amounts of CO2 which has raised the temperature and will melt the ice and raise the sea levels. Then the internet came along, plus a few more detailed reports, which focussed in far more depth and showed that the one thing we knew was the CO2 level, which has now officially risen around 50%. But the rest of it wasn't quite as clear. The temperature varied depending on who you read, and how it was measured and then adjusted in ways I'm sure even their peers don't always understand. The sea level however was only rising the same amount it had for centuries, around 8 inches a century. That clearly could not be dangerous, as it's always been that way, and has not changed. Working back, if the sea level, far easier to measure and more stable than the rapidly fluctuating temperature, is not actually rising any more, then the two factors required to make it rise, thermal expansion and land ice melting, could not either be increasing any more than normal, ie in the cyclical warming phase between ice ages we have had since the day the earth had an atmosphere, caused by the wobbling orbit and solar changes.
Although many details laid on top of this formula are incredibly complicated this foundation is very simple. The official (not tested in the field as there is no control mechanism, ie a second planet without the CO2 rise to compare it with) figure for existing CO2 at 260ppm added a degree C to the 33C total over deep space. The only reason global warming could be a problem would be if the doubling of CO2, which would happen around 2100 at current rates, added more than 2C, which would require both a rise in humidity from evaporating oceans, and its presence in the atmosphere where it was able to cause a greater greenhouse effect.
It is that simple, and everyone can understand this. Nothing else can be added or taken away from this to alter the outcomes. Unless 2C is reached and breached, according to the experts at the UN, the benefits of warming (greater food production, fewer wars over limited resources, fewer deaths from cold etc) would not be outweighed by the problems, which they do not actually know beyond the rising sea level as there are few historic records to explain possible changes in extreme weather, droughts and floods at such a temperature, ie they don't know.
The great majority of the theory was based not on the risen CO2 or even temperature, but what would happen in 2100, based on the entire potential range of feedback from negative to extreme, offering a range from around 1-6C, with 4 in the middle, way above their safe level. But this was purely speculation, and 20 years after it was made the actual temperature is just below the lowest possible level for 2013 on their diagram and no sign of rising. The experiment they created, doubling CO2 and seeing what happens, is half done, the total rise is 0.8, less the amount from the pre-existing natural rise which is around half that. Therefore doubling CO2 to 520ppm cannot rise above 1.6C even if it were responsible for the entire amount.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There is simply nothing complicated or controversial here. The foundations for the additional academic complexities such as extreme weather changes, water vapour distribution, solar and geological influences etc., are all subsumed by the big picture. When the scientists constantly present a melting glacier here (some of which turned out to be made up, such as the Himalayas) and a storm there, and then expect everyone to believe it represents dangerous climate changed caused by global warming, they are breaking every rule of their profession and of life itself, yet nearly everyone accepts it. This has demonstrated two things to me, firstly the entire lack of intelligence and logic in the vast majority of people who should have known better, and secondly the entire trust in authority over experts who make mistakes and lie.
This is a dangerous combination indeed and has been fully exploited to its maximum level. I have stripped it apart into its few essential components and hopefully presented it in an accurate but simple enough way it should be impossible to misinterpret. All the claims of dying birds, polar bear migrations and even the latest debacle over the summer Arctic ice melt in 2012-3 are all subsumed by the single linked rise in CO2 and lack of a corresponding rise in temperature. The UN have never either stated a delay in the positive feedback, besides one comment by James Hansen that the ocean may store the heat before releasing it, but that was never expected to be a major factor, or raised a single other issue besides the 2C rise in temperature (such as the incorrectly named 'ocean acidification') as causing the pages of problems listed in their regular reports.
I have checked, double checked and triple checked everything I have written (like the scientists are supposed to, and the media who report them), and cannot see a single thing wrong with it, as these are mainly agreed figures and impossible to refute. Given such a relatively simple equation then with a half-run experiment and corresponding absence of warming, then unless they can find an incredibly original reason to alter their parameters, the 2050 and 2100 projections must be scrapped as they are now impossible to reach. While the scientists are struggling to explain why the temperature is no longer warming or reaching anywhere near the level required to cause a problem in 2100, the temperature continues to do what it does regardless, and diverges further and further from global warming, whether man made or otherwise. And this is before the vast differences in temperature location and adjustment are brought into account, as before adjustment many aren't even showing a rise at all in many places, and needed to be coaxed into performing, so maybe the only man made element of warming is in the alterations to cause it to appear.
Originally the media were very clear and simple. They stuck with the headlines. We have put out huge amounts of CO2 which has raised the temperature and will melt the ice and raise the sea levels. Then the internet came along, plus a few more detailed reports, which focussed in far more depth and showed that the one thing we knew was the CO2 level, which has now officially risen around 50%. But the rest of it wasn't quite as clear. The temperature varied depending on who you read, and how it was measured and then adjusted in ways I'm sure even their peers don't always understand. The sea level however was only rising the same amount it had for centuries, around 8 inches a century. That clearly could not be dangerous, as it's always been that way, and has not changed. Working back, if the sea level, far easier to measure and more stable than the rapidly fluctuating temperature, is not actually rising any more, then the two factors required to make it rise, thermal expansion and land ice melting, could not either be increasing any more than normal, ie in the cyclical warming phase between ice ages we have had since the day the earth had an atmosphere, caused by the wobbling orbit and solar changes.
Although many details laid on top of this formula are incredibly complicated this foundation is very simple. The official (not tested in the field as there is no control mechanism, ie a second planet without the CO2 rise to compare it with) figure for existing CO2 at 260ppm added a degree C to the 33C total over deep space. The only reason global warming could be a problem would be if the doubling of CO2, which would happen around 2100 at current rates, added more than 2C, which would require both a rise in humidity from evaporating oceans, and its presence in the atmosphere where it was able to cause a greater greenhouse effect.
It is that simple, and everyone can understand this. Nothing else can be added or taken away from this to alter the outcomes. Unless 2C is reached and breached, according to the experts at the UN, the benefits of warming (greater food production, fewer wars over limited resources, fewer deaths from cold etc) would not be outweighed by the problems, which they do not actually know beyond the rising sea level as there are few historic records to explain possible changes in extreme weather, droughts and floods at such a temperature, ie they don't know.
The great majority of the theory was based not on the risen CO2 or even temperature, but what would happen in 2100, based on the entire potential range of feedback from negative to extreme, offering a range from around 1-6C, with 4 in the middle, way above their safe level. But this was purely speculation, and 20 years after it was made the actual temperature is just below the lowest possible level for 2013 on their diagram and no sign of rising. The experiment they created, doubling CO2 and seeing what happens, is half done, the total rise is 0.8, less the amount from the pre-existing natural rise which is around half that. Therefore doubling CO2 to 520ppm cannot rise above 1.6C even if it were responsible for the entire amount.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There is simply nothing complicated or controversial here. The foundations for the additional academic complexities such as extreme weather changes, water vapour distribution, solar and geological influences etc., are all subsumed by the big picture. When the scientists constantly present a melting glacier here (some of which turned out to be made up, such as the Himalayas) and a storm there, and then expect everyone to believe it represents dangerous climate changed caused by global warming, they are breaking every rule of their profession and of life itself, yet nearly everyone accepts it. This has demonstrated two things to me, firstly the entire lack of intelligence and logic in the vast majority of people who should have known better, and secondly the entire trust in authority over experts who make mistakes and lie.
This is a dangerous combination indeed and has been fully exploited to its maximum level. I have stripped it apart into its few essential components and hopefully presented it in an accurate but simple enough way it should be impossible to misinterpret. All the claims of dying birds, polar bear migrations and even the latest debacle over the summer Arctic ice melt in 2012-3 are all subsumed by the single linked rise in CO2 and lack of a corresponding rise in temperature. The UN have never either stated a delay in the positive feedback, besides one comment by James Hansen that the ocean may store the heat before releasing it, but that was never expected to be a major factor, or raised a single other issue besides the 2C rise in temperature (such as the incorrectly named 'ocean acidification') as causing the pages of problems listed in their regular reports.
I have checked, double checked and triple checked everything I have written (like the scientists are supposed to, and the media who report them), and cannot see a single thing wrong with it, as these are mainly agreed figures and impossible to refute. Given such a relatively simple equation then with a half-run experiment and corresponding absence of warming, then unless they can find an incredibly original reason to alter their parameters, the 2050 and 2100 projections must be scrapped as they are now impossible to reach. While the scientists are struggling to explain why the temperature is no longer warming or reaching anywhere near the level required to cause a problem in 2100, the temperature continues to do what it does regardless, and diverges further and further from global warming, whether man made or otherwise. And this is before the vast differences in temperature location and adjustment are brought into account, as before adjustment many aren't even showing a rise at all in many places, and needed to be coaxed into performing, so maybe the only man made element of warming is in the alterations to cause it to appear.
Thursday, May 02, 2013
Cyprus, one country which represents the entire world
As Cypriot ministers predictably voted to remain in the Euro this week and accept the bailout the people of the country were destined to an interminable recession, and without even the means to create their own economic policies to deal with it. They will be in debt possibly for generations to come, with no opportunities for more than just subsistence as like any bankrupt anything they do make will simply service their debts.
Of course this didn't have to happen, they only joined the Euro in 2008, and without doing a study on their economic history would be fair to say they were better off the day before they joined than they are now, something which also applies to Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France, at the very least. Being physically joined together reduces the feelings of independence compared to others, although the poorer countries like Ireland and Cyprus who are not joined as they thought as net collectors they would have an endless supply of wealth from those who were better off, kind of like something described as communism. But this communism was different, as it was the short term offer which then saved up the real costs till you were deeply into it and then got hit by the bill plus everything you'd saved with interest. Of course no one, especially such basket cases which would attempt to take advantage of such an opportunity, would ever be able to repay such deliberate Indian gifts, those only offered in return for something back, but have now been put into perpetual serfdom at the feet of the only people who set the EU up for their own interest having failed to complete the task in two world wars by military means, Germany.
Now anyone who ever claims I am exaggerating just imagine had I asked you a month ago if you believed the EU would collect their debts directly from citizen's bank accounts and you (and me actually) would have laughed. I don't see many Cypriots laughing, except the usual politicians who are immune from the internal failure of the economy as they are paid from central funds directly. They don't actually care as a result how the ordinary people suffer, as they get to keep their jobs. But Cyprus and all the other basket cases under lesser but no less restrictive bailouts are all suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, as the only difference between Stalin's Russia, North Korea, Cuba and the EU is EU members can all leave immediately with no notice. But they won't. The creep towards the fourth Reich, Holy Roman Empire, or whatever bastard version of Hitler's view of a 'united Europe' or Nero's or any other tyrant throughout history carrying out the same type of plans, is growing in momentum, and with every deliberate surrender of power to the authority above is speeding up the process for them. None of the countries bailed out have economic independence any more, and although the figures owed probably mean they can't ever pay it all back, would probably keep the rules imposed even if they did manage it. As the purpose wasn't the financial ones, but to impose those rules they wouldn't have managed so easily if they hadn't required bailing out.
Bailing out a country requires you also take over their finances almost completely, to ensure they are directing the majority of their annual income into paying it back. Had these been compulsory I wouldn't be here writing this now as it would be part of the requirements of joining. But these countries all asked for them, knowing although they were under no legal obligations to repay these debts (like Iceland who weren't in the EU so didn't do it) they didn't trust their own people to run their countries so handed them over willingly to the EU instead. One thing the Germans or even the French or Dutch would never do is invade a rogue state within the EU, as look where it got them last time. As Corporal Jones said, 'They don't like it up 'em Mr Mainwaring'. The one thing the Nazis, I mean the EU won't do again is invade any of their neighbours with tanks or bombers. This war is an economic one, as only a few people understand economics but everyone understands an invasion. How many people in the bailed out countries even realise they could leave the Euro/EU and are under little or no obligation should they choose to default and go it alone? But they have become so dependent on their kidnappers that even those who do know are so scared of wiping their own bottoms and not drinking milk from the teats of Brussels they prefer to stay in prison even though the door was never even locked.
We have another episode of the sad state of political choices, from Maastricht to Lisbon, where countries voted time after time not to accept the Lisbon treaty until more money was spent on propaganda till the second or third times they voted the proper way after all. I don't think Britain would have done that, which is why (even though we were promised it) we didn't get a vote, but the rest are not made of such strong stuff and now all see themselves first as Europeans, even though such a place has been created from the rough edges of a much larger set of continents from what was left over. That's hardly a reason to become a single state, especially when made up of more diverse nations, cultures and languages than any other similar area in the world. One example is while Europe unites its member states, recognising on the small scale even almost identical Tweedledum and Tweedledee nations as the Czech Republic and Slovakia are different enough to divide, and other Muslim enclaves such as Bosnia follow their brothers worldwide to ask or fight for independence, while all queuing up for EU membership if not already in, just like Scotland want should they win the vote ahead.
We live in the most exploitative times since the Roman Empire, with what is only a modern revival of the similar culture and plan, albeit with Germany running the show this time but the Italians as always not far behind them with their tongues wedged firmly up their backsides. As always they managed to disappoint the world and form a coalition of the usual suspects, Berlusconi and some other unknown mafia representatives, leaving the relatively sensible and decent (by Italian standards) Beppe Grillo on the sidelines as expected. So Italy now continues to play ball and do Brussels' bidding as fully intended from the start, while France has imposed a 75% tax in its millionaires just to show they have not strayed from the terminally disastrous policies every other country abandoned in the 80s. The rule seems to be have a choice of policies, one the standard establishment world government model, the other closer to freedom, and always choose the wrong one. Of course if they weren't actual choices but foregone conclusions this would explain it far better, as they have to give the impression of independence and choice but are simply doing as they have been ordered.
