Turkeys voting for Christmas

Useful idiots, the term coined as far as I could see from the Russian Communists (it's usually one or the other), those weak minded masses who take on the evil ideas of the ruling class and impose their views on other people even though those rules would wreck their own lives just as much if they were brought in. Fear is the key, you do a Margaret Mead and lie through your teeth for the cause, she was pushing post-normal science with the late Stephen Schneider back in 1974, with the quote:

"What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats"

ie lie to the public and get them to harangue each other. Which has reached its peak in the 21st century. If you removed the imaginary threat, currently global warming, racism, sexism, and all other divide and rule tricks used by the extreme left and right alike, they wouldn't want it either. All these punishments and divisions are to make a world better for the ruling classes alone, not us. Wiping out population in the UN's 'managed depopulation' programme of Agenda 21 doesn't include them. Taking most of what rich people earn doesn't go back to the poor or apply to the rulers, look at the Russian Communist party members if you don't believe that. They had everything the people didn't, and make today's theoretical 1% look like a significant number in comparison.

Look at the aims of Greenpeace, the Socialist Workers, Worker's Revolutionary Party, the liberal left leaders, social workers, the BBC, anyone either part of the establishment or working to impose even worse restrictions on us. I can't imagine a world better for a single person when or if each policy is added, which include:

Banning cars
Making driving restrictions so severe it makes people want to give up their cars
Stopping personal wealth and inheritance
Removing personal property
Banning fossil fuel
Restricting free speech to include causing offence, banning specific words and anything else the government do not want you to say, despite only inciting a crime and lying do any actual harm.
Forced diversity and multiculturalism
Rights for criminals

What sort of life would you get if every single one of these was fully implemented?

Firstly it would be almost impossible to travel quickly or easily (like in Soviet Russia), so people would tend to work and stay near home and gain very little knowledge of the outside world or see their family or friends beyond a few miles away, and restrict everyone's work prospects. People would be given what the state considered adequate, from accommodation to clothing if you remember Chairman Mao. The UN already have plans to remove personal wealth on a worldwide scale by replacing cash with carbon credits, which only last a year. This of course could never have been accepted without the imaginary fear of global warming. Forced diversity has two results, firstly it forces diverse cultures at totally different stages of development and with entirely different values and languages to live on top of each other, as they already do in London, while each coalesces together in local pools and does their best in practice to avoid the others, unless their culture includes stealing from them. Without fossil fuel we would simply revert to times before we had it, with little industry and electricity only for those rich enough to generate their own in the very few other ways which could never run a hospital, so people would not have operations or treatment for many illnesses and again die as they did in the dark ages (ie managed depopulation). Meanwhile those still alive and forced to live alongside Arab, Muslim, African, Pole, Sunni, Shia, Pakistani and English, and that's just in one street, would start turf wars and end up trying to take over each other's territory, as that is the nature of history wherever this has happened and still does in places like Nigeria and Sudan. People could not speak freely in public, like Soviet Russia, and probably not allowed to meet in groups either in case they plotted revolution. Education would almost fall apart altogether (except for the elite), as so many subjects would be banned for one reason or another, and what was taught would be so regulated (like global warming and history) little of value could actually be learned. You could never speak freely, see anyone beyond the travel limitations, get decent healthcare, improve your standard of living very far or have use of much of the technology we now take for granted as they almost all need fossil fuel for production and use.
Protests, which I assume would be inevitable under such conditions, would need to be vigorously dealt with.

So even though these represent the extreme and total enforcement of the green movement, far left and UN, no one affected by a single one would actually have the quality of their lives improved. Global warming alarmists only see it as a sacrifice to save the planet but certainly wouldn't want to give so much up unless they had to (useful idiots), and when their fire engine or ambulance can't get there in time as they can't handle the road humps you lose even more than your enemy the car drivers. They all use computers to spread their propaganda, how long could they last from a solar panel? Anyone who believes in hell can see the comparison I've described, and there is no other way of seeing the results, especially as we have some already now which have spoilt the areas they were implemented in and this is early days. I suspect nearly all the anti car brigade don't drive or can't afford to, so won't make any difference if they stop everyone else. Even the most careful and best intentioned idiot can slip up, so sooner or later your activist of today will say something wrong about disabled lesbians or having too many Bangladeshis living in the garden behind their house. The fact they worked to get these laws won't stop them being punished the same as the enemy who actually freely disagree with gay marriage and immigration without the power of the law to stop them. The schools are already coming to pieces in London with a hundred languages being spoken, often without actual English. If the gypsies now allowed in as it's deemed racist to stop any form of immigration steal they won't care if their victims are PC or not, and if you invited them in personally it won't make you immune from being mugged or raped by organised foreign criminals. I fight for this cause as I can sense the difference between heaven and hell very easily, and if you give up more freedom than any possible benefits I can guarantee you it's wrong.

Read my mind

How do I come to the conclusions I do, as I am sometimes asked, and here are some of the answers. It is a combination of intuition and knowledge, and seeing that information follow what my intuition told me beforehand and confirm it (which it usually does), both tells me how strong and accurate intuition is, and how we need to accept both our own and other people's, as tuning in to feel something which is wrong often comes along long before we have actual material to prove it. Politicians are a well known and good example we can all relate to, and good vehicles to demonstrate it on.

I picked up bad vibes, so bad you could almost see into the dimensions of hell, from Barack Obama, Julia Gillard and Ed Miliband. They are not the same, as all unique individuals, but all filtering the same frequencies out at the other end which in the case of Julia Gillard were actually so strong as to cost her her career. Cats are another example, they don't have any information besides their intuition, yet will accurately pick and choose which visitors or family members to avoid, and which neighbours to visit, sometimes to the extent of leaving home altogether as even when they are still being fed and looked after they don't like you or like someone else better. They know, but they certainly don't understand. This is the mechanism I hook into and want everyone to and to expand, as it is universal but because our education (or un-education in this case) tells us we need actual evidence before we come to a conclusion. But this is a form of evidence simply not recognised by scientific rules and regulations, like so many others.

Nowadays it is also a test to me as well as a protection mechanism, as I tune into the big guys and am rarely wrong after deciding on their vibes, right, wrong, or in the case of someone like David Cameron a combination of both. Julia Gillard, assuming you are familiar with her, is probably the loudest and clearest recent example. Not a single redeeming feature. She was loud, brash, confrontational, spent her speeches personally attacking opposition members and worst of all (like Ken Livingstone and Barack Obama before her) a proven liar. I know most of them do it, but in combination with her abrasive personality, and obsession with misandry from her down the line 70s feminist agenda made her the most obnoxious and least appealing world leader from genuinely compiled election results. I think she's influenced by the New World Order rather than entirely led by it like so many others, as she's too hot headed to be told exactly what to do by anyone if it means giving up her own agenda, but as so much coincided with the NWO anyway she was certainly good to go. But her actual personality led her to fall, as they say, you can and almost guaranteed will be a psychopath at the top, but not if you let it show too much.

Holding Gillard out as the clearest example for most, Ken Livingstone could be seen as one of the same bunch but pre-NWO days, screwing up London entirely on his own will rather than needing to be told. He explained he could lie as he was allowed to, something evil people do, devoid of civil or religious sanctions if there is no penalty for lying he will lie. So saying he would not raise the price or extent of the congestion charge, before doing both, and then saying anyone who got rid of the Routemaster bus was an idiot, and then wiped them out within a few years, was because the system allowed him to change his mind. Moral people would not cheat because they couldn't get into trouble for it because they were brought up properly, but of course many others will take advantage of any liberty to choose between right and wrong as the only penalty they will suffer is a blot on their character. The bible has plenty of good material in it outside the religous guff, and temptation is a biggie. You may be offered untold riches of all sorts, but although you may not suffer directly in this life you've sold your soul to the devil. Ken will now go through the remainder of his life as someone who could have done the right thing but because he was free to choose with no known penalty he chose wrong.

Try it yourself with a public figure you know well. Tune in and simply feel what you get back. I do with Obama and I get a corpse. It's dead, nothing, empty. He repeats what is put in his head and probably doesn't even need to process it. No life, no heart. Get a soulless robot who appears human but is an empty machine to carry out a job with no conscience, thought or question. It's like the real Obama is at home retired playing with his family while the empty clone runs the world. Whether the evil is put in from outside or present is immaterial if the results are carried out regardless of the details. And then my favourite target, extensively covered and possibly even exhausted, Ed Miliband. Like Gillard most people can naturally feel the weakness and inadequacy of every single aspect of the man, besides his ability to cast cheap insults. His actions however are quite the opposite, having been the man to set the fire and then offer to put it out in exchange for the power to do so, like the very cream of psychopaths. How many films have you seen where the hero who rescues the children from the burning building turn out in the end to be the ones who set the fire for the glory, hoping they would never be discovered? But due to his inherent inadequacy, Miliband goes ahead and raises energy prices ad infinitum with his Climate Change Act in 2008, watches as they shoot sky high, and when they reach a point where even the socialist green lobby are aware they have been caused by his policies offers to keep the price down for 20 months if he gets in next time. That's like saying we've demolished your house but will do the decorating cheap when you rebuild it. Thanks a fucking lot Ed, and piss off back to the shadows of politics where you came from.

The major observation here is they don't always do it in the shadows where you have to go back afterwards with a team of dogs and torches to work out what they've done (as in Gillard's current investigation for money laundering and related fraud), but they are so twisted they do it naturally in the open as well. He's far from the first or the last, just the most recent and best example of it, clearly totally in harmony with his entire raison d'etre. He is a demolition man, he does not build, but destroys whatever someone else has done in order to offer to fix it cheap. That is the parasitic bottom feeding scum we get in politics, but in his case even I am totally doubtful anyone would dream of electing him leader and very much doubt he will be there in the position to do so at the next election, as just like Gillard his party can also sense a walking liability and will drop him just in time for the new campaign. David Cameron proves you can sense all the range of the spectrum as well as the dirty bottom. He seems a decent naive solid type, too trusting of the enemy (in the shape of the EU and those like them), but was one of the only leaders to ever veto an EU ruling over a major issue. He didn't have to and no one would have been upset in his party if he hadn't, but unlike Ken Livingstone, he did the right thing regardless of the fact he didn't need to. They are given tests and they pass or fail, but I believe most would be unable to do either at all were it not in their nature, once you know which tests really count as important indicators of them. A normal decent person doesn't promise not to carry out a certain move and do it at all, let alone gloat about it afterwards as Ken makes an entire (ex) career out of. Decent people anywhere in life don't do that, but when a politician does it it's the difference between throwing a stone and dropping a bomb with the damage they cause.

Once you get the hang of it it's second nature. You can't convince other people of your intuition as it's as personal as your other feelings, but this one can be shared by anyone tuned in as you are. You can run tests with photos of strangers and those able to do so will nearly always feel the same things, it's not magic, it's nature.

Ed Miliband represents the world

I am wondering, if like the bright yellow head of a boil represents the epicentre of the infection, Ed Miliband represents the epicentre of the infection which is called 21st century left wing politics. He has a single modus operandi, called 'sabotage'. Listen to every single reply to what the government do. 'Look at the coalition, they've pooed in their pants'. 'My granny could run faster than you' etc. That is his limit and he is incapable of doing better. Of course his recent performance at the conference did nothing to alter this case of arrested capability as someone else wrote it all but he is still the same dangerous bug creeping around ready to infect Britain with an even stronger strain of the 21st century left wing virus than it has already. His sole accidental action which may have averted something probably better not to have happened was entirely on a dishonest personal cause, ie an insider claimed after fully accepting every single condition required to invade Syria he voted against it purely as Jeremy Corbyn (that great friend of everyone and everything Jewish, if by being a friend you mean someone like Saddam Hussein) quietly pointed out if he votes with the coalition he'd never win the election. So by pure chance his own personal ambition averted the biggest potential war in my lifetime.

On the minus side his innate incontinence meant soon afterwards he soiled himself and the carpet by promising a 20 month freeze on energy prices which were only so high because of a law he wrote personally while he was the relevant minister. I genuinely don't believe he could ever actually win an election, but neither do his party so would take a miracle if he's still there when it arrives. On the wider scale I can sort every top politician through experience into the thumbs up or down boxes, and then into individual categories. Ed is actually quite similar to Obama in practice albeit minus the presentation skills which placed Obama at the top of the official pile. Both are empty vessels, while Miliband does appear to be working for himself rather than higher authorities such as David Rockefeller and George Soros, he is an academic socialist in the mould of his father, who has gone the step further to make the changes directly rather than stir up others. But while both their motivations are different their results will be almost identical. They are both totally ruthless, and use every single means within their positions to get exactly what they want, either executive orders or in the British case simply fixing the political market where whichever of the big three parties you vote for they offer the same policies anyway. The Tories moderate the sharpest edges, lobbying to reduce green taxes (with no success as they are in a coalition not working alone) but have done something unheard of under Labour when in power (although they said they'd do it when not) of freezing petrol duty Labour created as the fuel escalator, which does exactly what it says. This tinkering around the margins is as far as it gets in Europe as the EU make the big rules and we just do the equivalent of a local council with the remainder.

Of course like any illusion knowledge is the only solution, which is why I write these. I have had two people say they've learnt from me now after maybe five years at it, which proves it is possible, and know if twenty people read this in a year which is about the average it will be there until BlogSpot take it down and only needs one person with the means to spread it further or actually do something with it to win the war. Like any professional you don't use false modesty when selling yourself or no one will think you can do what you can. I put together the big picture a couple of years ago so now see where every new and old action fits in and how it affects those involved. Obama's debt is a good example. He has roughly doubled the US debt in his five years or so in place, not being American I don't know why he needed it all and what he's spent it on, but he's pretty much done the equivalent of marrying a gold digger and having all your assets stolen or spent by them. He is the Anna Nicole Smith of presidents, hook up with a billionaire and milk as much as you can for your friends and family. Of course there's little evidence she actually did that but I specifically chose to name her as she's dead so can't be defamed. Logical captain. Anyway, whether he spent it on biscuits or weaponry (probably some of both) it's gone, kaput, and not just removed many trillions from the best economy in the world, but saddling them with an open vein for decades at least to tap the economy outside in the future. Imagine buying a house where the debts attach not to the individual but the address (something I heard happens in the odd third world country) and you aren't even allowed to do a check but buy it as a blind auction. The location of America is now a bad property as anyone there is now liable for about $23 trillion and if the interest rates ever go up (which is probably impossible) imagine the effect multiplied at that level.

Keynesian economics is the foundation of economic cancer. The wasting disease, that which diverts all nourishment to the tumour ahead of the body, so the body continues to waste until either the tumour is removed or the body dies. Having your currency debased is still treason as when governments worldwide brought in quantitative easing they quite accurately realise there was no way to prosecute the government for anything so didn't repeal that part of the law. So technically Britain and the USA can both be liable for a treason suit for deliberately reducing the value of their currencies by a policy which increases the cash in the economy without a corresponding increase in capital value (eg the gold standard which made such tricks impossible). The second world war was partly created by quantitative easing, as Germany did it so effectively they got their inflation suddenly in one huge bunch, much like modern day Zimbabwe. Ours is a slower process, but if you insist on sharing the loaf in thinner and thinner slices eventually the people will starve. Janet Yellen is the latest piece in this equation, as is Mark Carney, the respective new leaders of the national banks (except both are private companies). Both have pretty much guaranteed QE will not be tapered and interest rates will remain almost zero as long as people vote the same lots in who will allow it to continue. As a result the prices have all gone up while the wages have not, making the price to earnings average ratio fall closer and closer to basket cases like China (it's growing but it was in the gutter to start with so now on the pavement, which isn't a lot better when you think what lands on that) whose average personal income is still about a seventh of ours. We are heading down with these deliberately genocidal policies while theirs is heading up as among other things (despite the appalling working conditions) they are manufacturing things and using cheap coal power.