That makes best sense, we all have a choice of electing new anti-establishment parties, but Stockholm Syndrome combined with total ignorance stops this happening anywhere so far, so people keep bringing in the same rules wherever they are although they are the only ones who do have a choice. If people became educated and realised what is actually being done to them then of course none would vote for tyranny and subjugation, but they don't and they aren't. So Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and who knows who else are one by one falling into the third world, and although they'll still be up the creek for many years regardless, at least they'll be free to find their own ways out. You can't beat independence.
Of course this didn't have to happen, they only joined the Euro in 2008, and without doing a study on their economic history would be fair to say they were better off the day before they joined than they are now, something which also applies to Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France, at the very least. Being physically joined together reduces the feelings of independence compared to others, although the poorer countries like Ireland and Cyprus who are not joined as they thought as net collectors they would have an endless supply of wealth from those who were better off, kind of like something described as communism. But this communism was different, as it was the short term offer which then saved up the real costs till you were deeply into it and then got hit by the bill plus everything you'd saved with interest. Of course no one, especially such basket cases which would attempt to take advantage of such an opportunity, would ever be able to repay such deliberate Indian gifts, those only offered in return for something back, but have now been put into perpetual serfdom at the feet of the only people who set the EU up for their own interest having failed to complete the task in two world wars by military means, Germany.
Now anyone who ever claims I am exaggerating just imagine had I asked you a month ago if you believed the EU would collect their debts directly from citizen's bank accounts and you (and me actually) would have laughed. I don't see many Cypriots laughing, except the usual politicians who are immune from the internal failure of the economy as they are paid from central funds directly. They don't actually care as a result how the ordinary people suffer, as they get to keep their jobs. But Cyprus and all the other basket cases under lesser but no less restrictive bailouts are all suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, as the only difference between Stalin's Russia, North Korea, Cuba and the EU is EU members can all leave immediately with no notice. But they won't. The creep towards the fourth Reich, Holy Roman Empire, or whatever bastard version of Hitler's view of a 'united Europe' or Nero's or any other tyrant throughout history carrying out the same type of plans, is growing in momentum, and with every deliberate surrender of power to the authority above is speeding up the process for them. None of the countries bailed out have economic independence any more, and although the figures owed probably mean they can't ever pay it all back, would probably keep the rules imposed even if they did manage it. As the purpose wasn't the financial ones, but to impose those rules they wouldn't have managed so easily if they hadn't required bailing out.
Bailing out a country requires you also take over their finances almost completely, to ensure they are directing the majority of their annual income into paying it back. Had these been compulsory I wouldn't be here writing this now as it would be part of the requirements of joining. But these countries all asked for them, knowing although they were under no legal obligations to repay these debts (like Iceland who weren't in the EU so didn't do it) they didn't trust their own people to run their countries so handed them over willingly to the EU instead. One thing the Germans or even the French or Dutch would never do is invade a rogue state within the EU, as look where it got them last time. As Corporal Jones said, 'They don't like it up 'em Mr Mainwaring'. The one thing the Nazis, I mean the EU won't do again is invade any of their neighbours with tanks or bombers. This war is an economic one, as only a few people understand economics but everyone understands an invasion. How many people in the bailed out countries even realise they could leave the Euro/EU and are under little or no obligation should they choose to default and go it alone? But they have become so dependent on their kidnappers that even those who do know are so scared of wiping their own bottoms and not drinking milk from the teats of Brussels they prefer to stay in prison even though the door was never even locked.
We have another episode of the sad state of political choices, from Maastricht to Lisbon, where countries voted time after time not to accept the Lisbon treaty until more money was spent on propaganda till the second or third times they voted the proper way after all. I don't think Britain would have done that, which is why (even though we were promised it) we didn't get a vote, but the rest are not made of such strong stuff and now all see themselves first as Europeans, even though such a place has been created from the rough edges of a much larger set of continents from what was left over. That's hardly a reason to become a single state, especially when made up of more diverse nations, cultures and languages than any other similar area in the world. One example is while Europe unites its member states, recognising on the small scale even almost identical Tweedledum and Tweedledee nations as the Czech Republic and Slovakia are different enough to divide, and other Muslim enclaves such as Bosnia follow their brothers worldwide to ask or fight for independence, while all queuing up for EU membership if not already in, just like Scotland want should they win the vote ahead.
We live in the most exploitative times since the Roman Empire, with what is only a modern revival of the similar culture and plan, albeit with Germany running the show this time but the Italians as always not far behind them with their tongues wedged firmly up their backsides. As always they managed to disappoint the world and form a coalition of the usual suspects, Berlusconi and some other unknown mafia representatives, leaving the relatively sensible and decent (by Italian standards) Beppe Grillo on the sidelines as expected. So Italy now continues to play ball and do Brussels' bidding as fully intended from the start, while France has imposed a 75% tax in its millionaires just to show they have not strayed from the terminally disastrous policies every other country abandoned in the 80s. The rule seems to be have a choice of policies, one the standard establishment world government model, the other closer to freedom, and always choose the wrong one. Of course if they weren't actual choices but foregone conclusions this would explain it far better, as they have to give the impression of independence and choice but are simply doing as they have been ordered.
That makes best sense, we all have a choice of electing new anti-establishment parties, but Stockholm Syndrome combined with total ignorance stops this happening anywhere so far, so people keep bringing in the same rules wherever they are although they are the only ones who do have a choice. If people became educated and realised what is actually being done to them then of course none would vote for tyranny and subjugation, but they don't and they aren't. So Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and who knows who else are one by one falling into the third world, and although they'll still be up the creek for many years regardless, at least they'll be free to find their own ways out. You can't beat independence.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Global warming, a universal lesson
Global warming is the lesson for the entire remaining people in the world to grow up and rely on their own wits rather than those in authority. Currently the world is divided roughly into two groups, those who totally accept the ever increasing claims of the scientists and those who ignore their degrees and simply judge the figures.
The jury system is based on trial by peers, and accepts everyone... eligible is an equal arbiter, given the professionals to present and explain the evidence, which has absolutely no limits as to its technical content. Bearing this in mind, we can already see a clear precedent for trusting the untrained mind with technical issues, as logic comes above training, and anyone with ten fingers can count to see if the figures add up.
People must mature, and those without must gain independent minds. This means whoever has told them what it must be tested first before being trusted. We soon get to feel what is right and wrong with practice, and any lawyer or detective can spot a liar a mile off, and with a little encouragement so can everyone. People lie, professionals no less than any others. Currently around 50% of scientific papers have been found to be made up to maintain someone's career, as the urge to succeed is far stronger than the urge to be right. This permeates the entire world, and not just the third world and Italy are ravaged with government fraud, the west just cover it up better.
If eventually the entire story comes apart and those responsible are shown to have been dishonest from the start, the lesson will be learnt by circumstances, but do we really have to wait an indefinite period for that to possibly happen, or should we instead hope one by one new people will learn to stand on their own feet and think for themselves, trusting their own instincts above all others as logic is a universal quality and wins every fight.
The jury system is based on trial by peers, and accepts everyone... eligible is an equal arbiter, given the professionals to present and explain the evidence, which has absolutely no limits as to its technical content. Bearing this in mind, we can already see a clear precedent for trusting the untrained mind with technical issues, as logic comes above training, and anyone with ten fingers can count to see if the figures add up.
People must mature, and those without must gain independent minds. This means whoever has told them what it must be tested first before being trusted. We soon get to feel what is right and wrong with practice, and any lawyer or detective can spot a liar a mile off, and with a little encouragement so can everyone. People lie, professionals no less than any others. Currently around 50% of scientific papers have been found to be made up to maintain someone's career, as the urge to succeed is far stronger than the urge to be right. This permeates the entire world, and not just the third world and Italy are ravaged with government fraud, the west just cover it up better.
If eventually the entire story comes apart and those responsible are shown to have been dishonest from the start, the lesson will be learnt by circumstances, but do we really have to wait an indefinite period for that to possibly happen, or should we instead hope one by one new people will learn to stand on their own feet and think for themselves, trusting their own instincts above all others as logic is a universal quality and wins every fight.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
This is agoraphobia folks, read and study
I think I've pinned down why agoraphobia is the least socially acceptable illness in existence. People simply don't believe you have it. Not being able to go to certain places is simply seen as a weakness, one which with a little effort can easily be overcome, and force yourself to travel abroad, sit in concerts and spend days on courses. Offer any other variation, depression, fear of heights, spiders or even OCD and people can just about sympathise to some degree, but if you can't visit the local supermarket or cinema without a panic attack it's somehow your own fault.
The friends you could lose as a result is the major issue, while most of the family who can't actually dump you just think you're weird and see it as a burden any time arrangements need to be made. Decent friends of course would understand, but the normal strategy is simply never to tell anyone until you really have no alternative, and once they know half don't believe or understand, while the others react like you've just said you're a career criminal or psychopath. It's such a rare condition compared to the rampant depression and schizophrenia it barely ever gets mentioned and then most people think it's something to do with being outdoors (it isn't), simply as they learnt two Greek words and assume that covers it. I expect there are also people scared of being outdoors (there would be for anything really) but it probably has a different name, but it's not me.
The next little spin on it is when you say you've gone out somewhere, and they say 'But I thought you were agoraphobic?' (Translation, you want it both ways, you were when I invited you over but you're suddenly OK now), which again has no comprehension of the condition. I don't want anyone to suffer to learn, but if they had it even for a day then the questions and judgements would stop. How it works is: There are boundaries, they change long and short term, and when I get decent tablets they go away 60-80% at times. Where I can go on a Monday can be different on a Friday or five years ahead. I never really know till something turns up whether or not I can manage it, and that's its nature. In fact I'm now the least bothered by it as as long as I'm not forced to go across those boundaries I'm no different from anyone else, like putting someone in a lift and then stopping it between floors. Same person, same lift, different situation. Put me in an audience or restaurant and that lift is stuck, and if the performance lasts two hours that's a heck of a long time in a stuck lift, even with the best tablets in existence.
The friends you could lose as a result is the major issue, while most of the family who can't actually dump you just think you're weird and see it as a burden any time arrangements need to be made. Decent friends of course would understand, but the normal strategy is simply never to tell anyone until you really have no alternative, and once they know half don't believe or understand, while the others react like you've just said you're a career criminal or psychopath. It's such a rare condition compared to the rampant depression and schizophrenia it barely ever gets mentioned and then most people think it's something to do with being outdoors (it isn't), simply as they learnt two Greek words and assume that covers it. I expect there are also people scared of being outdoors (there would be for anything really) but it probably has a different name, but it's not me.
The next little spin on it is when you say you've gone out somewhere, and they say 'But I thought you were agoraphobic?' (Translation, you want it both ways, you were when I invited you over but you're suddenly OK now), which again has no comprehension of the condition. I don't want anyone to suffer to learn, but if they had it even for a day then the questions and judgements would stop. How it works is: There are boundaries, they change long and short term, and when I get decent tablets they go away 60-80% at times. Where I can go on a Monday can be different on a Friday or five years ahead. I never really know till something turns up whether or not I can manage it, and that's its nature. In fact I'm now the least bothered by it as as long as I'm not forced to go across those boundaries I'm no different from anyone else, like putting someone in a lift and then stopping it between floors. Same person, same lift, different situation. Put me in an audience or restaurant and that lift is stuck, and if the performance lasts two hours that's a heck of a long time in a stuck lift, even with the best tablets in existence.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Thought police, the details
Having been required to refine my observation on the 21st century phenomenon of 'my opinion or no opinion', or 'this is not an opinion, it is right', I will make a nice checklist of the main examples so everyone is clear exactly what it means.
All these would normally have been considered either a personal preference or an uncertain position but now if you're not on their side you're the enemy.
Gay Marriage: To quote Will Self (who allowed me to discover this phenomenon): "If you disagree with gay marriage you're homophobic". Well that's one opinion killed stone dead for a start.
Immigration: Although now the Labour Party who created this meme with Tony Blair have now abandoned it in the face of opposition from everyone in the country swamped by immigration including many of the earlier immigrants, "If you disagree with, or even want to discuss unlimited immigration you're racist". But there is still a hard core trying to hold on to this.
Global warming: If you even dare to point out firstly the current position is far from certain, and their actual fears are based so far in the future as to be unknowable you are called a murderer. Lovely.
Equality: There are two types of equality, first the fact (ie not an opinion) every human life is equal. Then the political, as in people should not be allowed to become too rich compared to the others. That is their opinion and they are totally entitled to it, but try questioning it with one of them and see what happens.
Diversity: This came with immigration, as the motivation for justifying it to the people, and giving them a false cause to pursue. This means TV programmes need a representative sample of black and disabled people, as do workplaces, and they also want Britain (as that is where I know about) to be homogenised to be as diverse as possible, one spokesman describing his visit to Newcastle as being 'Disgustingly white'. If he is white (they always are, it's a form of patronising the minorities that it is nearly always the guilty majority members pretending to work on their behalf) then I'd suggest he makes damn sure his children marry people from ethnic minorities to stop his family also being disgustingly white, and ideally make sure one of their children is disabled as well.
But mad as I see it, I do not try and stop people having their opinion that diversity is not just good, but in their view the only way society should be.
Therefore, of course, they then need to spread their range elsewhere once Britain has been successfully homogenised, from women only shortlists to quotas for TV programme casts, and make sure China and Africa become more diverse and less black and oriental, and after watching a programme about NBA basketball guarantee a white quota in their teams, as at present they are disgustingly black (to use their own phrase equally). When put this way it pretty well sums up their entire attitude.
Multiculturalism: The Tweedledum to the Tweedledee of diversity, this is the invented philosophy that millennia of history can be swept aside and it's only right to live with as much of a mixture of cultures as possible. One word response, why?
Abortion: This is a throwback to the feminist movement, which is responsible in a large way for the current general position, having both fought for the rights for abortion and gender diversity in the workplace. But when it led to a possible EU law forcing a minimum number of women company directors it has gone mad, and the view 'Disagree with abortion and you are against women's rights' appears to put the rights of a person above those of life itself. Very sinister.