Bottom line, if you want to rip the guts out of a successful country but do it so slowly hardly anyone notices till it's finished and you're down the road, out of sight and beyond their reach, that's how to do it. Obama has and still is, while Miliband would if he could but he won't get the chance. But the tragic thing is someone else will instead.

Keeping up to date

Nothing new to teach this month so far, but I do surprise myself sometimes how much material I have put together over 40 years which has now all come together to form a complete picture. Besides spread it as far and wide as I can I can't make people listen or learn but two people I know recently told me I have taught them so will carry on.

Otherwise I am back on the spiritual path, and quantum physics explains it better than any other theory, and means we can tune our brains to extend their spectrum in all senses as there's a lot more there beyond what we currently see, ultimately possible immortality. That's what every teacher says, and all we can do is any exercises we can learn, keep doing them and wait till the third eye or any other door opens. Of course without any results we'd all give up, and I haven't so clearly had a few clues when it cracks open for a few minutes and then slams shut again. But as I've managed a little I know if there's a way to hold that door open the next time I will, and then will be able to see whatever's on the other side and realise we're never alone as all the other life around us will become visible and possibly able to communicate.

Most people I speak to say life is perfectly OK as it is and have no need for more. I stopped finding that many years ago and been looking for it ever since. The next rule is to assume anything's possible, and as I certainly know a couple of things other people say are not possible are then clearly the things others claim which look crazy to me may not be. So I will test each one, and if genuine would add to the totality of life rather than be a diversion from it.

Otherwise the world has changed very little, I expect less and less and see that as a gradual detachment from what can affect me but shouldn't. The last and worst imaginable result would be the rest of my life no different to now (or even worse) in every way. That would be a waste, knowing there could be more and missing it all. I already know the physical things I'm missing and have no way of getting them directly, and have as much or more chance of working for the others. And with them you've got nothing to lose by trying so can always do that whatever else is happening.

Po- a little bit of politics

Imagine there were two weather forecasts on TV after the news, one for Labour, one for Conservatives. You'd think it was crazy, as it would be. Or a concert of communist music. Politics can creep into everything, probably best demonstrated by Hitler's selection of music by Jew-haters, but in the arts and sciences it is rarely connected or relevant. You can't listen to a piece of classical music and work out the political intent of the writer, even if Hitler chose to select what Germany was permitted to listen to, and the weather will rain equally on the left or right alike.

Strangely within a very short time of Al Gore announcing to the world it was melting, and the only way to stop it was to stop using fossil fuel (and as a result economic production and travelling, as well as heating and power) an initially small section of the extreme left, the green wing so to speak, jumped for joy as suddenly their wishes, previously consigned to the dark corridors of mental wards and obscure council chambers had overnight become mainstream. They knew little or nothing of the climate till then, as they still don't, but they now had the world's powers behind what they had been trying to do (don't ask why, only they can try and tell you) and sod the actual reason, genuine or not.

Then gradually the centre left jumped on the bandwagon, not out of sheer hate for mankind as the Greens, but a sentimental and false caring for others, so much so it allows them to raise the fuel bills so high for old people they die of cold every winter. But when we are talking about science, the temperature, ice cover and sea level are the same as sticking a thermometer up your arse. It doesn't know the intent of the doctor but just measures blindly whether you want one result or another. Technically there is a much room for politics in scientific measurement as music or choosing your wallpaper. So when the left (it's only the left) accuse deniers of global warming (as they so lovingly refer to us) as right wing killers of children, while they appear almost as a united front as left wingers they must also believe in global warming as part of their primary agenda. Fair enough, it attacks both capitalists and capitalism, but it does not make it automatically right. Just because the means to deal with a problem (should it exist) actually coincides with some or all of your wishes does not entitle anyone to use it as a weapon.

It is precisely the politicisation of science which has allowed a new army of activists who know less than a small child about science but a lot about how they want to change the world. As a result any challenge to their plan by the impersonal thermometers and float gauges results in a deeper entrenchment and attack of the enemy whoever they see they are. To them the science has to stay right or their first and probably only chance to impose their wishes on the world will wither on the vine. The sheer power they now hold, having united internationally with the backing of the worlds richest organisations headed by George Soros, David Rockefeller and Al Gore such as MoveOn.org and the Environmental Media Services, all Club of Rome and Bilderberg members, their power has overtaken world politics purely by it's weight and not its quality. The quality weakens year by year as predictions made from past decade to past decade reach maturity and fall away. It is clearly less certain each decade than the one previously, yet they scream louder and louder when we simply read the graphs and notice it.

Politics is not anything more than personal opinion in action. Left or right, free or controlled. At no place in a science degree do they teach any of it, or tell the students certain parts such as the environment are more left wing than say geology. But now they are, and it's a crime against everything in society and history.

It's normal to them

Thirty years after studying criminology I'd been watching the nature of criminals, mainly as they have become so prevalent in recent years not as individuals, which is fairly constant, but in an organised way, which is not. I applied everything I'd learnt including watching interviews with ex and current criminals, and by far the greatest cause, covering the great majority, is a blind spot, they think what they are doing is normal. This then extends to all irrational and bad behaviour, such as mistreating animals, lying and even simple irrational beliefs all follow the same pattern. However intelligent a person is they still can have blind spots, which are from a combination of immaturity, a weak mind and a prevailing culture such as Islamic Jihadism. So start with the worst, and imagine you have been brought up in Gaza where the teachers tell you Jews and Christians are pigs and dogs and must be killed. Your own morals have not been taught by normal parents and teachers but criminals, so you know nothing different.

Then go to the poor areas of cities where a few career criminals operate and bring along as many of the local kids to help them, and a few continue into a new generation. They do not care about the effect they have on their victims, and the main way people wake up is if it happens to them. But like its close cousin, addiction, people cannot be woken like an alarm clock with rational facts. They are as blind to reason as a blind person is to colours, and unlike most blind people could suddenly see them but only when they shift by themselves. There is little anyone can do until they want to change, but to them it's everyone else who has a problem and there's nothing wrong with them. Whether or not some people will wake up is not relevant, but the phenomenon itself which explains why after seeing all the evidence most people still think global warming will flood the planet in 100 years although they can never know for themselves. It's not complicated, in fact even the climate alarmist scientists don't say it is, they simply say double CO2 and temperatures will rise dangerously. CO2 has risen by 50% and temperatures have done very little, as have all the secondary and tertiary indicators such as sea level and extreme weather events, but as the same scientists haven't changed their minds despite new data then the idiots watching can't use their own minds to follow.

These blind spots are a permanent feature of a young society, as in immature, I can't say if society evolves or stays put and each generation reflects the same features as the last forever, but we can't fix it. All we can do is those not affected can understand those who are and little else. Occasionally a mass intervention will work, but mainly by the use of force, such as the British wiping out suttee and thugee in India, killing widows and gangs of armed robbers. But these sort of things continue in other ways around the world and the recent attack in Nairobi shows a perfect example. Do the terrorists think they've done anything wrong or care about the families left behind after killing people? Of course not. A conscience protects you from such actions, and although all but the most extreme psychopaths have one, they are all selective to some degree. These arseholes had a conscience that related to other Muslims, but no one else. To them they treat other Muslims like humans but not others, while other Muslims only see their own group of Muslims as human and not others. This is the same for muggers, burglars, armed robbers etc, and demonstrated in prison when they all gang up against sex offendors as while one set are happy to injure and kill people to steal from them they do not approve of people having sex without consent. I'm sure the sex offendors don't steal either.