I'll add any more ideas as they come to me, but this is the 21st century left/liberal set of beliefs, which unless you agree with them are condemned as a criminal and treated as one. As Marx pointed out so accurately, extremes will balance, and the immigration meme is already withering on the vine, and using the momentum of freedom of thought it ought to only be a matter of time when the others fall as well.
All these would normally have been considered either a personal preference or an uncertain position but now if you're not on their side you're the enemy.
Gay Marriage: To quote Will Self (who allowed me to discover this phenomenon): "If you disagree with gay marriage you're homophobic". Well that's one opinion killed stone dead for a start.
Immigration: Although now the Labour Party who created this meme with Tony Blair have now abandoned it in the face of opposition from everyone in the country swamped by immigration including many of the earlier immigrants, "If you disagree with, or even want to discuss unlimited immigration you're racist". But there is still a hard core trying to hold on to this.
Global warming: If you even dare to point out firstly the current position is far from certain, and their actual fears are based so far in the future as to be unknowable you are called a murderer. Lovely.
Equality: There are two types of equality, first the fact (ie not an opinion) every human life is equal. Then the political, as in people should not be allowed to become too rich compared to the others. That is their opinion and they are totally entitled to it, but try questioning it with one of them and see what happens.
Diversity: This came with immigration, as the motivation for justifying it to the people, and giving them a false cause to pursue. This means TV programmes need a representative sample of black and disabled people, as do workplaces, and they also want Britain (as that is where I know about) to be homogenised to be as diverse as possible, one spokesman describing his visit to Newcastle as being 'Disgustingly white'. If he is white (they always are, it's a form of patronising the minorities that it is nearly always the guilty majority members pretending to work on their behalf) then I'd suggest he makes damn sure his children marry people from ethnic minorities to stop his family also being disgustingly white, and ideally make sure one of their children is disabled as well.
But mad as I see it, I do not try and stop people having their opinion that diversity is not just good, but in their view the only way society should be.
Therefore, of course, they then need to spread their range elsewhere once Britain has been successfully homogenised, from women only shortlists to quotas for TV programme casts, and make sure China and Africa become more diverse and less black and oriental, and after watching a programme about NBA basketball guarantee a white quota in their teams, as at present they are disgustingly black (to use their own phrase equally). When put this way it pretty well sums up their entire attitude.
Multiculturalism: The Tweedledum to the Tweedledee of diversity, this is the invented philosophy that millennia of history can be swept aside and it's only right to live with as much of a mixture of cultures as possible. One word response, why?
Abortion: This is a throwback to the feminist movement, which is responsible in a large way for the current general position, having both fought for the rights for abortion and gender diversity in the workplace. But when it led to a possible EU law forcing a minimum number of women company directors it has gone mad, and the view 'Disagree with abortion and you are against women's rights' appears to put the rights of a person above those of life itself. Very sinister.
I'll add any more ideas as they come to me, but this is the 21st century left/liberal set of beliefs, which unless you agree with them are condemned as a criminal and treated as one. As Marx pointed out so accurately, extremes will balance, and the immigration meme is already withering on the vine, and using the momentum of freedom of thought it ought to only be a matter of time when the others fall as well.
Catching up
Due to the lack of response and rude comments when there was I've been keeping my personal activities blogged on another site and used this for other material, but I've done so much since I may as well catch up.
My personal activities have as always been fitting in hobbies (collecting mainly), friends and family with whatever work I can get, and my spiritual path. So besides all that, taking photos wherever I can get to and finding old road signs to take as well my main theme is how much is my life now guided, and then how much can I be the guide rather than the unknown forces at present. On Tuesday I had a small example, so far besides synchronicities and phases the specific guidances were virtually all to point me to old road signs, including one I saw in a dream (including the missing end) before finding months later in a different place. I was considering a major trip to Essex for two more as it was the only free day this week, when my weekly evening visitor put me off in case she arrived earlier than usual. My only other idea was to get a DVD recorder secondhand to copy my VHS tapes onto, and the main secondhand shop was opposite the only electrical shop selling DVD equipment to get the required cables. There was also a charity shop selling similar things but too late to get to both so just went to the main ones, and found the Cash Converters I'd used for years was locked and empty (are they all?) so went to the electrical shop and checked out their new equipment, risking another computer box like the one which didn't work last year, being convinced by the assistant there was no reason for it not to, and it cost more than that one but he said it was better quality so went for it regardless. Hours later I found a dropdown menu hidden in a text box, switched the source and it kicked into action. Although (my doing, you couldn't plan that far ahead) the videos were on long play so low quality, they are now online albeit the photo snaps I bought it to make are much vaguer than real photos, but clearly what they are meant to be.
Looking for the guidance in all areas (it's either there or not, I don't think it's saved for special occasions) I see certain smaller events which are running smoothly and fitting together well, the incredible time they seem to take is a bit of a mystery as although I'm not ancient most people have done a heck of a lot more on their chosen paths at my age than I have (no partner/children/fame etc) and want enough time when still healthy enough to enjoy the fruits of my labours if and when they ever complete. My paranormal research seems to raise more lessons than learning, a rich source of material online, which basically allow me to see auras more easily and often and so far not a huge amount else. My writing is growing, I have a book ready for a publisher now as a course anyone can read and become immune to all types of fraud. It's so important everyone should read it, and as a result I will happily do it for nothing should any publisher dare to risk taking it on. My only published article was a few years old before it was used, and once the material is written then it can be used whenever required.
The woman who wanted to marry me a while back is still around as my most local friend, and unless her formula of marriage or nothing shifts, it's like an insurance policy for me and have been working to see how much I can generate from the relationship in case it reaches a level it would become a reasonable marriage prospect, and it is growing over time. Normally I either think a woman is suitable or not, maybe 10-20% of all girlfriends are marriage material given the opportunity, this one was always girlfriend material, normally that would either last or die, and if it lasted if it improved enough then marriage would be the next step. Instead there's little or no relationship to build it from, and although definitely not against the idea it is a long way from what I expected from a possible wife, again if guided then it's to point me towards someone who's not obvious to me but better than many I think are. I'm sure she's testing me in some ways (or had already) so given the offer I'd be mad not to test her myself, as without a real chance to know directly I have to check all the peripheral areas.
It's now finally spring with long days so my photo trip season has returned, I have a few long trips planned and if even one is done I'll be happy (I mean long, as the rest were finished last year and no others really left) if it extends my coverage beyond its current limit. I'll keep on with the spiritual work and anything else that happens is ahead of me.
My personal activities have as always been fitting in hobbies (collecting mainly), friends and family with whatever work I can get, and my spiritual path. So besides all that, taking photos wherever I can get to and finding old road signs to take as well my main theme is how much is my life now guided, and then how much can I be the guide rather than the unknown forces at present. On Tuesday I had a small example, so far besides synchronicities and phases the specific guidances were virtually all to point me to old road signs, including one I saw in a dream (including the missing end) before finding months later in a different place. I was considering a major trip to Essex for two more as it was the only free day this week, when my weekly evening visitor put me off in case she arrived earlier than usual. My only other idea was to get a DVD recorder secondhand to copy my VHS tapes onto, and the main secondhand shop was opposite the only electrical shop selling DVD equipment to get the required cables. There was also a charity shop selling similar things but too late to get to both so just went to the main ones, and found the Cash Converters I'd used for years was locked and empty (are they all?) so went to the electrical shop and checked out their new equipment, risking another computer box like the one which didn't work last year, being convinced by the assistant there was no reason for it not to, and it cost more than that one but he said it was better quality so went for it regardless. Hours later I found a dropdown menu hidden in a text box, switched the source and it kicked into action. Although (my doing, you couldn't plan that far ahead) the videos were on long play so low quality, they are now online albeit the photo snaps I bought it to make are much vaguer than real photos, but clearly what they are meant to be.
Looking for the guidance in all areas (it's either there or not, I don't think it's saved for special occasions) I see certain smaller events which are running smoothly and fitting together well, the incredible time they seem to take is a bit of a mystery as although I'm not ancient most people have done a heck of a lot more on their chosen paths at my age than I have (no partner/children/fame etc) and want enough time when still healthy enough to enjoy the fruits of my labours if and when they ever complete. My paranormal research seems to raise more lessons than learning, a rich source of material online, which basically allow me to see auras more easily and often and so far not a huge amount else. My writing is growing, I have a book ready for a publisher now as a course anyone can read and become immune to all types of fraud. It's so important everyone should read it, and as a result I will happily do it for nothing should any publisher dare to risk taking it on. My only published article was a few years old before it was used, and once the material is written then it can be used whenever required.
The woman who wanted to marry me a while back is still around as my most local friend, and unless her formula of marriage or nothing shifts, it's like an insurance policy for me and have been working to see how much I can generate from the relationship in case it reaches a level it would become a reasonable marriage prospect, and it is growing over time. Normally I either think a woman is suitable or not, maybe 10-20% of all girlfriends are marriage material given the opportunity, this one was always girlfriend material, normally that would either last or die, and if it lasted if it improved enough then marriage would be the next step. Instead there's little or no relationship to build it from, and although definitely not against the idea it is a long way from what I expected from a possible wife, again if guided then it's to point me towards someone who's not obvious to me but better than many I think are. I'm sure she's testing me in some ways (or had already) so given the offer I'd be mad not to test her myself, as without a real chance to know directly I have to check all the peripheral areas.
It's now finally spring with long days so my photo trip season has returned, I have a few long trips planned and if even one is done I'll be happy (I mean long, as the rest were finished last year and no others really left) if it extends my coverage beyond its current limit. I'll keep on with the spiritual work and anything else that happens is ahead of me.
Monday, April 08, 2013
My name is David and I am a denier
No, amazingly I do not deny the 80% or so of my mother's family from Poland who were killed by the Nazis, every single one of them on the family tree and clearly noted. I don't even deny the temperature has risen and so has CO2, but I am not sure one has caused the other, or more than the bare minimum possible as I was born with a natural level of perception, the same one we all are, further trained by studying law and related topics, to make sure there is always enough evidence to draw a conclusion beyond the level of clues or speculation.
Apparently anyone who does not totally accept man made CO2 is both responsible for today's rise in temperature since 1850, and far more importantly believes this will become so high as to become dangerous is termed a denier, so as a result, I have to be a denier. It has, by taking on the historic role of 'nigger', 'kaffir', 'infidel', 'leper', 'apostate', 'pariah', pretty much every term applying to the lowest possible level of enemy of the state, rolled them all together and raised it by a power of many more. You are not just a denier of the murder of millions of people, but as I have been reminded more times than is healthy, a baby killer. Not a real baby mind you, or I'd be typing this from high security, but a baby who hasn't been born yet. Our unborn grandchildren, in the words of their messiah, Al Gore.
I am not apparently at the worst level, those who deny the greenhouse effect. They would at best be transported to the gulags and worst vapourised by those who see them as the greatest threat to the world since Adolf Hitler. I am not a scientist so I simply, to quote myself here, don't give a fuck about questioning the greenhouse effect. It is a separate scientific argument not relevant to the current man made global warming, as if you accept the greenhouse effect as stated by the majority of scientists (albeit based on laboratory experiments and calculations, not anything direct in the atmosphere, hence its openness to questioning by those qualified to do so), you are only accepting a doubling of CO2 adds 1C to the total temperature, doubling again adds another ad infinitum. This means you need a level of over 1000ppm to guarantee a rise above the UN's turning point of 2C, where the known benefits of warming (see the IPCC reports) may be outnumbered by the problems. That is the agreed issue in global warming, without a 2C plus rise we are fine. That is official.
Now for the figures. I do accept (within the adjustments, as they are sometimes as large as the original figures themselves) the temperature has risen 0.8C since 1850. I'm almost certain CO2 has risen 50% from 260-390ppm in the same period. Bear in mind CO2 varies all day at all locations just like temperature, but is only measured in one, Mauna Loa, by a volcano. But they must have a reason they rely on it so I will as well. I do not know if the CO2 is man made, and do not know if it has caused some, all or any of the rise. The UN only assign half the rise to it anyway, as it was rising for thousands of years, so using their own figures the 1C rise from CO2 is unlikely as they only assign half to CO2 and the rest to the existing trend. Their questionable part is the 1-6C rise by 2100 which they are using as an entire reason to stop using fossil fuels. I deny this as it's not verifiable (it's outside our lifespans), testable or repeatable, or part of a linear system.
As out of the whole scenario the only part used to take a passing observation to an impending disaster that has to be stopped at all cost, then I deny all of this is possible to know due to the scientific criteria it fails on all counts. This is the only part of the picture which we are supposed to accept without challenge or question, yet the least able to stand up using both the scientific and logical principles. Even using legal principles there is not even enough on a balance of probabilities, let alone the required beyond reasonable doubt, to use to convict mankind of a crime equal to mass murder and genocide. So technically we may not all be deniers, but we are nearly all murderers (anyone reading this is, as they are using electricity to run their computer), so I suppose of the two being a denier is nothing compared to being a perpetrator, and if you deny it can be known that we will raise the temperature enough in the future to cause climate chaos, then you can't be a murderer either. I'll take that any time in preference. And if the scientists prefer the untested and untestable thesis then they ought to surrender their degrees.
Apparently anyone who does not totally accept man made CO2 is both responsible for today's rise in temperature since 1850, and far more importantly believes this will become so high as to become dangerous is termed a denier, so as a result, I have to be a denier. It has, by taking on the historic role of 'nigger', 'kaffir', 'infidel', 'leper', 'apostate', 'pariah', pretty much every term applying to the lowest possible level of enemy of the state, rolled them all together and raised it by a power of many more. You are not just a denier of the murder of millions of people, but as I have been reminded more times than is healthy, a baby killer. Not a real baby mind you, or I'd be typing this from high security, but a baby who hasn't been born yet. Our unborn grandchildren, in the words of their messiah, Al Gore.