So the nonsensical situation of human growth and weakness can be demonstrated here in all its facets, I don't believe anything less than mass action on a national scale can even scratch the surface, but we can only be aware of why people behave like this and not really expect to be able to change them as they have lost a part of themselves to what religion would call Satan, and their dark side is unable to be accessed by the rest of them, however good, decent or intelligent they may be on every other issue.

21st century politics

I felt like giving up, and then one person said I'd taught her a lot about politics online, followed by a second. I stopped considering giving up as one new person woken up is comparable in educational terms to the raising of Lazarus when it comes to humanity. It simply isn't the norm. The good news is I am now seeing actual media- national TV and papers, sharing my observations on the graft going on in modern politics and how they are seeing through it and exposing it for exactly what it is, rather than the opposite which it claims on the surface, much like artificial sweeteners that taste like dirt and eat you away from inside.

The Australian interview of one of the icons of the Green movement, David Suzuki, was a possible turning point in the 'we've had enough' movement, as when actually questioned on his pet topics came across as an ignorant student activist who wanted to be Jesus. Jesus he ain't, possibly the third handmaiden to Satan on a bad day but Jesus, nope. BBC Question Time now actually has some panellists who disagree with the EU, and may even challenge the mainstream view of global warming if we wait long enough. I get messages from leftist organisations every now and again like Avaaz pleading with me to stop oil production, as many of them genuinely believe the added CO2 will totally screw the climate, you know, like it has already after adding a whole 50% more. Or not. I think that mindset is still the majority, but cracks are now showing, firstly driven by the stubborn force named reality, that which will eventually melt away all illusions like ice in the sun. But the reactions are still as strong as before, although the world is not really warming, the same responses repeat, apparently ad infinitum, although the physical energy of warming has gone the mental processes are still running.

But the general picture, that of a world run generally on a planned long term international arrangement, with more than the sort of evidence of George Soros short selling the pound and breaking an entire economy for a decade or more, taking the entire profit himself, Al Gore becoming a billionaire from selling nothing which he called 'carbon credits', the same 'energy credits' which got the board of Enron jailed for fraud before Clinton legalised it. Had his timing been different the whole thing could have gone down as a ground breaking enterprise to save the planet rather than a bunch of greedy crooks running a company stealing billions. Like Al Gore. No, this circumstantial evidence is overridden by direct statements from the UN, David Rockefeller, the Club of Rome and all the other independent groups made up of the same few hundred world business and political leaders. Including some supposed to be at war with others, with the greatest crime on earth possibly being selling arms to both sides of a war, as you are jointly responsible for all the deaths made possible by you directly. I've addressed all those directly in great detail already, but the picture became clear to me and now I pass it on to others. Like my old college essays, I needn't even provide conclusions, in fact we were discouraged from doing so as they were academic and supposed to be balanced. But if I give the material you can draw your own. Australia have set the precedent this month in voting the first leader in a democratic country who did not believe entirely in global warming. Of course the greens are convulsing over this event, and despite the world level of CO2 rising steadily since the first carbon tax was instituted, believe if they now drop it the world will fall apart as a result. But the leader represents the people, and in Australia they have woken up.

Nobody wants to be cheated, stolen from, lied to and generally treated like dirt. If your governments say they are saving the planet, raising your energy costs and restricting many of your freedoms, had they done exactly the same things with no good reason you'd kick them out if you could and bring in a government who cared about and looked after the people. You need a damn good reason to treat your citizens like dirt, so more effort goes into creating the good reasons to do so (hence the requirement for the regular Bilderberg, Club of Rome and Trilateral Commission etc. meetings). So if you decide (whatever the reasons, as do you ask a mugger why they did it so you can get a better understanding of the situation?) you want to get far more money from the taxpayers than before (although they are meant not to keep the money themselves so why would they?) you can't just do a Henry the 8th (or whichever old king did that sort of thing in the past) and send the bailiffs out to collect it at gunpoint, you need people to believe they need to have it taken. So when you see the beggars on the street, each with a better reason to give to them, a dog, a child, a car that's run out of petrol, they've lost their wallet or whatever, this is the same on a national and international scale, currently named 'carbon taxes'. People regularly do give the man who accosts them (as he did to me but was turned down) saying he needs £5 for the train to take his girlfriend to hospital or whatever, until the second or third time when they realise why is he still there and asking two weeks later when you'd already given it to him? Like paying 20 years of carbon taxes to reduce it (which is totally pointless anyway) and it doesn't, so what do they do but make them even higher even though they've proved over 20 years they don't work. It's no different to an employee taking a day off for his fifth grandma's funeral in a different job where they wouldn't have known about the last four. But we do know in these cases.

I will enclose tonight's example of the fight we have on our hands, as like fleas, when you see one in the house you know you're infested. Here's a big momma of a fat flea.

See, I didn't accost him, I addressed an audience of TV programme watchers, and he challenged me. Besides the personal insult, which compared to 'baby killer' is quite mild, the real killer here was his statement "Global warming needs to be tackled, don't you think?".

Now this breaks every rule, of law, of logic and of life itself. It is a leading question, like '"Have you stopped raping your daughter yet?", and one on a par with "We all hate black people, so...", named a false assumption. No, we don't all hate black people, or all like travelling abroad or going to restaurants. These are advertising and propaganda tricks used to draw weak minded individuals in to their traps. So we have a false premise which he has attempted to force a false conclusion, which when declined resulted in a personal attack.

I don't care about idiots as the world is full of them, look at Kenya this week ripped to pieces by a bunch of Muslim scum. No, not all Muslims are scum, these scum were Muslims, OK? But this idiot is a representative idiot, a sample of world 'useful idiot' opinion driving mainstream politics and opinion, and so severe this particular idiot doesn't even believe it's up for question. Bringing things round nicely in a circle, this particular Richard (make your own jokes folks) echoes the deliberate known ignorance displayed in part one by David Suzuki, who not only should know better but almost certainly does know better (he was a professor you know), while the troops do not, as our friend here Richard, who I guarantee doesn't make a penny from his activism (not like us, we're paid for by big oil of course) but does it as he's been manipulated by crooks like Soros and Suzuki to do so for them.

But we're beginning to come back at them. Watch this space.

Everyone's talking about Ed Miliband

Well it is the Labour conference. His speech was fantastic. His policies, apparently, were borrowed from Michael Foot, that great success of a previous leader, and he is still the bastard experiment of merging Mr Bean, Frank Spencer and Rodney the plonker. Policies, speeches or blocking action on Syria, he will still be the harassed man with a little problem who'll fix it in the morning, eh.

From my point of view (I have taught politics so feel reasonably qualified to say so), the Labour (and sadly the once decent Liberal) party conferences hold as much interest to me as which mafia gang gets what in 2013. Are they any different? You decide. Policies are based on ideology. I believe we all want the same things, albeit in different ways, as we are all human, but some don't want others to have it if they don't. Humans can be weak and immature, and the entire left wing is based on childish beliefs that if you have something I want you must have taken it from me. Base an entire powerful movement on such errant nonsense and then get equally half baked twits to vote for them and each country is totally fucked, and anally.

Ed Miliband comes across as so reasonable but look at his record and compare it with today's speech. Energy bills, which he wants to freeze for 20 months, are high because of two main reasons, HIS climate change act which has added 30% and rising faster than the CO2 which it has patently failed to affect, and Tony Blair's decision not to nationalise the public services against his own party's manifesto until he dumped it. Add the fact the regulators Ofgem don't have power on prices and you have a mafia scenario running Britain's power stations. Besides the other policies I can stop there already, as he has taken with two hands and giving back with one. His actions as a minister in the previous government put the prices up as high as they are, and now he says he's freezing (note, not 'reducing' them?). Go fuck yourself Miliband. I can see through you and millions of slowly awakening individuals are beginning to. A caller to LBC last week said (as he has a friend in parliament) although Miliband had sorted out numerous concessions with Cameron to support him invading Syria, the reason he pulled out was Jeremy Corbyn, that great philo-Semite, whispered in his ear that if he voted with the government he'd never be elected. It shows what a thick arse he was if he couldn't quite have worked that out himself, seeing as it lost Blair a vast swathe of supporters after he inexplicably invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. He wanted Syria bombed as much as Cameron and Obama, but in the end Ed looked after Ed, and Assad was saved by pure luck.