I am not apparently at the worst level, those who deny the greenhouse effect. They would at best be transported to the gulags and worst vapourised by those who see them as the greatest threat to the world since Adolf Hitler. I am not a scientist so I simply, to quote myself here, don't give a fuck about questioning the greenhouse effect. It is a separate scientific argument not relevant to the current man made global warming, as if you accept the greenhouse effect as stated by the majority of scientists (albeit based on laboratory experiments and calculations, not anything direct in the atmosphere, hence its openness to questioning by those qualified to do so), you are only accepting a doubling of CO2 adds 1C to the total temperature, doubling again adds another ad infinitum. This means you need a level of over 1000ppm to guarantee a rise above the UN's turning point of 2C, where the known benefits of warming (see the IPCC reports) may be outnumbered by the problems. That is the agreed issue in global warming, without a 2C plus rise we are fine. That is official.
Now for the figures. I do accept (within the adjustments, as they are sometimes as large as the original figures themselves) the temperature has risen 0.8C since 1850. I'm almost certain CO2 has risen 50% from 260-390ppm in the same period. Bear in mind CO2 varies all day at all locations just like temperature, but is only measured in one, Mauna Loa, by a volcano. But they must have a reason they rely on it so I will as well. I do not know if the CO2 is man made, and do not know if it has caused some, all or any of the rise. The UN only assign half the rise to it anyway, as it was rising for thousands of years, so using their own figures the 1C rise from CO2 is unlikely as they only assign half to CO2 and the rest to the existing trend. Their questionable part is the 1-6C rise by 2100 which they are using as an entire reason to stop using fossil fuels. I deny this as it's not verifiable (it's outside our lifespans), testable or repeatable, or part of a linear system.
As out of the whole scenario the only part used to take a passing observation to an impending disaster that has to be stopped at all cost, then I deny all of this is possible to know due to the scientific criteria it fails on all counts. This is the only part of the picture which we are supposed to accept without challenge or question, yet the least able to stand up using both the scientific and logical principles. Even using legal principles there is not even enough on a balance of probabilities, let alone the required beyond reasonable doubt, to use to convict mankind of a crime equal to mass murder and genocide. So technically we may not all be deniers, but we are nearly all murderers (anyone reading this is, as they are using electricity to run their computer), so I suppose of the two being a denier is nothing compared to being a perpetrator, and if you deny it can be known that we will raise the temperature enough in the future to cause climate chaos, then you can't be a murderer either. I'll take that any time in preference. And if the scientists prefer the untested and untestable thesis then they ought to surrender their degrees.
Saturday, April 06, 2013
Climbing the steps
Having seen the effect of western countries spending years in the lowest and the rottenest countries around the world, who also are exposed to our relatively civilised culture through the internet, who remain pretty much exactly as they were, arresting women who are seen with men in public, not allowing them to go to school or drive, slicing their genitals, holding elections where the only candidate wins 99.9% every time etc, it is fairly apparent these people cannot 'catch' goodness from outside, as they are equivalent to being a few thousand years behind us in time, and as impossible to influence a past primitive society from the present as to attempt it directly in the present. We've tried, time and time again, a little rubs off but only a few successes around the margin such as managing to abolish killing widows and organised crime gangs in India, which are one of the few examples where sheer force and persistence has wiped out other people's atrocities. But we still have bullfighting only across the channel in Spain, while today I saw a photo of people slashing a live camel with a knife in some Mayan style sacrifice to the gods in the Middle East.
Examples aside, my point is we have the standard pyramidal formation in society, where each culture and then the individuals within it start out like newborn babies, and have to learn each lesson over time, impossible to simply pick up good behaviour any more than children can learn from their parent's advice and experience and would prefer to make their own mistakes and learn directly. This applies almost universally, the few who take others' word for it being the small exception to the general rule. A friend told me yesterday she found a bin full of stolen goods, half with ID attached and some cash, all delivered to the owners where possible and the rest to the police. She told her dubious neighbours, who said she was stupid and naïve for not keeping the cash. You can't reason or educate such beliefs, as before children are told stealing is wrong they probably don't know, but once adults and have not been brought up properly they can't be simply educated to become decent from outside, they either eventually work it out themselves or die criminals.
My conclusion is each individual, regardless of their place of birth, has to work through every single lesson, first as a child and second as an individual, until they are all done. I can't say how it happens overall as we only have a snippet in a single life and I don't believe in reincarnation, but I do believe I've identified the process, and each lesson learnt isn't reversible as once you learn something new it becomes a known and a part of you.
The next problem is when you know various lessons and most people you come across don't. That is an advanced lesson in itself, one I'm in the process of learning. You can't tell them what you know as firstly offering advice without being asked will usually be rejected, but when a chance arises it will almost always be anyway, so you may as well not bother. You do set examples by your actions, which other people may learn from sooner or later if they see often enough, but I think letting them be who they are is the lesson itself. It's bloody hard when many of these people are actually the most powerful in the world, going back to my stealing example it's not exactly a secret many people making our laws right now wouldn't hand that cash back either, and would be quite happy to get someone else into trouble to get what they want (eg Chris Huhne), or take even more as they hadn't lost enough compared to what you wanted.
I've been listing these lessons myself for 40 years or so, and use them in my work and general life when others ask me, as then they are ready. But they are a small minority while everyone else continues to buy worthless investments, borrow huge amounts of money and vote Labour (just a poor attempt to offend half the country there) and there's not a thing I can do to protect them from their actions. Especially when they affect me, as Labour most certainly have. But knowing they exist is the next way to both be aware of them in general and to recognise your own. And to know what to do about it when you meet others who have not learnt the ones you have.
Examples aside, my point is we have the standard pyramidal formation in society, where each culture and then the individuals within it start out like newborn babies, and have to learn each lesson over time, impossible to simply pick up good behaviour any more than children can learn from their parent's advice and experience and would prefer to make their own mistakes and learn directly. This applies almost universally, the few who take others' word for it being the small exception to the general rule. A friend told me yesterday she found a bin full of stolen goods, half with ID attached and some cash, all delivered to the owners where possible and the rest to the police. She told her dubious neighbours, who said she was stupid and naïve for not keeping the cash. You can't reason or educate such beliefs, as before children are told stealing is wrong they probably don't know, but once adults and have not been brought up properly they can't be simply educated to become decent from outside, they either eventually work it out themselves or die criminals.
My conclusion is each individual, regardless of their place of birth, has to work through every single lesson, first as a child and second as an individual, until they are all done. I can't say how it happens overall as we only have a snippet in a single life and I don't believe in reincarnation, but I do believe I've identified the process, and each lesson learnt isn't reversible as once you learn something new it becomes a known and a part of you.
The next problem is when you know various lessons and most people you come across don't. That is an advanced lesson in itself, one I'm in the process of learning. You can't tell them what you know as firstly offering advice without being asked will usually be rejected, but when a chance arises it will almost always be anyway, so you may as well not bother. You do set examples by your actions, which other people may learn from sooner or later if they see often enough, but I think letting them be who they are is the lesson itself. It's bloody hard when many of these people are actually the most powerful in the world, going back to my stealing example it's not exactly a secret many people making our laws right now wouldn't hand that cash back either, and would be quite happy to get someone else into trouble to get what they want (eg Chris Huhne), or take even more as they hadn't lost enough compared to what you wanted.
I've been listing these lessons myself for 40 years or so, and use them in my work and general life when others ask me, as then they are ready. But they are a small minority while everyone else continues to buy worthless investments, borrow huge amounts of money and vote Labour (just a poor attempt to offend half the country there) and there's not a thing I can do to protect them from their actions. Especially when they affect me, as Labour most certainly have. But knowing they exist is the next way to both be aware of them in general and to recognise your own. And to know what to do about it when you meet others who have not learnt the ones you have.
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
The lowest levels of world politics, 2013
Half time in the new Korean war. As I wasn't born the last time I only assume the bad guys won, and now have decided they don't just want half the country but the rest of it, but had they the means to do so would have actually invaded, rather than the actual statement they will retaliate if attacked. Yes, most countries will. They can make nuclear weapons as well, but don't we all? So looking back at the actual situation they are little different from Iran, and technically America are arguably worse as they actually do go in to random foreign countries (including Korea itself of course) and kick arse, even though very few if any (eg Vietnam) have gained them or anyone else a single thing as a result.
Meanwhile the modern version of war is carried out economically, with Cyprus being the first official victim of a cash grab, one setting the precedent for both what the EU can now do, and may well repeat indefinitely in similar circumstances. If it wakes people up it will be worth every penny, as you can't expose a demon without catching them doing something which confirms to all their nature. No hints or clues any more, nothing requiring arguments and academic discussions, the EU are thieves and sacrifice their citizens for the Fourth Reich, I mean united Europe. United, of course, in such a similar way to the Third Reich as to be almost undistinguishable should it happen, and as I said last week, if I'd asked anyone two weeks ago if they thought a civilised country could steal money from its own citizens without a hitch you'd have said possibly Zimbabwe at a push, but probably not.
Well now the superstate which gets closer and closer to the empires of the past, Ottoman, Roman, Greek and most of all the attempted German empire which took my ancestors five years to defeat, it seems we only lost another battle but the war is continuing.
Overall we have the dual situations of the crazy and uncivilised managing to exist in a world where they have contact with the outside but carrying on as they are, as in rural Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Zimbabwe and half of Africa for a start, and the civilised but evil rulers using their sophistication to carry out similar regimes so quietly people hardly notice what is happening till they've lost their life savings. Economics is divided into accounting and macro economics, which is the more academic and complex area, while the accounting involves a nice database and a calculator. Base the work on the fundamental theories, who benefits from interest rates, how a gold standard works, what currencies do in relation to commodities etc, which is certainly covered at A level in total, and the general policies we are presented with can easily be seen to benefit the corporations at the expense of the workers and savers, ie they don't just fuck the rich OR the poor, but both at the same time. That is akin to having a Cossack soldier at either end with a member in each orifice, if you'll excuse the image. We are being screwed from both sides with no one escaping.
My blog is designed to point this out. I'm only on the radio when I phone, and tell them this to the extent the two regular presenters often quote me, and this blog is the only other place I can save the information where anyone can learn it. It's all verifiable, sourced and pretty hard to question. Now at least the Cypriots understand the potential of the EU and anyone in a similar position is now aware they may follow. Like Barack Obama, who made CO2 a pollutant, which would mean there would be no life on earth if it was gone, so can be called 'the liar, Barack Obama', although I don't know the official term (I don't think one exists) for it, the EU are thieves but made it legal to do so. But a thief would presumably not stop being one if they had the authority not to be made a crime when they did it. The carbon trading was considered a fraud when the board of Enron were convicted of it, but not now it's become official, and far worse as the Enron customers chose to risk it while we all pay through our taxes.
So a pattern can be seen here, firstly of the default position of governments, currently at the very least, working for themselves and their paymasters (David Rockefeller, George Soros, Al Gore, Henry Kissinger, Mikhail Gorbachev to name the main known panel, some ex leaders and others happy to finance the policies in return for guaranteed investments), George Soros while campaigning through three separate PR companies to demonise fossil fuel had almost a hundred million sunk into Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company, while Al Gore set up the carbon trading company he paid his own credits into which made him a billionaire. Plus the British politicians with huge stakes or directorships of the green energy companies they legislate to subsidise. That's identical to what they did in Cyprus, but needs someone to explain it, and someone else to actually understand the explanation. Till now they kept going simply as they were subtle enough to hide behind others' ignorance, but all crooks get greedy and by crossing the line in Cyprus what at worst were a few vague suspicions, are now knowns. So the Cypriot grab may be the defining moment in world politics, as this century till now only the academics were aware of the structure, and despite constant attempts to communicate were only hitting a brick wall. The beast has now been exposed, a few poor countries may now be worrying as well while the rest assume they can't be affected, but whether or not Sweden or Austria are susceptible to debt recovery actions, they all now know the true intent of the EU.
Meanwhile the modern version of war is carried out economically, with Cyprus being the first official victim of a cash grab, one setting the precedent for both what the EU can now do, and may well repeat indefinitely in similar circumstances. If it wakes people up it will be worth every penny, as you can't expose a demon without catching them doing something which confirms to all their nature. No hints or clues any more, nothing requiring arguments and academic discussions, the EU are thieves and sacrifice their citizens for the Fourth Reich, I mean united Europe. United, of course, in such a similar way to the Third Reich as to be almost undistinguishable should it happen, and as I said last week, if I'd asked anyone two weeks ago if they thought a civilised country could steal money from its own citizens without a hitch you'd have said possibly Zimbabwe at a push, but probably not.
Well now the superstate which gets closer and closer to the empires of the past, Ottoman, Roman, Greek and most of all the attempted German empire which took my ancestors five years to defeat, it seems we only lost another battle but the war is continuing.
Overall we have the dual situations of the crazy and uncivilised managing to exist in a world where they have contact with the outside but carrying on as they are, as in rural Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Zimbabwe and half of Africa for a start, and the civilised but evil rulers using their sophistication to carry out similar regimes so quietly people hardly notice what is happening till they've lost their life savings. Economics is divided into accounting and macro economics, which is the more academic and complex area, while the accounting involves a nice database and a calculator. Base the work on the fundamental theories, who benefits from interest rates, how a gold standard works, what currencies do in relation to commodities etc, which is certainly covered at A level in total, and the general policies we are presented with can easily be seen to benefit the corporations at the expense of the workers and savers, ie they don't just fuck the rich OR the poor, but both at the same time. That is akin to having a Cossack soldier at either end with a member in each orifice, if you'll excuse the image. We are being screwed from both sides with no one escaping.
My blog is designed to point this out. I'm only on the radio when I phone, and tell them this to the extent the two regular presenters often quote me, and this blog is the only other place I can save the information where anyone can learn it. It's all verifiable, sourced and pretty hard to question. Now at least the Cypriots understand the potential of the EU and anyone in a similar position is now aware they may follow. Like Barack Obama, who made CO2 a pollutant, which would mean there would be no life on earth if it was gone, so can be called 'the liar, Barack Obama', although I don't know the official term (I don't think one exists) for it, the EU are thieves but made it legal to do so. But a thief would presumably not stop being one if they had the authority not to be made a crime when they did it. The carbon trading was considered a fraud when the board of Enron were convicted of it, but not now it's become official, and far worse as the Enron customers chose to risk it while we all pay through our taxes.
So a pattern can be seen here, firstly of the default position of governments, currently at the very least, working for themselves and their paymasters (David Rockefeller, George Soros, Al Gore, Henry Kissinger, Mikhail Gorbachev to name the main known panel, some ex leaders and others happy to finance the policies in return for guaranteed investments), George Soros while campaigning through three separate PR companies to demonise fossil fuel had almost a hundred million sunk into Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company, while Al Gore set up the carbon trading company he paid his own credits into which made him a billionaire. Plus the British politicians with huge stakes or directorships of the green energy companies they legislate to subsidise. That's identical to what they did in Cyprus, but needs someone to explain it, and someone else to actually understand the explanation. Till now they kept going simply as they were subtle enough to hide behind others' ignorance, but all crooks get greedy and by crossing the line in Cyprus what at worst were a few vague suspicions, are now knowns. So the Cypriot grab may be the defining moment in world politics, as this century till now only the academics were aware of the structure, and despite constant attempts to communicate were only hitting a brick wall. The beast has now been exposed, a few poor countries may now be worrying as well while the rest assume they can't be affected, but whether or not Sweden or Austria are susceptible to debt recovery actions, they all now know the true intent of the EU.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Peer review, or clothing the wolf.
As this piece is about authority I'll state my own background (in case anyone hasn't seen it before), as being qualified in law and psychotherapy, two disciplines not entirely unconnected. They both for example work on principles of authority, that of the law and how they are made, and who decides what they are, and the other being who people believe and trust. My own personal experience has shown me that most people, the majority who believe what they are told, are not concerned in analysing what they are told by professionals and politicians, but when the identical things are given by anyone else, if contradicting the first set, are correspondingly dismissed out of hand, and if the feeling is strong enough condemned personally for doing so.
Goebbels and Machiavelli were two of the best known names who knew and exploited this principle, part of man's evolution, where the masses have still not learnt to think or rely on their own judgement but pass it up to a small group of experts who do that for them. This as a result means when those in such positions wish to exploit the situation, they can say things which normally would make no sense, such as the longest and coldest winter in living memory being caused by global warming (as they did yesterday) and everyone nods and (if where permitted) cocks their weapons to shoot anyone they see emitting too much CO2. In the end this mechanism only serves to delay the inevitable discovery of the truth, but the money taken in the meantime has completed the missions enough to move onto the next.
Personal charisma and sheer effort is the sole exception to this principle, as no one I am aware of has ever questioned David Icke's authority for accusing famous people of the worst crimes known to man, and turn out lists of facts relating to the present and future plans of the shadow government behind over 200 countries. But he was already a TV reporter so possibly that is a qualification in itself as once you're on TV people tend to view that in itself as a reason to believe you, as how could you be there if you weren't special in some way. The fact two different TV reporters disagree may challenge this position, and then I presume it's how qualified each person is before they decide who to believe.
David Icke aside, we have a current formula where the identical correct figures will be dismissed from an unqualified messenger, even when quoting the qualified, whereas the qualified can say whatever they want and enough people will blindly accept it. Once the intelligent among us discover this, then as with all people at all levels, the decency is spread in the same proportions among the clever as everyone else. The sociopaths, officially accepted as being the best leaders, devote their lives to earning power over others, and then use it to change whatever they believe needs changing, and improve their own conditions of wealth and power. They have no conscience (the basis of being a sociopath) so are (at the extreme or partially) not sensitive to other people as fellow human beings so only see them as a means to their own personal advancement.
Once enough people learn this formula (from someone they can trust of course) then they can't be caught again. The knowledge they have been taken advantage of is easily enough to work on its own to close that wide open door to their wills which was previously equivalent to a lorry leaving the back door open on a deserted road full of expensive kit. However gullible people are to begin with they still have a stronger sense of survival than their relative IQs, and therefore when they realise these sods are out to get them will no longer be susceptible to Al Gore or the outgoing head of the UK met Office whose parting words were 'This freezing weather is because of global warming' and left to a chorus of cheering. Of course, like the people who blamed the banks for offering unlimited loans they couldn't pay back, the victims tend to pass the responsibility to the clever crooks who legally or otherwise exploit their wide open brains and raid them for every ounce of material before they suddenly realise they're broke and wake up. That's the easiest way to do it, but look at the cost, and they still haven't completely woken up as they still genuinely believe as the loans not been available they had no responsibility to think before they accepted them all. This means they still have divested the entire responsibility onto those with authority (despite now discovering they were bent), with little or no insight into their own willing and entirely optional role in the formula.
This observation itself is a start, and when taken on as a recognised means to exploit the majority of unwilling citizens while unaware what is being done to them, most of the time quite deliberately, is the means to their escape and freedom.
Back to peer review, now you've seen the big picture it fits in, it's basically those in authority endorsing those in authority so comparable with internal disciplinary procedures and the like. It is supposed to stop scientists from producing inaccurate material for any reason, but is apparently used to protect them when they need it. It is not the same as marking an exam, but more of a safety net just to pick up the really dodgy stuff and pretty much let the rest through especially when chosen by the authors.
"It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication."
In theory, but if a lot of the utter nonsense that gets through represents the actual position then it is an honourable theory but in practice can and almost certainly has been used to give credibility to any old junk the system wants to get out there. It can be done properly, but can and is also used to endorse political and related material which can then be defended by claiming it's passed peer review, as if that makes it beyond any further questioning. As with equity law, peer review is designed as a shield and not a sword (in law meaning you cannot sue someone under it, but use it to defend against another), but with no higher court available in science once something has been peer reviewed there is no known way to challenge it at a higher level unless you discover a pretty obvious error. Not being a scientist myself the only channel I've come across is Retraction Watch, which is simply a service which posts every withdrawn paper online, the great majority being for fraud. Peer review assumes honesty, meaning various professors at the highest level have made up data for years, and as it looked convincing was passed up and published. This alone proves the total lack of safety in relying on it to confirm a paper is genuine, and shows a vast hole in the security of scientific papers in general, which is there to be used and exploited by anyone driven to do so.
Tie this up with my general points on the evil exploiting the average and you will see exactly how and where it fits in.
Goebbels and Machiavelli were two of the best known names who knew and exploited this principle, part of man's evolution, where the masses have still not learnt to think or rely on their own judgement but pass it up to a small group of experts who do that for them. This as a result means when those in such positions wish to exploit the situation, they can say things which normally would make no sense, such as the longest and coldest winter in living memory being caused by global warming (as they did yesterday) and everyone nods and (if where permitted) cocks their weapons to shoot anyone they see emitting too much CO2. In the end this mechanism only serves to delay the inevitable discovery of the truth, but the money taken in the meantime has completed the missions enough to move onto the next.
Personal charisma and sheer effort is the sole exception to this principle, as no one I am aware of has ever questioned David Icke's authority for accusing famous people of the worst crimes known to man, and turn out lists of facts relating to the present and future plans of the shadow government behind over 200 countries. But he was already a TV reporter so possibly that is a qualification in itself as once you're on TV people tend to view that in itself as a reason to believe you, as how could you be there if you weren't special in some way. The fact two different TV reporters disagree may challenge this position, and then I presume it's how qualified each person is before they decide who to believe.
David Icke aside, we have a current formula where the identical correct figures will be dismissed from an unqualified messenger, even when quoting the qualified, whereas the qualified can say whatever they want and enough people will blindly accept it. Once the intelligent among us discover this, then as with all people at all levels, the decency is spread in the same proportions among the clever as everyone else. The sociopaths, officially accepted as being the best leaders, devote their lives to earning power over others, and then use it to change whatever they believe needs changing, and improve their own conditions of wealth and power. They have no conscience (the basis of being a sociopath) so are (at the extreme or partially) not sensitive to other people as fellow human beings so only see them as a means to their own personal advancement.
Once enough people learn this formula (from someone they can trust of course) then they can't be caught again. The knowledge they have been taken advantage of is easily enough to work on its own to close that wide open door to their wills which was previously equivalent to a lorry leaving the back door open on a deserted road full of expensive kit. However gullible people are to begin with they still have a stronger sense of survival than their relative IQs, and therefore when they realise these sods are out to get them will no longer be susceptible to Al Gore or the outgoing head of the UK met Office whose parting words were 'This freezing weather is because of global warming' and left to a chorus of cheering. Of course, like the people who blamed the banks for offering unlimited loans they couldn't pay back, the victims tend to pass the responsibility to the clever crooks who legally or otherwise exploit their wide open brains and raid them for every ounce of material before they suddenly realise they're broke and wake up. That's the easiest way to do it, but look at the cost, and they still haven't completely woken up as they still genuinely believe as the loans not been available they had no responsibility to think before they accepted them all. This means they still have divested the entire responsibility onto those with authority (despite now discovering they were bent), with little or no insight into their own willing and entirely optional role in the formula.
This observation itself is a start, and when taken on as a recognised means to exploit the majority of unwilling citizens while unaware what is being done to them, most of the time quite deliberately, is the means to their escape and freedom.
Back to peer review, now you've seen the big picture it fits in, it's basically those in authority endorsing those in authority so comparable with internal disciplinary procedures and the like. It is supposed to stop scientists from producing inaccurate material for any reason, but is apparently used to protect them when they need it. It is not the same as marking an exam, but more of a safety net just to pick up the really dodgy stuff and pretty much let the rest through especially when chosen by the authors.
"It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication."
In theory, but if a lot of the utter nonsense that gets through represents the actual position then it is an honourable theory but in practice can and almost certainly has been used to give credibility to any old junk the system wants to get out there. It can be done properly, but can and is also used to endorse political and related material which can then be defended by claiming it's passed peer review, as if that makes it beyond any further questioning. As with equity law, peer review is designed as a shield and not a sword (in law meaning you cannot sue someone under it, but use it to defend against another), but with no higher court available in science once something has been peer reviewed there is no known way to challenge it at a higher level unless you discover a pretty obvious error. Not being a scientist myself the only channel I've come across is Retraction Watch, which is simply a service which posts every withdrawn paper online, the great majority being for fraud. Peer review assumes honesty, meaning various professors at the highest level have made up data for years, and as it looked convincing was passed up and published. This alone proves the total lack of safety in relying on it to confirm a paper is genuine, and shows a vast hole in the security of scientific papers in general, which is there to be used and exploited by anyone driven to do so.
Tie this up with my general points on the evil exploiting the average and you will see exactly how and where it fits in.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
It's official, the Jews have top status
I have proved the Jews have the highest status in the world. While Europeans have invaded entire continents for hundreds of years and slaughtered the natives, when the UN gave Israel to the Jews by legal charter, anything they do against the Arabs who attack and slander them is held up to the closest scrutiny and criticism, often to the level of questioning the country's entire existence.
This only demonstrates one thing, non-Jews hold the Jews in the highest esteem as they expect perfect standards from them while little or nothing from everyone else as currently countries like Tibet and Cyprus, occupied or annexed by hostile forces, including religious persecution and genocide in Tibet are largely overlooked but when one innocent bystander is hit by accident, or even known terrorist is killed by Israel the world is up in arms, as the Jews are not expected to do anything wrong at all but be perfect. So really we should take this attitude as a compliment.
This only demonstrates one thing, non-Jews hold the Jews in the highest esteem as they expect perfect standards from them while little or nothing from everyone else as currently countries like Tibet and Cyprus, occupied or annexed by hostile forces, including religious persecution and genocide in Tibet are largely overlooked but when one innocent bystander is hit by accident, or even known terrorist is killed by Israel the world is up in arms, as the Jews are not expected to do anything wrong at all but be perfect. So really we should take this attitude as a compliment.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
The problem, what is the solution?
While I'm here (I was going to watch TV but called the radio and want to see if anyone responds) I'll expand on yesterday's report on no news. Greece did not default, France and Italy elected apparent nutjobs, and Cyprus will get bailed out as they all do and everything will carry on as it has since day one. My own life is by far more important, but when these sods tread on my toes at the same time, and many others, I like to see the causes end. The EU has made us piss poor by reducing our access to energy, and will soon be without power altogether like some dipshit backward hellhole in Africa. Many of them are rich with natural resources as well, but the authorities rip them off at source, and now we're following them. So of course any chance the system is cleaned up would be good news, but it doesn't happen.
Instead every move made to attempt to escape is blocked by the prison guards at every point, and as the masses (read 'voting majority') are so thick they don't knit together cause and effect and keep voting the same ways. Labour here have a massive lead in the opinion polls, even though they caused nearly all the problems we have now and are going to take two governments or so to clear up assuming we get ones prepared to do it. If you spray a country with shit and then give the new staff toothbrushes then you can work out how long it needs to clean it all up. And without being ostracised by the rest of the world we can't send back the few million immigrants they let in during that period either who are the equivalent of carrying tons of dead wood on a truck. Or parasites. So we don't just have to get out of the situation we were in, but cater for millions of third world arrivals many who don't speak English, have full access to benefits, have a few times as many children as Europeans, and are basically the equivalent of a family with a disabled child. The care and attention needed 9and offered to) the third world immigrants means all the other children barely get any at all. That is not fair and just wrong.