You won't see comments like this in the papers as despite many readers agreeing with it the editors would sack anyone running down political leaders based on what they've actually done. They skirt around the policies and compare how much the EU bonds affect the economy in member states compared to what happened under Sarkozy, as if anyone cares or notices, while turds like Miliband are plotting to destroy the country faster than the coalition. The Damian McBride saga continues as if anyone wanted to know, and did one thing only, made his name familiar. What he did, is doing, and wants to do has as much relevance to you and me as whether the family across the road argued over what they would have for breakfast or how long the meetings lasted over the alterations to the latest Southern Region rail timetable. Blair vs Brown? It's happened, it didn't affect anyone directly except the people involved, and the differences between the two governments in reality was simply a question of what your shit smelled like on different days.

I have lived through over fifty years of politics, and followed it gradually for over forty of them. Things were different and although we had a left and right we didn't have the similarities between parties meaning you ended up with virtually the same results whichever one you voted for, especially since the EU started running the show. Nothing was off limits, if a party genuinely believed (as was standard across the board in the 60s) immigration was a privilege and not a right then it was accepted, and when others started questioning it it was still reasonable to have both views represented. Now we have 'givens'- we must have renewable energy, unrestricted immigration, diversity, all extreme left views but mainstream. It could be argued under such circumstances it would barely make any difference if Ed did win the next election as most of the policies he wants are already in place, mostly by EU diktat. But the one difference is he stands for those policies officially, so rather than do a Cameron and say he wants cuts in spending and immigration but still does more of both, Miliband believes in spending and immigration so it is guaranteed. And there are still Tory MPs who do have traditional values and capable of having a little influence around the edges if in power, which technically they are not, as Nick Clegg boasted so nauseatingly in the Liberal conference last week when he listed all the good plans he blocked personally. When a politician gets cheers for what he hasn't done rather than has done the world has come to its political knees at the crotch of the devil. Technically although they wouldn't play together in coalition and slag each other off as if they were Tories, the new Lib Dems are further left than Labour has been since the 70s, so not quite sure what the differences are. The Tories claim to have different policies on a couple of areas but unable to operate them due to the coalition, while spending more than last year and allowing in more immigrants, both of which they could stop.

One good thing about Ed Miliband, much like Julia Gillard before him, it isn't that necessary for people to expose them as they do quite a good job of doing it themselves. You can't say that about many political leaders nowadays.

Don't call your dog a darkie- song about political correctness by me

Newcastle is hideously white, so we've been told.

Real life forces me to respond, and this phrase 'Hideously white' has now become a mainstream meme, having been mentioned on the radio yet again, proving it wasn't just one isolated BBC journalist's personal wet dream, but their entire mindset. Now if you go to Newcastle, as they did, and report it's 'Hideously White' then for a start that is insulting white people is it not? Had he visited Lagos or Nairobi and reported they were 'Hideously Black' he'd not only never appeared on British TV again but probably been found at the bottom of a river somewhere.

But the attitude which is behind this truly evil phrase is what is really worrying. If a white racist (as I'm sure many have in the past) described either an area in their own white country or that of any black country as 'Hideously Black' any non-racist would have instantly rung the racism bell and ostracised them, yet middle class white media hacks and their black followers now use the term as if it is just not offensive but actually gospel. This means that certainly white culture is seen by them as somehow wrong or inferior at the very least, so needs some black, brown and yellow mixed in otherwise it's clearly an empty and worthless culture.

That's fine if that really is what they believe, but no one can be a hypocrite, so a principle has to be universal otherwise it is racist against the white race they have so far exclusively picked on as inferior. To be truly inclusive and genuine they must insist every city in the world is not hideously black, brown and yellow, and insist the governments there attract as many immigrants to remedy this as we have in Britain. If not then they're no less racist than the (sorry to mention them but it's true) Nazis. Divide and rule, the Jews have ruined the economy, the final solution is to eliminate the Jews. This is continued by Al Qaeda, as once Hamas for example, if you read their constitution, expel the Jews from Israel they will not stop but pursue them across the world. Jews do not belong in the Global Caliphate.

If anyone wants to play race cards, and accuse anyone of being a racist for condemning the actions of anyone not white for doing things which are either against the criminal or moral law, then they are putting their rights above those of the whites, and forcing other whites to either attack or defend them in the classic divide and rule programme, getting the useful white idiots to perpetrate the division by calling on their white brothers and sisters every time they see a hint of racism. But they can direct it against whites and that's OK. What was the question again?

Logic has left the building

Yesterday I saw a post by Ed Asner (Lou Grant) who claimed Hollywood weren't challenging Obama's threats to Syria in case they looked racist. Now here's the best example of many previous of how half or so of mankind has lost its mind in the 21st century while the uninfected look on powerless.

Barack Obama is indeed partly black, no doubt about that. So was Idi Amin and so is Robert Mugabe. So is Herman Cain. Now when Julia Gillard got bollockings for being not female but an absolute total bitch she blamed it on her gender. Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and Benazir Bhutto however got on with their jobs and were treated with the respect they deserved, even when people disagreed with their policies. Herman Cain is all black, unlike Obama, and Republican. He was popular, honest and decent, and as a result had his character smeared not because he was black but because he was a potential challenge to Obama.

Since when (I'd say the mid 70's) did race and gender been more important than who someone is and what they have done and can do? Should someone's identity be more important than their character and ability, and if so why? I find this one of the many questions without an answer. But where the brains have totally vanished is where apparently normal people only see race and gender and very little else. If a black leader does something wrong then is this less able to challenge than anyone else? Isn't everyone supposed to be equal under the law, and under the left isn't everyone equal? So by favouring ethnic groups and women where is the justice there? Positive discrimination is only positive against the small groups favoured and negative against everyone else, as is negative discrimination positive for a small group, ie there is absolutely no difference between the two is there? If anyone is treated worse then sort it out, but don't raise them above everyone else as some sort of punishment for putting them down originally.

In the end people are people, and picking on the obvious qualities you can see to sort them into favoured categories is no different from any other form of nepotism or at the extreme level apartheid. Does it really make any difference if the victims are white and male or black and female? If someone is favoured then the others are all victims. Switching your discrimination from black to white or female to male is no different and no better but that is exactly what today's left are doing, Labour are now promoting positive ethnic discrimination in the public sector after they brought them here in the first place and most fell to the lower levels by what would normally be called 'the free market system'. Poke around with that and you are throwing stones into the machinery and tying the hands of the economy and society.

If anyone still doesn't get me, I will tell a short story from a recent TV programme. A police car stopped another for doing something dubious and the driver, as around half do, said 'You only stopped me as I'm black' (the race card seems to be one of the most powerful since the Masonic handshake) to which the policeman replied ''Sir, we were behind you and it is dark, we couldn't see who the driver was until you got out'.

QED

Growing up

I have discovered a phenomenon around which explains much of the total mess the world is in, and why I lose so many friends on Facebook and get warnings on forums. There is a simple formula where as we grow up as children we see things as they are presented, and then one by one we may see through the ones which are not behind the façade. This is normal maturation behaviour and expected to be universal, whatever the rate and number of revelations which occur, but the twist in the tail is once I or anyone else works one out, we find it almost impossible to communicate. That was what got me as I didn't see that coming at all. So of course I then come across as patronising, as it means treating people like your children as that is how they are behaving, except like someone else's children who were told not to trust strangers like me. Unless the revelation is either owned by the individual or revealed by authority then no one else has the status to convey it.  The basic premise is that we grow up seeing the world in certain ways, and one by one we learn whether each way is genuine or not. That could be something really basic like believing in Father Christmas or that some  magic tricks are real and that you can actually win on the stalls along Oxford Street doing find the lady, to realising subtle but equally direct things like high house prices and low interest rates destroy the economy.