So each news item offering a possible way out is journalistic invention, based on taking a tiny possibility, like an ejaculation into a cervix, and naming the baby already. Then you realise the sperm didn't even fertilise the egg, but the papers have been sold, the people have been misled, and the journalists are onto the next false dawn when there isn't much real news to report instead. The Cypriot affair crossed this line even further as it took three entire days to discover the money hadn't been agreed to be taken in the first place. None of the many reports I heard said it hadn't been decided yet, they said the money was due on the 19th and then maybe they'd haggle over the percentages. The day before a new report said Cyprus were set to reject it, revealing it had never been decided in the first place. Coming the exact day Britain brought in approval for statutory regulation of the press, that event would not be covered as it is designed to protect celebrities and not the actual consumers of said newspapers. How sad.
Most people don't notice much going on around them outside their own lives, which is how all this nonsense happens in the first place. Some know a bit, but when it's offered on the radio by callers like myself, most react with disbelief rather than shock, as no one can accept their betters are actually out for themselves and some are even out to get us deliberately (read the literature on economic de-development or managed population reduction for example). That is the reality, sociopaths are suffering from a permanent untreatable personality disorder documented in medical circles, and they are allowed to vote and run countries as it's not a disqualification, despite the fact any doctor can diagnose it with a simple test. Now Chris Huhne only lost his perch as he broke a very trivial law which even your connections can't get you out of answering to. The actual harm he caused as a government minister will never be documented although his aims and partial completion of policies (as a junior partner in the coalition) demonstrate aims to take a once flourishing country and turn it into a wasteland. Julia Gillard however is accused of far greater than driving offences, and with more and more details coming out she has about six separate charges of being involved with money laundering, and would need to come out clean on every single one or will actually be impossible not to have been involved. People regularly try and shut me down talking about the climate as I'm not qualified (unlike the authors I quote rarely if ever mentioned in the media) but for new readers I am qualified in law far enough to know a good case when I see one (and a bad one, hence my involvement in the climate). Of course I haven't heard any more of her case than 'It wasn't me', 'I wasn't there' and 'It was my clerk'. Except those are almost certainly exactly the defences she's given to the police as well (or will when she has to).
As a lawyer herself she knows she doesn't have to defend herself. As long as she denies all involvement they have to prove a case against her, which really won't matter what she says if it's good enough anyway. So basically as it's only an alibi which can get someone off as a defence besides specific ones like insanity (possible), otherwise you just have to hope the links don't get connected and you can scare or pay off the key witnesses (I'm sticking my neck out but would be far more surprised if she and others like her won't). In Britain witness immunity is the exception rather than the rule, but although it's not The States, who run on scratching backs, it's not Britain either and if one of the couple of confessed fraudsters (making a confirmed conspiracy already) is offered a deal she'd go down. Assuming she was involved of course, don't accuse me of 'Doing a Cyprus' (the new term I'll coin right now for reporters going off prematurely and coming all over their trousers).
So regardless of the state or otherwise of my personal life all these events make it less good than it would have been otherwise- I'd have more money, a faster car, real light bulbs, and be able to drive relatively clear roads at a speed relevant to the conditions and not reduced to something required for MOT failures in case they fall apart any faster. I'd also have to wait less time for a doctor and dentist, and be able to walk around locally and when I see a white person (not being racist, just observing what is there) would hear them actually speak English sometimes. These decisions do affect our lives, and if you imagine each element being different then that is the actual policy they are operating which would be better otherwise. Most is entirely avoidable, or looking the other way entirely deliberate, as with huge swathes of Spain and Ireland full of empty new houses while we have 10 poles and illegal Romanians sleeping in a room as there's nowhere else to put them, plus the thousands on the streets not working who can't afford anywhere at all.
All of this is avoidable, we don't have to let a single new immigrant in if we don't want to, and kick out the illegals the same day when we find them just like Australia and New Zealand do every day on Passport Patrol. Fuel taxes are immoral, as are low interest rates, and this is about the greatest good for the greatest people. Twice as many people lose from low rates than proper market rates, and while most existing residents suffer for the benefit of a few million new arrivals then immigration isn't good for most either bearing in mind the lack of space for them, let alone even if there was you can't get in new doctors and teachers to keep up with them, if at all. Britain does represent much of the western world to some extent, as policies aren't just very similar between our main parties, but now across the countries themselves as they are all set at Bilderberg and similar meetings. But each country has a non-Bilderberg party, but people don't know enough to vote them in, which brings me back to the start.
Instead every move made to attempt to escape is blocked by the prison guards at every point, and as the masses (read 'voting majority') are so thick they don't knit together cause and effect and keep voting the same ways. Labour here have a massive lead in the opinion polls, even though they caused nearly all the problems we have now and are going to take two governments or so to clear up assuming we get ones prepared to do it. If you spray a country with shit and then give the new staff toothbrushes then you can work out how long it needs to clean it all up. And without being ostracised by the rest of the world we can't send back the few million immigrants they let in during that period either who are the equivalent of carrying tons of dead wood on a truck. Or parasites. So we don't just have to get out of the situation we were in, but cater for millions of third world arrivals many who don't speak English, have full access to benefits, have a few times as many children as Europeans, and are basically the equivalent of a family with a disabled child. The care and attention needed 9and offered to) the third world immigrants means all the other children barely get any at all. That is not fair and just wrong.
So each news item offering a possible way out is journalistic invention, based on taking a tiny possibility, like an ejaculation into a cervix, and naming the baby already. Then you realise the sperm didn't even fertilise the egg, but the papers have been sold, the people have been misled, and the journalists are onto the next false dawn when there isn't much real news to report instead. The Cypriot affair crossed this line even further as it took three entire days to discover the money hadn't been agreed to be taken in the first place. None of the many reports I heard said it hadn't been decided yet, they said the money was due on the 19th and then maybe they'd haggle over the percentages. The day before a new report said Cyprus were set to reject it, revealing it had never been decided in the first place. Coming the exact day Britain brought in approval for statutory regulation of the press, that event would not be covered as it is designed to protect celebrities and not the actual consumers of said newspapers. How sad.
Most people don't notice much going on around them outside their own lives, which is how all this nonsense happens in the first place. Some know a bit, but when it's offered on the radio by callers like myself, most react with disbelief rather than shock, as no one can accept their betters are actually out for themselves and some are even out to get us deliberately (read the literature on economic de-development or managed population reduction for example). That is the reality, sociopaths are suffering from a permanent untreatable personality disorder documented in medical circles, and they are allowed to vote and run countries as it's not a disqualification, despite the fact any doctor can diagnose it with a simple test. Now Chris Huhne only lost his perch as he broke a very trivial law which even your connections can't get you out of answering to. The actual harm he caused as a government minister will never be documented although his aims and partial completion of policies (as a junior partner in the coalition) demonstrate aims to take a once flourishing country and turn it into a wasteland. Julia Gillard however is accused of far greater than driving offences, and with more and more details coming out she has about six separate charges of being involved with money laundering, and would need to come out clean on every single one or will actually be impossible not to have been involved. People regularly try and shut me down talking about the climate as I'm not qualified (unlike the authors I quote rarely if ever mentioned in the media) but for new readers I am qualified in law far enough to know a good case when I see one (and a bad one, hence my involvement in the climate). Of course I haven't heard any more of her case than 'It wasn't me', 'I wasn't there' and 'It was my clerk'. Except those are almost certainly exactly the defences she's given to the police as well (or will when she has to).
As a lawyer herself she knows she doesn't have to defend herself. As long as she denies all involvement they have to prove a case against her, which really won't matter what she says if it's good enough anyway. So basically as it's only an alibi which can get someone off as a defence besides specific ones like insanity (possible), otherwise you just have to hope the links don't get connected and you can scare or pay off the key witnesses (I'm sticking my neck out but would be far more surprised if she and others like her won't). In Britain witness immunity is the exception rather than the rule, but although it's not The States, who run on scratching backs, it's not Britain either and if one of the couple of confessed fraudsters (making a confirmed conspiracy already) is offered a deal she'd go down. Assuming she was involved of course, don't accuse me of 'Doing a Cyprus' (the new term I'll coin right now for reporters going off prematurely and coming all over their trousers).
So regardless of the state or otherwise of my personal life all these events make it less good than it would have been otherwise- I'd have more money, a faster car, real light bulbs, and be able to drive relatively clear roads at a speed relevant to the conditions and not reduced to something required for MOT failures in case they fall apart any faster. I'd also have to wait less time for a doctor and dentist, and be able to walk around locally and when I see a white person (not being racist, just observing what is there) would hear them actually speak English sometimes. These decisions do affect our lives, and if you imagine each element being different then that is the actual policy they are operating which would be better otherwise. Most is entirely avoidable, or looking the other way entirely deliberate, as with huge swathes of Spain and Ireland full of empty new houses while we have 10 poles and illegal Romanians sleeping in a room as there's nowhere else to put them, plus the thousands on the streets not working who can't afford anywhere at all.
All of this is avoidable, we don't have to let a single new immigrant in if we don't want to, and kick out the illegals the same day when we find them just like Australia and New Zealand do every day on Passport Patrol. Fuel taxes are immoral, as are low interest rates, and this is about the greatest good for the greatest people. Twice as many people lose from low rates than proper market rates, and while most existing residents suffer for the benefit of a few million new arrivals then immigration isn't good for most either bearing in mind the lack of space for them, let alone even if there was you can't get in new doctors and teachers to keep up with them, if at all. Britain does represent much of the western world to some extent, as policies aren't just very similar between our main parties, but now across the countries themselves as they are all set at Bilderberg and similar meetings. But each country has a non-Bilderberg party, but people don't know enough to vote them in, which brings me back to the start.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The news is now fiction
If you think the media can sell papers by printing things which haven't happened then really we needn't have any news at all. Slow news days already create pages by asking officials silly questions, and then reporting some crap like 'Minister does not intend us to eat children' or similar, but taking a suggestion not yet even deliberated in parliament in Cyprus, and spending three entire days treating it as an event until, well, it hadn't happened at all and wasn't even approved.
That has dropped our entire media (as there was only the one story going round whoever reported it) to a whole new level. It's too late afterwards to try and apologise (oh, they didn't) as no different from a thief offering the stolen goods back when caught, and clearly set out their stall that rather than print more cartoons or photos of Pippa's blurry tits taken from a mile away they basically make stuff up. Had they even been accurate and reported 'Cyprus are considering taking money directly from the bank accounts' it would have provided almost the same impact, plus the bonus of being correct. I am now guessing the reason it was reported this way was to see the reaction before voting, so possibly a deliberate request from the Cypriot government to see if the riots began or not, and clearly decided the reaction wouldn't be worth the risk.
We have been treated like dirt once again, both by the press and the politicians, and most likely working together. This is the standard of both in the 21st century, along with Chris Huhne's conviction for fraud and Julia Gillard's ongoing investigation for it. She says she wasn't involved on the case as handed to a clerk (although lawyers must sign off their clerk's work) although her boss says she was, so of course one must be lying, and the boss has nothing to lose either way as a clue. Unless and until we wake up to the very basic tricks played by both, no different to a third rate conjurer, we will always be played like fools by governments using the press to maintain the illusion, while the tiny minority of those aware are told to shut the hell up and stop causing trouble.
Be part of the solution, not the problem.
That has dropped our entire media (as there was only the one story going round whoever reported it) to a whole new level. It's too late afterwards to try and apologise (oh, they didn't) as no different from a thief offering the stolen goods back when caught, and clearly set out their stall that rather than print more cartoons or photos of Pippa's blurry tits taken from a mile away they basically make stuff up. Had they even been accurate and reported 'Cyprus are considering taking money directly from the bank accounts' it would have provided almost the same impact, plus the bonus of being correct. I am now guessing the reason it was reported this way was to see the reaction before voting, so possibly a deliberate request from the Cypriot government to see if the riots began or not, and clearly decided the reaction wouldn't be worth the risk.
We have been treated like dirt once again, both by the press and the politicians, and most likely working together. This is the standard of both in the 21st century, along with Chris Huhne's conviction for fraud and Julia Gillard's ongoing investigation for it. She says she wasn't involved on the case as handed to a clerk (although lawyers must sign off their clerk's work) although her boss says she was, so of course one must be lying, and the boss has nothing to lose either way as a clue. Unless and until we wake up to the very basic tricks played by both, no different to a third rate conjurer, we will always be played like fools by governments using the press to maintain the illusion, while the tiny minority of those aware are told to shut the hell up and stop causing trouble.
Be part of the solution, not the problem.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
They've got it all wrong
Having studied politics at A level (along with sociology, which continued as part of my degree), I am fairly familiar with the general world systems, and have never before seen the culmination of what can best be described as a 'world mafia' now running as much as is possible, while no one except the most politically aware have the slightest clue. A few of the signs are clear- paying off failed banks with taxpayer's money is immoral, and based on a form of fascism, state corporatism, where the state is run for and by big business. So firstly it is clear (as these policies are common now across the entire western world) banks are free to lend and then collect the remainder of the losses from the state without question, while the economies go into a recession.
This is then followed by governments also going into the red, and as only the government and banks pay base rate, in the UK at least forcing interest rates down close to zero to cover themselves in paying them back elsewhere. None of us benefit, as even mortgage holders will lose the benefits when they sell up as it's forced prices up, both of housing as the interest paid falls the actual prices will rise to compensate, and all other commodities as low interest rates debase currency so the money goes into gold, food and everything else we need to live. So the low interest rates also stoke inflation, as well as costing new and other house buyers more unless they trade down, which very few would. As there are twice as many UK savers as borrowers then the people lose directly, as the savers subsidise the banks and governments, and the fact a small sector of home owners gain from low rates is entirely incidental and won't gain overall unless they don't trade up.