Once you discover something was not as it was sold or seemed on the surface you know something new, and something some or most other people do not. That automatically puts you on a level above them and you would think capable of teaching them the same thing rather than hoping they may eventually work it out themselves. But then I came up against the barrier. If I do not have the authority to tell them they will both not accept what I know and more so reject me personally as I have basically called them a fucking idiot in their eyes, so basically it is virtually impossible to convey what one person has worked out to another, on the internet at least. That is what I have explained in today's entry and currently see no solution to it as people have to own their own information, ie work it out for themselves, or hear it from the source itself directly before they believe it. If they are already grown up and do not know then neither of them are likely to happen so they will probably carry the same illusions for the remainder of their lives, vote on them and spread them around others.

I could list a number of examples once I think of them, but far easier just to see one and understand how it represents them all. I was listening to a magician on LBC when I was about 20, who gave a sequence of numbers to pick and then add and divide etc and then he predicted the result when people called. I did a quick 'lateral thinking' formula, starting with the answer and working back to the question, and saw the result was the only possible one whichever numbers you began with (see also Michael Mann's hockey stick diagram for a modern example) so called to expose him. He blew his top and accused me, a 20 year old student, of being a professional magician. I didn't get it as the trick was blindingly obvious and so dead simple I was amazed and shocked no one else had noticed what I had.

Wind forward 30 years or so and I have seen through many similar illusions, but not for entertainment but theft of cash and our freedoms, which the governments and media claim are for our own benefit. In counselling, which is my own profession, we are encouraged not to state what we know which our clients don't as unless we give clues so they can work things out themselves they won't accept any direct challenges, and that's when they are paying us and know we are qualified to do so. This wall is so tough that if you can't tell people the truth as an expert when it applies to their personal life rather than politics or false advertising you can see a deeply primitive survival mechanism which kicks in whenever someone's personal view of the world is challenged. One method used in such denials is 'it's only my opinion', despite low interest rates wrecking the total capital in an economy and wind turbines producing less energy than they cost to build and maintain. These are direct mathematical figures which I have simply discovered and attempted to use to stop what is currently international policy in half the world and being used to rob us all.

Of course I can't give up, I have just stopped engaging individuals online as it doesn't work, but we are the ones losing because of their refusal to listen as the policies based on maintaining illusions are hurting us all and the majorities are voting for them worldwide as they don't know any better and without wanting to be patronising I do because I've taken the trouble to check. It's not my fault other people are so trusting of those who I can prove ten times over would drown their children given the opportunity. So this way unless and until they do they won't believe me. Catch 22, like when the police can't stop threats as someone now apparently has to carry them out before they can do anything (no, making threats is an offence, but the police are selective).

Will it ever change?

I see a constant stream of similar situations, in that they are all the worst possible and seem to be unending. Politically I have never seen anything like it, as presumably things which have been planned for decades and more are all coming together, so of course everything is as bad as it can be as it's all connected. Most people are totally unaware of it, and my first escape route would be when people started to, until enough realised what was being done behind the pathetic pretence of helping the poor, the planet and the people from the enemy. What they miss is the lot who are arranging these policies are their actual enemy, and pretending to be their friend so they can hold on to their power and carry out their wishes which would not actually be possible without people's consent. Their power is the same as the devil, it is entirely based on illusion and lies, and once you see through it then what power can you have?

In no particular order I will list all the current policies, spreading across party lines in my country and possibly yours, as they are being guided by the Rockefeller Foundation and its members and offshoots, officially under the umbrella of the UN and Agenda 21:

Low interest rates: These steal money from savers and pensioners so the bankers can borrow at next to nothing, speculate and force up commodity prices. It lowers the local currency so money flows out of cash into gold and oil etc, the traders buy forward to raise the future prices, and even on a small rise which they have created by quantitative easing, guarantee a permanently on tap of profit from a constant stream of skimmed cash from people's accounts. That's not even one world order, just organised mafia operations as people think their house price (a massive commodity) go up is a good thing. Like they want to pay more for everything else as well. With such a phenomenon as its foundation no wonder everyone is falling for the lot.

Multiculturalism: One day Adolf Hitler woke up and said 'Why not do the exact opposite of my original policy, not in Germany but the rest of Europe, and spread their societies with as many different races, religions and cultures as possible.' As a result the poorer countries will have as many leave as can manage it, crashing the resources of the richer countries as their system struggles to cope with the schools, medical services, roads and water. If you want to wreck and weaken a society to its extreme then allow the population to expand at an unlimited race, fill schools and surgeries with hundreds of languages and watch them try and communicate and teach. Then each group will create entire communities within their adopted country where you can have shops and whole streets where a native person will be stared at as if they are a trespasser, and you will be able to walk for miles and not hear English. Now I don't know who thought this crap up, but as the end result is what I just described, with an increasing birthrate from the 2 children of Europeans to the 4 plus of the third world immigrants. They move as they earn ten times more than before and when their children westernise can be ostracised or worse. The immigrants are no more interested in their host culture as vice versa, and will do their best to maintain their own culture for as many generations as possible and many resist any pressure to not do so.

Global warming: I have already written an entire blog on this, and it represents the 'problem' with the perfect profile to expand the control over others and financial extraction for as many decades until the temperature is evidently no longer rising. By then the damage would already have been done and like the police who tweaked the evidence at Hillsborough from orders from the very top, would all be retired or dead by the time the truth came out. Look at every political party in parliaments worldwide, how many disagree with it? None possibly?

Policy merge: Following the previous point, how many countries in the west (apart from Iceland who are criminals) do not all follow as well as global warming: Keynesian economics- Quantitative easing/low interest rates/increased immigration and multiculturalism- international government taking over from local- travel and transport restrictions (taxes, road narrowing/closures etc)- increased surveillance and other restrictions supposedly against terrorism and general crime- political correctness including outlawing any words not approved of- positive discrimination for ethnic groups and women- laws against causing offence-
These are already in place across the EU and Australia, and Obama is gradually forcing them on what was officially against the constitution in many cases. If you haven't got them yet then watch out to see them coming.

Debt as growth: Look at the changes made in finance since the credit crash. There haven't been many. Banks still are allowed to gamble with depositor's money and where banks can no longer afford to lend on massive mortgages to people who can't afford them the government are giving them the money to do so, after the US, Spain and Ireland (at the very least) managed to crash the western economy by doing it the last time, selling on the debts hidden in AAA rated structured financial instruments, and then running away to hear the bang from a distance when it all blew up, having taken the fees for setting up the bogus mortgages and left others holding them when they went rotten. As a result British house prices have hit record highs again, fuelled by a few million more people ramping up the demand. If you believe shanty towns are a third world phenomenon then look at an aerial view of Slough and Southall and you will see most gardens have shanties built housing illegal immigrants which the councils all know about, and the only time they 'do anything about it' they use a law which means they give the landlords notice so the illegals can be out the day the call and back the following day when the property has been certified clean. The councils can't work against the UN ICLEI rules so although technically there are still many classes of immigrants who are illegal they can't in practice send many back, which is why immigration officers let nearly all the ones they find go and tell them to turn themselves in to the Home Office, which of course they all do the following day...

Travel restrictions: Apart from the incredible taxes on fuel and travel, our roads are becoming deliberately engineered (Transport for London have now admitted it as an official policy, part of EU directives and no doubt based on Agenda 21) to make it harder and harder to use, to eventually put people off it altogether, in readiness for EU plans to ban cars by 2050. Now 2050 may be a heck of a long way off if they were telling the truth, despite being a plan akin to killing the first born, but Paris has already banned older cars and London older commercial vehicles, so the ban will not be sudden or people may notice and object, but they do it so gradually then by the time the announcement is made to finish the job there will be so few people allowed to drive already it will become normal.