This is the economic foundation of the 2010s, understood very clearly by the few who know economics, and not at all by the general public who see what's on the surface and nothing more, so 'low interest rates' equates to them as low prices, even though it does exactly the opposite, as most things do in life. Being unable to look below the surface and the obvious means governments, who all can, will exploit it to its limits, and even when people are suffering they don't know why. This even has a technical name, a cacocracy, government by the worst. Keynesian economics, running at a huge deficit in order to stimulate a flat economy, is an experimental system used on and off for a century or so, and arguably never worked. Seeing the expansion of the money supply through quantitative easing people call it 'Keynesian' as they see money being borrowed in huge amounts, but Keynes used this money to create jobs by investing in building projects directly, thus running the country like a new business and taking the chance the new work will eventually turn a profit. Not a penny of QE has gone to the people, most has been bought back by the Bank of England with the rest going to the banks to recapitalise them. As base rates are so low they can gamble with huge sums of money overnight and as long as they make more than the amount they pay in interest (being so small) they make more bonuses for themselves, we see none of it.
The next issue, in Europe at least and technically the rest of the world behind the scenes, is the gradual drift away from national democracy via the growing powers of the EU. Before then we had a manifesto we voted for, and a few international treaties, and although many if not most promises were serially broken at least the mistakes and opportunities to address those mistakes were our own affair. We have no opportunity to vote for EU policies however, as our Euro MP vote is not for the legislators but the second chamber, who debate laws almost entirely made by the small group of unelected commissioners, who produce their laws mainly in private with absolutely no accountability besides the small chances of revision by MPs should they disagree in large enough numbers. But that being the exception the rule is laws are made by unelected outsiders and operate across a growing number of countries. Add to that the economic of the Eurozone, which have managed to sacrifice one poor country after another to maintain the mission, forcing willing victims to retain an economic shackle of loss of sovereignty over their own currency, so rather than leave and set the currency to the ideal national rate, they are stuck at the standard rate and lose their easiest opportunity for growth. Of course it's their choice, as none of them have to stay in, but because of the point I just made few people understand the connection between their problems and their membership despite it actually having reached a point where it's almost impossible to miss. But it's still happening regardless and demonstrates the politicians are in it for themselves at the expense of anyone who needs to be sacrificed, whether willingly or not.
Political correctness has done more to restrict freedom of speech than anything else, albeit with slightly lesser penalties than under Mao or Stalin, footballers are still being stripped of their entire careers for allegdly racist comments which are at the high end of the entire gamut of banned words and opinions. In fact the alteration of opinions to be treated as facts, where if you are against immigration or classify certain crimes by the dominant race who commit them (as the police must) you are racist (even if you are black), if you are against gay marriage you are homophobic and if you support Israel you support apartheid.
It's one thing banning neutral and technical words like spastic, cripple, backward and retarded, which just get replaced by new insults ad infinitum, but upping the game to ban opposing opinions is a totalitarianism of the worst sort, the thought police. We have our state opinion and if you disagree you're an enemy of the state. Looking at the alternatives, of course besides the obvious clash of cultures which is more a matter of social preference than anything more, the space required for open door immigration can never expand to fit, the schools and medical services can't provide the standards required without finding more professional staff, and the sewage system can't be increased quickly enough either. Let alone the road and rail system every morning when thousands more people go to work. Britain has the highest population density in Europe already but the same applies anywhere once enough people arrive there. If you study criminology you are not just allowed to racially profile, but it is obligatory, as you need to understand the relationship between different groups and their actions. It's not anyone else's fault if black people prefer using knives to coshes or broken bottles, as that's basically what they've brought with them from the ghettoes of the poor West Indies. Of course if you went to Kenya or Senegal the crime figures would probably be quite different, so it's not even because the perpetrators are primarily black, but from the lowest of the social groups where that sort of behaviour is fairly standard.
But when in history have opinions been demonised, outside the worst rogue states anyway? It may only be a temporary reaction to the almost total freedom of the 70s, when anything went and although no offence was often meant very little was originally taken either. Then the left wing intelligentsia from north London, centred around the people's republics of Haringey and Camden, got together and decided such behaviour was patronising and divisive, and as well as encouraging such up and coming politicians as Tony Blair to successfully send London back to a scene more associated with a third world capital by forcing unlimited random immigration from every poverty stricken corner of the earth, together with Muslim hate preachers and gun toting yardies, raising the gun and knife deaths from maybe one a year to one a week or so, plus the often home grown suicide bombers.
The problem was almost entirely deliberately created, and in a way the attempts to quash criticism, in fact any mention at all of the vast increase in violent crime by both many of the newer black immigrants and some from other backwaters such as Romania (who currently have no rights to be here legally at all but are) and a criminal level of growing overcrowding on public transport, hospitals, surgeries and the like, where they were never built for such large numbers. No other countries previously had inclusive immigration policies, and very few still do, so a tiny island already stuffed with more people per square mile than many others of an equivalent size being deliberately inundated by the poorest and least educated from wherever they chose to come from, legally by claiming asylum or illegally, knowing few are ever sent back once they arrive, should be the last place to allow it. And as such the only way to maintain both the existing disaster and the increasing one ahead is to shut down all discussion of it, with even a Tory prime minister shouting down the opponents with childish insults. So the Tories have nailed their colours to the flag as well, ie no change whoever gets in, the ultimate end of democracy when every party does the same whoever is voted for. That's not by chance either, as they aren't independent any longer as the UN and associated individuals from Rockefeller's Bilderberg Group and Club of Rome decide what policies the west will carry out, and the rest are minor details we get to vote for. You can read many of their ideas elsewhere and that will confirm pretty much what I've said, as they want the world to look how they choose, and only by voting in a party not run by them can we escape the clutches.
Of course many people believe in a world government, but it would need a way of reflecting the wishes of all the citizens equally, and interests, which are bound to conflict. Why in practice this would be an improvement would probably only be discovered in reality, which I would expect to reflect the power of the strongest countries at the expense of the others, exactly like the EU is today. But the more remote the parliament is from the people the less the chance of it being accountable. Bear in mind politicians are public servants who work for us, something often forgotten, when they do things to enrich themselves at our expense they have become mafia. Unless people realise it, and the reasons why, they will continue to create the illusion the loses and restrictions are inevitable and not their fault while in fact they are openly stealing our money and rights. Only information can redeem this situation, understanding how many of these are entirely deliberate and avoidable and why, and what they can do to restore democracy.
Finally I will explain the difference between political choices, where there is no right answer but a decision of allocation of limited resources based purely on personal preference, and something which is entirely wrong if only people were aware of it. Working through these I would begin with currency debasement, which can be clearly shown to favour the establishment at the expense of the majority of the people, rich and poor as the rich lose even more from reduced returns on their investment while the commodity inflation hurts the poor the most. The Euro hurts the poor primarily as they are not able to compete with the better off countries, borrow far more than they can afford as they can (reflecting that of the individuals), and then go broke trying to pay it back. And then when there's a method to raise their economy they are discouraged/persuaded/lied to to stop them doing so. I agree it is entirely their choice to all remain in the Euro, but on propaganda they are little equipped to challenge. Next the policies of the Rockefeller camp, including managed population reduction (yes, exactly like the concentration camps), forced economic redistribution (as in mugging), restrictions on energy (power cuts and rationing) and freedom of speech and movement. Pretty much everything we all fought against in the last war and thought we'd avoided.
But while there was little international support for any of Hitler's policies we have almost no opposition to Rockefeller's, although they are almost the same. Of course Hitler had no need to cover up his wishes as he was working locally mainly to those who agreed with him already, as only the Jews would die while the others would gain as a result, as well as expanding their lebensraum. Nowadays not only with the internet but the memory of the previous war it's not so easy to impose such levels of totalitarianism outside the third world, so they need the combination of inventing problems which need such measures to avoid them, such as terrorism and global warming, and lies which say theft is giving. What can be better than forcing your interest rates down to almost zero when so many people pay off mortgages? The fact the liquid cash circulating (as opposed to capital which is held by the banks and not added to the economy) is reduced as more people have less to spend, shrinking the economy for all, and the house prices automatically inflate in response to lower interest rates, ultimately costing people the same either when buying or selling, means hardly anyone not paying base rate (ie no one outside banks and government) can benefit really, plus the huge inflationary effect on commodities in response to lower currency returns.
So if I asked the simple questions with no reference to policies, would you want inflation, restrictions on speech beyond hate speech and opinions, huge rises in energy prices, unelected politicians working from abroad, massive overcrowding, interacting with large swathes of the population who don't speak your language or understand your culture or you theirs, less and less control over your home politics as they have handed their powers elsewhere, and subtle ways to kill off the poor, old and weak as they are seen as a drain on society (check the Liverpool Care Pathway among others) or by raising energy prices so high they will die of hypothermia (3,000 a year in Britain currently, a million estimated in the last 30 years).
I doubt many people would knowingly vote for a single one of these policies, although the left do love their diverse multiculturalism (maybe until they get home and complain to their families how long they had to wait at the doctors while the person in front held the queue up as no one could understand what they were saying) I'd guess most will get bored of it sooner or later once it actually reaches their suburbs. Add that to a country where there are no more spaces on the roads and houses are being flattened to build soviet style flats to house everyone new arriving and it changes from a mad mixture of random people to a hellhole. Had you simply found a way to encourage the natives to have ten children and cause the rise themselves it would be little better, but it would at least have saved on translators and allowed everyone to mix freely rather than separate into their own small groups wherever they reside as that's what everyone does naturally.
If today's politicians offered their true plans openly, and as a choice rather than an obligation due to past causes only the mad and bad would vote for them, but dress them up as a combination of a one world utopia and a painful remedy to an economic disaster and they get a landslide, for the identical results.
This is then followed by governments also going into the red, and as only the government and banks pay base rate, in the UK at least forcing interest rates down close to zero to cover themselves in paying them back elsewhere. None of us benefit, as even mortgage holders will lose the benefits when they sell up as it's forced prices up, both of housing as the interest paid falls the actual prices will rise to compensate, and all other commodities as low interest rates debase currency so the money goes into gold, food and everything else we need to live. So the low interest rates also stoke inflation, as well as costing new and other house buyers more unless they trade down, which very few would. As there are twice as many UK savers as borrowers then the people lose directly, as the savers subsidise the banks and governments, and the fact a small sector of home owners gain from low rates is entirely incidental and won't gain overall unless they don't trade up.
This is the economic foundation of the 2010s, understood very clearly by the few who know economics, and not at all by the general public who see what's on the surface and nothing more, so 'low interest rates' equates to them as low prices, even though it does exactly the opposite, as most things do in life. Being unable to look below the surface and the obvious means governments, who all can, will exploit it to its limits, and even when people are suffering they don't know why. This even has a technical name, a cacocracy, government by the worst. Keynesian economics, running at a huge deficit in order to stimulate a flat economy, is an experimental system used on and off for a century or so, and arguably never worked. Seeing the expansion of the money supply through quantitative easing people call it 'Keynesian' as they see money being borrowed in huge amounts, but Keynes used this money to create jobs by investing in building projects directly, thus running the country like a new business and taking the chance the new work will eventually turn a profit. Not a penny of QE has gone to the people, most has been bought back by the Bank of England with the rest going to the banks to recapitalise them. As base rates are so low they can gamble with huge sums of money overnight and as long as they make more than the amount they pay in interest (being so small) they make more bonuses for themselves, we see none of it.
The next issue, in Europe at least and technically the rest of the world behind the scenes, is the gradual drift away from national democracy via the growing powers of the EU. Before then we had a manifesto we voted for, and a few international treaties, and although many if not most promises were serially broken at least the mistakes and opportunities to address those mistakes were our own affair. We have no opportunity to vote for EU policies however, as our Euro MP vote is not for the legislators but the second chamber, who debate laws almost entirely made by the small group of unelected commissioners, who produce their laws mainly in private with absolutely no accountability besides the small chances of revision by MPs should they disagree in large enough numbers. But that being the exception the rule is laws are made by unelected outsiders and operate across a growing number of countries. Add to that the economic of the Eurozone, which have managed to sacrifice one poor country after another to maintain the mission, forcing willing victims to retain an economic shackle of loss of sovereignty over their own currency, so rather than leave and set the currency to the ideal national rate, they are stuck at the standard rate and lose their easiest opportunity for growth. Of course it's their choice, as none of them have to stay in, but because of the point I just made few people understand the connection between their problems and their membership despite it actually having reached a point where it's almost impossible to miss. But it's still happening regardless and demonstrates the politicians are in it for themselves at the expense of anyone who needs to be sacrificed, whether willingly or not.
Political correctness has done more to restrict freedom of speech than anything else, albeit with slightly lesser penalties than under Mao or Stalin, footballers are still being stripped of their entire careers for allegdly racist comments which are at the high end of the entire gamut of banned words and opinions. In fact the alteration of opinions to be treated as facts, where if you are against immigration or classify certain crimes by the dominant race who commit them (as the police must) you are racist (even if you are black), if you are against gay marriage you are homophobic and if you support Israel you support apartheid.
It's one thing banning neutral and technical words like spastic, cripple, backward and retarded, which just get replaced by new insults ad infinitum, but upping the game to ban opposing opinions is a totalitarianism of the worst sort, the thought police. We have our state opinion and if you disagree you're an enemy of the state. Looking at the alternatives, of course besides the obvious clash of cultures which is more a matter of social preference than anything more, the space required for open door immigration can never expand to fit, the schools and medical services can't provide the standards required without finding more professional staff, and the sewage system can't be increased quickly enough either. Let alone the road and rail system every morning when thousands more people go to work. Britain has the highest population density in Europe already but the same applies anywhere once enough people arrive there. If you study criminology you are not just allowed to racially profile, but it is obligatory, as you need to understand the relationship between different groups and their actions. It's not anyone else's fault if black people prefer using knives to coshes or broken bottles, as that's basically what they've brought with them from the ghettoes of the poor West Indies. Of course if you went to Kenya or Senegal the crime figures would probably be quite different, so it's not even because the perpetrators are primarily black, but from the lowest of the social groups where that sort of behaviour is fairly standard.
But when in history have opinions been demonised, outside the worst rogue states anyway? It may only be a temporary reaction to the almost total freedom of the 70s, when anything went and although no offence was often meant very little was originally taken either. Then the left wing intelligentsia from north London, centred around the people's republics of Haringey and Camden, got together and decided such behaviour was patronising and divisive, and as well as encouraging such up and coming politicians as Tony Blair to successfully send London back to a scene more associated with a third world capital by forcing unlimited random immigration from every poverty stricken corner of the earth, together with Muslim hate preachers and gun toting yardies, raising the gun and knife deaths from maybe one a year to one a week or so, plus the often home grown suicide bombers.
The problem was almost entirely deliberately created, and in a way the attempts to quash criticism, in fact any mention at all of the vast increase in violent crime by both many of the newer black immigrants and some from other backwaters such as Romania (who currently have no rights to be here legally at all but are) and a criminal level of growing overcrowding on public transport, hospitals, surgeries and the like, where they were never built for such large numbers. No other countries previously had inclusive immigration policies, and very few still do, so a tiny island already stuffed with more people per square mile than many others of an equivalent size being deliberately inundated by the poorest and least educated from wherever they chose to come from, legally by claiming asylum or illegally, knowing few are ever sent back once they arrive, should be the last place to allow it. And as such the only way to maintain both the existing disaster and the increasing one ahead is to shut down all discussion of it, with even a Tory prime minister shouting down the opponents with childish insults. So the Tories have nailed their colours to the flag as well, ie no change whoever gets in, the ultimate end of democracy when every party does the same whoever is voted for. That's not by chance either, as they aren't independent any longer as the UN and associated individuals from Rockefeller's Bilderberg Group and Club of Rome decide what policies the west will carry out, and the rest are minor details we get to vote for. You can read many of their ideas elsewhere and that will confirm pretty much what I've said, as they want the world to look how they choose, and only by voting in a party not run by them can we escape the clutches.
Of course many people believe in a world government, but it would need a way of reflecting the wishes of all the citizens equally, and interests, which are bound to conflict. Why in practice this would be an improvement would probably only be discovered in reality, which I would expect to reflect the power of the strongest countries at the expense of the others, exactly like the EU is today. But the more remote the parliament is from the people the less the chance of it being accountable. Bear in mind politicians are public servants who work for us, something often forgotten, when they do things to enrich themselves at our expense they have become mafia. Unless people realise it, and the reasons why, they will continue to create the illusion the loses and restrictions are inevitable and not their fault while in fact they are openly stealing our money and rights. Only information can redeem this situation, understanding how many of these are entirely deliberate and avoidable and why, and what they can do to restore democracy.
Finally I will explain the difference between political choices, where there is no right answer but a decision of allocation of limited resources based purely on personal preference, and something which is entirely wrong if only people were aware of it. Working through these I would begin with currency debasement, which can be clearly shown to favour the establishment at the expense of the majority of the people, rich and poor as the rich lose even more from reduced returns on their investment while the commodity inflation hurts the poor the most. The Euro hurts the poor primarily as they are not able to compete with the better off countries, borrow far more than they can afford as they can (reflecting that of the individuals), and then go broke trying to pay it back. And then when there's a method to raise their economy they are discouraged/persuaded/lied to to stop them doing so. I agree it is entirely their choice to all remain in the Euro, but on propaganda they are little equipped to challenge. Next the policies of the Rockefeller camp, including managed population reduction (yes, exactly like the concentration camps), forced economic redistribution (as in mugging), restrictions on energy (power cuts and rationing) and freedom of speech and movement. Pretty much everything we all fought against in the last war and thought we'd avoided.
But while there was little international support for any of Hitler's policies we have almost no opposition to Rockefeller's, although they are almost the same. Of course Hitler had no need to cover up his wishes as he was working locally mainly to those who agreed with him already, as only the Jews would die while the others would gain as a result, as well as expanding their lebensraum. Nowadays not only with the internet but the memory of the previous war it's not so easy to impose such levels of totalitarianism outside the third world, so they need the combination of inventing problems which need such measures to avoid them, such as terrorism and global warming, and lies which say theft is giving. What can be better than forcing your interest rates down to almost zero when so many people pay off mortgages? The fact the liquid cash circulating (as opposed to capital which is held by the banks and not added to the economy) is reduced as more people have less to spend, shrinking the economy for all, and the house prices automatically inflate in response to lower interest rates, ultimately costing people the same either when buying or selling, means hardly anyone not paying base rate (ie no one outside banks and government) can benefit really, plus the huge inflationary effect on commodities in response to lower currency returns.
So if I asked the simple questions with no reference to policies, would you want inflation, restrictions on speech beyond hate speech and opinions, huge rises in energy prices, unelected politicians working from abroad, massive overcrowding, interacting with large swathes of the population who don't speak your language or understand your culture or you theirs, less and less control over your home politics as they have handed their powers elsewhere, and subtle ways to kill off the poor, old and weak as they are seen as a drain on society (check the Liverpool Care Pathway among others) or by raising energy prices so high they will die of hypothermia (3,000 a year in Britain currently, a million estimated in the last 30 years).
I doubt many people would knowingly vote for a single one of these policies, although the left do love their diverse multiculturalism (maybe until they get home and complain to their families how long they had to wait at the doctors while the person in front held the queue up as no one could understand what they were saying) I'd guess most will get bored of it sooner or later once it actually reaches their suburbs. Add that to a country where there are no more spaces on the roads and houses are being flattened to build soviet style flats to house everyone new arriving and it changes from a mad mixture of random people to a hellhole. Had you simply found a way to encourage the natives to have ten children and cause the rise themselves it would be little better, but it would at least have saved on translators and allowed everyone to mix freely rather than separate into their own small groups wherever they reside as that's what everyone does naturally.
If today's politicians offered their true plans openly, and as a choice rather than an obligation due to past causes only the mad and bad would vote for them, but dress them up as a combination of a one world utopia and a painful remedy to an economic disaster and they get a landslide, for the identical results.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Global warming realist primer
Global warming realist
primer:
This is designed as answering every potential question from the general public who only know the bare minimum amount about global warming as presented by the media and politicians, in ways which are both accurate but simple enough for even a primary school child to follow, using mainly accepted UN
IPCC figures
Q How much has the
temperature risen?
According to the IPCC,
around 0.7C since 1850, on an average temperature of 13.8C, 33C above that of
space.
How much has CO2 risen?
In the same period it has
gone up around 50% from 260 to 395ppm
What is the point the
temperature rise could become a problem?
According to the IPCC a rise
of 2C is the point where the known benefits (eg increased food production and
fewer deaths from cold) become overtaken by the possible problems.
So why is there or will
there be a problem?
The current belief is that
the original amount of CO2 at 260ppm is responsible for 1C of the total 33C
above space. CO2 reduces exponentially in its greenhouse effect, and means
whatever point it starts from it adds 1C per doubling. So on these figures it
would take a rise to around 1000ppm before it reached 2C.
Of course if this was the
only consequence then even rising as fast as it has, it could hardly be
considered a problem. But the IPCC projection was a rise of far more for a
doubling, from anything from 1.7 to 6C, due to positive amplifying feedback.
This comprised mainly evaporation of seawater causing a greater amount of water
vapour in the atmosphere, and reduced ice absorbing more heat in the open
water. But as this was theoretical and entirely based on computer models, it
needed two things to confirm it, an identical planet with stable CO2 as a
control, which is obviously not possible, and the passage of time and
subsequent observation. So with a rise now of half that amount of CO2 on a
rising trend since the last little ice age, around 0.4C of the total has been
attributed to the CO2 being added, clearly demonstrating no additional warming from feedback.
As there is and was no delay
expected with the feedback, besides a slight holding of warmth by the oceans,
that alone is not enough to explain any more than a negligible amount, and at
any case was not part of the original expectations.
So why is there still a
problem at all?
The main reason is stated by Prof. Chris Folland, of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction
and Research, who stated "The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our
recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models."
Of course going solely on the observations normally the science would have moved along and the odds for an unforseen delay (bearing in mind the water vapour evaporates evenly when heated whatever the release of heat) saving it for later were so great that there simply was no feedback and the threat had gone. In fact the real world supported that when the overall temperature stopped rising in 1997 while CO2 rose steadily. So although the CO2 may well have continued adding an amount consistent with the equation with no feedback either way (or slightly negative, as water vapour can also increase cloud cover, which has a cooling effect as it creates shade during the day) there is no mathematical evidence for any more.
Of course going solely on the observations normally the science would have moved along and the odds for an unforseen delay (bearing in mind the water vapour evaporates evenly when heated whatever the release of heat) saving it for later were so great that there simply was no feedback and the threat had gone. In fact the real world supported that when the overall temperature stopped rising in 1997 while CO2 rose steadily. So although the CO2 may well have continued adding an amount consistent with the equation with no feedback either way (or slightly negative, as water vapour can also increase cloud cover, which has a cooling effect as it creates shade during the day) there is no mathematical evidence for any more.
If
CO2 is rising and the temperature is not,
what else could have caused the temperature to rise when it did?
The
most recent research shows if you combine the multidecadal ocean oscillations,
which create a roughly 30 year alternate warm-cool phase due to the tilt and wobble of
the earth, plus total solar output it gives a very good fit with the temperature
line, while the 45 degree rise of CO2 is nothing like it. Furthermore the most
recent and largest analysis of climate data by the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem in 2013 found no likely man made warming.
To
further complicate the issue many studies have also shown the CO2 comes just
after the warming as it is released by the oceans as the temperature rises,
much like fizzy drinks go flat faster as they heat up. It was also considered a
possible positive feedback on top, but observations have shown its absence as
described. As the models put what is called a high CO2 sensitivity in, meaning
they expected a high level of feedback, the 1990 IPCC model had temperatures
predicted way above the actual result for 2010, and has not risen since so
currently diverging further each year.
But
isn't the science settled?
The
agreement on the greenhouse effect with CO2 amounting to 1C of the total is
generally but not universally accepted. The view that adding more CO2 will
cause an increase is also generally accepted. But beyond that scientists have a
full variety of opinions, both before the temperature slowed down and since.
There are thousands of equally qualified scientists including those in
Jerusalem and many other top universities such as Ole Humlum in Norway who are
confirming more and more of the sceptic's questions and challenges to be likely
to be correct, including the influences of the sun and CO2 lag, plus many admit
sensitivity is far too complex to be predictable at all so beyond their ability
to measure reliably, especially the effect on cloud cover and where the water
vapour would go. The CO2 lag also greatly challenges the man made element,
especially as from all the CO2 emitted only around 4% is man made anyhow, which
does make me wonder how creating or stopping that amount being added would make
enough difference to be noticed.
But
isn't it better to use the precautionary principle just in case it does happen?
This
is not a scientific question but an economic one, as global warming is an
observation and not normal for scientific observations for nature to become a
cause of political policy, unless something is actually discovered to be
dangerous per se like smoking. Unlike smoking however, which is 100% harmful,
global warming of any type is beneficial to many people and up to 2C is going
to save energy for heating and food production as well as reducing wars over
resources as it did during Roman times. But we do know the exact cost of every
measure in attempts to slow it down, a combination of fines and reducing fossil
fuel usage. These have now been in place in growing numbers for over 20 years
and the CO2 increase has not changed at all. So we have spent (and arguably
lost) all this money and had absolutely no effect in return. We do know 3000
people now die in Britain annually of hypothermia as the energy prices have
risen so much, and many people in the third world have died of starvation as
food crops have been sequestred for biofuel, but we are not aware of a single
death directly from the rise in temperatures, except a few people who died in
heatwaves (although they always will regardless) but unlike hypothermia which
kills everyone equally high temperatures within the normal range will only kill
people who were dying already by a few days sooner. Also in budgeting accounts
you plan for a point you will be aware of, and 2050-2100 is not possible to
account for as it is impossible to know what the effects would be. Also if there is
(as observed directly) no apparent feedback, then by the time CO2 rose to the
point where it would cause a rise over 2C it's far more likely the technology
would have improved so much before then we'd have both stopped using fossil
fuel anyhow and found far better ways to deal with scientific issues in general
than taxing and banning things.
What
about the Arctic ice melting?
Climate
scientists always warn against short term and local conditions being confused
with climate, which works over decades rather than months, and worldwide rather
than locally. So like the Australian droughts of 2008, where the government
warned this would become permanent, nature balanced as it nearly always will,
with major floods soon after. Just like that, the Arctic
is warming slightly while at the south it is cooling slightly, and as the
Antarctic holds 90% of the world's ice and growing, the overall is increasing,
but the media don't appear to mention that very much. So of course the effects
can't happen without causes, and in order for the total ice to decrease long
term the temperature would need to increase long term, which it hasn't, and
neither has the ice decreased.
So
why do both scientists and politicians continue to legislate for and describe
exactly the same issues they did 20 years ago?
That
is the 64,000 dollar question. Normally science moves on in the face of new
evidence, and up till now it always has. But today the media and more so the
politicians (but not the scientists) have not changed one millimetre from their
original positions, but the experts are divided between those shouting even
louder (despite the temperature calming down) and those packing their bags
ready to go home. There is a growing number of respectable universities as
described before turning out new studies almost weekly, finding more and more
about solar, cloud and oceanic influences, and the actual figures on
temperature and associated changes are speaking for themselves with no need for
a human mouthpiece. It is only the lack of outside reporting which means
although all these studies are published online, many free and all with
summaries available only the ones supporting the old view tend to be reported.
Until this is changed then of course everyone won't react as it's very unlikely
many are even aware they aren't still expecting a 6C rise by 2100 as claimed by
activist groups such as Greenpeace and metres of sea level rise while it's only
rising around 7 inches a century as it did last century. Also the almost
religious reliance on models means many scientists prefer to stick to their own
work (despite the fact the sensitivity was introduced manually and therefore
guaranteed to occur within their fantasy world whatever happened outside), and
wait steadfastly for the real world to catch up as they are so certain (so they
claim) the models are right they are now saying we must wait another 10 or 20
years before they can be proved wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