The accusations, all genuine, against the Soviet Union, China and Cuba have not been quashed by the west where in one case they have broken their hold on the area, but instead adopted and westernised as we know enough about totalitarian empires to reject them directly, and too sophisticated for our own governments to take over in the same way outside the democratic system. So instead they bring in a little here and a little there and anyone who has it pointed out to them will repeat the official reason they have to do it and tell you to go fuck yourself as an enemy of the state. They certainly have to me, and accused me many times of murdering people who haven't even been born yet. Imagine reading that in a novel and being expected to believe it could really happen.

So rather than see the breakup of the Soviet Union who we heard on short wave radio for decades lying to the world and their own people, who before the internet were only allowed the news from the state agency Pravda (truth, always use the opposite term to what you mean in politics), the west has westernised their methods and brought them fully up to date to go over the heads of 90% of citizens who do not believe it is possible for an entire government to conspire against its own people, unlike the Nazis or Russians did in their own lifetimes. The old conundrum it's only foreigners who behave like despotic crooks will always allow home governments to do so subtlely as their own citizens only believe someone else capable of it. Even as close as France and Italy, where the greatest economic producer is the mafia, the French would always say it wasn't possible there. Or in Switzerland (ha ha). The fact the borders are only partly relevant, as these leaders all meet on a regular basis to share dirty jokes and a booze up, apparently, which while the masses think they are helping solve the economic problems which a) wouldn't have existed at all had they not had such meetings in the past which created them and b) if they really were meeting to do that then why are they all getting worse? Which means basically they are all setting up such international atrocities which need to be organised to properly work and not allow an escape anywhere else to avoid it.

The normal law of dialectics or anything else where natural phases overtake anything in life means these phases go in a wave where they peak, enough people notice them and by the very awareness they must fall and go away again. I am waiting for this to happen now but not holding my breath as despite a massive increase in evidence and restrictions most people either do not notice it, certainly would never understand the entire picture even if they made an hour long documentary where David Rockefeller and George Soros explained it with the use of muppets. The few laws they don't like get excused by any reasons they offer, we need immigrants to pay our pensions (they will also get old and need pensions, and there will be a few million more by then) and ban cars to stop global warming as well as stopping cheap energy. And of course you must make it easier to borrow in an economy which is only in the worst recession since the 20s caused by borrowing too much. But if people are too stupid to see it then they will continue to do it till they cross whatever line it takes by which time everything will have been lost anyway so it really won't matter when they realise they've been totally screwed as once they do they won't then get it back will they?

I'm with Ed Miliband

A spiritual teacher told me once if you see life as a soap opera you may become enlightened. This latest business over Syria is a typical example, and one case where I totally can. Every film needs action, and here is a little, as Paul Daniels would say, not a lot, but it's got people talking. Now the fact Ed Miliband voted against us going in meant he actually agreed both with me and 88% of the British people, but why did he do it? Probably not as he ought to have done, as he thought it would make things even worse, but because it may help undo the harm his previous but one leader did to his party going into Iraq. We will never know for sure, but it's probably the first and last time we'll agree on anything.

The general spiritual view is we are here for a very short relative time, and the reason we suffer, become ill, and die, is because we don't really, much like The Matrix we simply wake up and do it all again, it is an experience and possibly a lesson to learn as much as we can until we can know pretty much how to handle everything. I don't know what happens after that but it would make sense if true. I've hit the point where I need to know directly, much as those who have had near death and out of body experiences, and are never scared of living and dying again as they say they now know they go on forever. My own evidence is synchronicity at increasing levels, a well known and documented example I am well and truly on the path. What path exactly is another story, and there we see a split in the teachers (the exact reason we are forced to follow our own discretion as they can't both be right) who say pleasure is built in as a message to be followed (my own belief) and everything is just energy which is equally accepted when enlightened (maybe, but not before so why care if it is?). Of course if you knew it was like a dream where the bullets couldn't even injure you, let alone kill you, then all fear would be gone.

The major rule is it should be fun. That is universal for all animal life on earth. Ed Miliband has been put there as a small source of entertainment in an otherwise dire parliament, a rare area of relief of a bunch of Borg replicants with Coco the Clown in the middle of them desperately hooking on kitchen utensils on himself to pretend he is one of them, but they can all sense he is only a clown. Personally the remainder of the fun was from my friends, and they have melted away compared to the first 41 years when there were always a few around whoever and wherever they were at the time. Then the last family left and I had to learn making friends from scratch as the others had all moved on and become busy and out of the area by then and am still wondering if that will ever change to how it was when I did nothing and people just arrived on their own. Of course I have friends but no longer on the doorstep and always available. But if a spiritual journey then if you are given something and lose it then besides never taking any of it for granted again we are forced to find ways to learn how to do it. The harder exams are the most advanced levels.

Having Ed Miliband as the main source of entertainment in life is probably not a good place to be in...

The news is our enemy

Today (and I don't think it will last very long) everyone is talking about Syria, but the reason just offered for a possible retreat by the west has begun with Britain's decision (for now anyway) not to get involved, before the debate even took place. Obama may go it alone, and I hope he does as it'll be his problem and possibly reduce his popularity among the idiot left supporters who are blind to his absolute agenda of evil. The fact it's almost certain the side Obama supports actually carried out the chemical attacks which he may use as a reason to attack the legitimate government is another marvellous potential nail in the coffin of his arrogance. Lateral thinking involves among other tricks reversing a situation to see how it would play out if that were the case. If you assume Obama or anyone else is the enemy of their citizens and using them to both destroy their country and hand it over to their opponents, then whatever actions they carried out can be seen to be consistent with similar agendas but include saying one thing but doing another. When you operate this mechanism and it works better when turned round you can be almost sure that is the actual situation. Try it with a few and you'll see how easily it does.

I personally aren't the least bit worried about Syria or any other tinpot bunch of savage bastards competing for the top position over all the other mafia tribes. The east-west hotline set up in 1963 after the Cuban Bay of Pigs incident has worked pretty well since, stopping any outside countries pitching in against the countries the west invaded for whatever reasons, and keeping each conflict within its borders. Why anyone thinks it would be any different over Syria is a mystery to me.

So that aside, I look at the news in general and continue to maintain the position it is filling space for the great majority of the time. Unlike our blogs, which expand and contract in relation to what is around to fill them, the news has a fixed slot every day and the papers have a number of pages to fill which people expect to have news in them whatever happened. So rather than replace some of the programmes or pages with cartoons, which most people would prefer anyway, they kill themselves either looking for it or making it up on quiet days. The general public are not discriminating enough to even notice most of the variations in quality, and treat surveys people are happiest in Elmbridge council on a par with the new royal baby. Or thereabouts. I do as well, I don't give a shit about either, but sadly most people do. I freely admit there are vast gaps in my life which the news used to tease at filling, but it's crap. Every few years like the lottery a decent story pops up, like the government finally making squatting illegal and Julia Gillard getting booted out recently. But the rest is no different from watching the activity during the day in the average office or school. The same disputes, accidents, intrigues and cliffhangers are part of all aspects of group dynamics, and world news simply trawls the large and small scale areas finding what they consider to be the most significant.

Then even when you whittle down the few decent stories then how many affect you directly? Certainly since the short time I let my flat in 1989 when the market crashed I doubt I'll ever have tenants again or would anyone in my family, but it's a moral situation and feel happy for all the previous victims unable to get into their own houses without waiting months and then having to pay to repair all the damage caused in the meantime. But no, it doesn't really affect me. Julia Gillard shows at least my discretion is not unique as enough other people could see the evil woman for what she was and kicked her out before she lost them the election, much like the way everyone can see what a useless piece of wet toilet roll Ed Miliband is. But it doesn't really affect me unless it means the other lot win Australia's next election and get rid of the carbon tax if they do, which again is closer to getting 5 numbers in the lottery. I expect one or two news items did help me over the last 53 years but I can't think of one besides giving us back the odd thing we had taken away from us, like the right to drive through the west of London without paying (which I still don't think I've needed to do since). And I expect the same applies to everyone. But the bad news usually affects me. Lowering interest rates, being in the EU, charging to drive through the centre of London which I did use a lot before, every carbon tax, and half the other stories. So you'd hope the good and bad news would even out, but in fact it's either bad and directly affects me or totally irrelevant. So the bottom line is I personally would be far better off not knowing any of it. I'd still pay the same massive taxes and earn the same fraction of what I ought to, but I wouldn't be reminded of it every day when they announce the interest rates won't go up for years and the carbon taxes are rising exponentially.

Gossip is personal news. What happens to friends and family, like being in a soap. Again, if you've got a friend with a lousy wife you can't stand (like Julia Gillard) and they finally split up, so bloody what, it doesn't help you- you didn't live with her or will benefit from not having to see her again if you even did that often while they were married. It's just filling in the same empty space I tried to fill looking for interesting news stories which never happened, the lives of those around you do not usually affect you or are any more or less interesting than any others or people at work, but fascinate most people far too much, even though if some bird you've fancied for ages finally splits up with her awful boyfriend it doesn't mean she'll go with you instead. Life is not a fairy story and carries on the same whether you are there or not, much like a real soap opera.

My personal addiction was grown on having no one to talk to on a very long term basis, so only the media was there to occupy my spaces on a constant basis. Unlike watching old films or random TV series at least it is not scripted and only partially predictable, so as it could directly affect me (even though 99% that did was negative) it became the best available drug. When anything almost kicks off (it seems far worse when things look like they may happen than the extremely rare times they actually do) it seems most people are also addicted as I was, and flood the radio with comments and opinions, even though they only know the tiny fraction the media chooses to let us know. Then most of the time nothing actually does happen and everyone goes back to whatever they were doing before until the next piece of garbage floats up from the depths of hell. I know I shouldn't do it, and no one else should either. If you didn't know what was going on would you notice? If not then you don't need to, and if you do then you would anyway. Probably best to wait till that happens but it's a bugger to avoid it if you decide to.

Climate change has admitted defeat indirectly.

I do tend to notice things once I've become sensitized to them, and once the small connected ones are put together in the end it forms a complete web. The latest trick which is actually working on the same cloth headed buffoons who swallow every single root, branch and fruit the less scrupulous authorities feed them is science by consensus. It is technically good news, as when you have to lower the bar to replace nothing with even less then it means they realise there is now nothing substantial to offer, but as the system they have built depends on maintaining an illusion our climate is frankly fucked to hell, then when more and more evidence comes out it's actually quite OK and almost certainly will stay so whatever we burn and release into the atmosphere they need new ways to cover it up. This is in the way instead of cleaning up a mess on the carpet you lay a cloth over it and after a few weeks it becomes part of the furniture and eventually isn't noticed but still always there underneath and always will be. So we now have almost 17 years of no temperature rise, after greats as Phil Jones and Mike Hulme said it needed 10 years for a significant trend, and then it was 15 years. In science experiments have timescales. Each period produces new data and the theory adapts to it.

Outside science, in politics, policies are created, presented to the electorate, and voted on. If a policy then proves to be a failure, whether it loses more money than it gains, or causes more problems than it helps, it is either discontinued or voted out. That means in a democracy new policies only last as long as their usefulness. So in both science and politics any idea is only as good as it turns out in practice, and ought to be abandoned once obsolete or worthless. They begin in different ways but end in the same ways as whether by choice, opinion or observation all ideas are only as valuable as their results in reality and when they have run long enough to know then there is enough material for a conclusion, and the bad ones ought to fall when discovered.

So technically climate science has passed a level in credibility. Global warming is required for CO2 to cause problems, and the UN put that point at 2C above 1850. CO2 is rapidly rising, but the temperature is faltering, and if you magnify the hockey stick it still fell from 1940-70. Oddly enough the 60 year oceanic cycle produces 30 years of warming and then cooling, and that is still reflected in the temperatures. The total rise is struggling to reach 0.8C, on a 50% rise in CO2 and existing rise in temperature underneath it. Meanwhile people are phoning the radio pleading with businesses to switch to renewables as there are forest fires in California, meaning you can fool enough of the people enough of the time to convince them there are aliens living in their pants should you really want to. This guy genuinely connected forest fires (annual, mainly caused by arson or cigarette butts) with global warming, and imagined trying to replace fossil fuel with nothing (renewables either produce nothing or burn biofuel which is what we did in the stone age onwards) would be able to stop this happening. That represents how the mission works on its empty headed victims, who then become programmed like Borg to spread the virus of global warming mantras.

Back to the equation. There was always the backup meme 97% of scientists agree with man made global warming. That was less than a sample of 100, as it took maybe 1000, dropped the ones they didn't believe they were qualified, and then used the remaining ones to represent the view based on the question 'Do you believe mankind can affect the climate?'. Now as cities heat up the local area then that's hardly an opinion or even an uncertainty, unless a 30 mile diameter is too local to qualify as climate. If the temperature rose 0.01C from CO2 assuming we ever became able to measure that amount then again yes mankind can affect the climate. Had they asked the two part question has man's burning of fossil fuel caused the temperature to rise to a harmful level I'm sure the percentage agreeing would not have been 97%. So that's the source of what is only a false statistic but again sufficient to convince those not able to think unaided. But the government led media have now been given a new study which although has dropped to 95%, is now replacing the majority of actual articles on data as the data is no longer agreeing with the consensus. Over the last month or so the emphasis on climate reporting has almost totally shifted to the reason it is important is because the latest study says despite the temperatures failing to rise for 17 years or so 95% of scientists still say global warming is real.

As I said at the beginning, science works via observation, and then explaining causes and effects, ultimately allowing repetition and prediction of future repetitions in any related experiment. Nothing outside that format is science, as it doesn't qualify the strict requirements. So for example if I say I'm running a chemistry reaction which will produce an explosion or wormhole in 100 years, had peer review done what it says on the tin, my peers would simply strike me off the scientific school as no one alive today would be able to find it out either way. So when they say the temperature could reach 2C in 100 years, then what is the difference (ans., there is none). Even attempting to predict such things outside a linear system is void as impossible by its nature. But when they have no local ice melts, heatwaves or hurricanes (based on warm seas) to induce from (again, breaking science's rules) they can't show last year's melts or whatever as some sod will have saved the photo and post it online with yours showing you cheated. There is no material. Science would say sorry, we didn't know enough, we got it wrong, etc etc, and moved on. Politics however, would return to democracy, and say well you voted for carbon taxes so you will still get them even though all they do is redistribute wealth. Of course if they worked then the CO2 would have reduced by now but only by using less energy can that happen and that needs a recession permanently.

The recent shift to the consensus as a primary argument for climate change rather than a backup is a crucial change in response to new data. It means there simply can't be enough data to maintain any illusion, so they have left the realm of science as consensus is a political mechanism used to reflect the wishes of the voters or elected governments, and not able to relate to a scientific theory unable to be proved by the normal means ' because most scientists agree with it'. They have, probably without a clue they had, admitted defeat. If you try and use a political means to justify a scientific theory then you have lost it entirely.

Multicultural diversity

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Rambling

As it's not quite bedtime, I've got a video running and little else required I thought I'd do the old trick and open the box (as there's no one real to talk to here). The video is the return to my old spiritual route after completing the two photographic projects last month, getting every known old road sign within 50 miles and doing the final long required trip to cover what I planned on my photo map of Britain. The claims made by the new collection of alien abductee witnesses and the like are either schizophrenic, fantasising and a few which could actually be true. You only need one good one of course, as it's a precedent situation, and with this organisation publishing all its interviews I now have many hours ahead of material without even leaving my office room. I am hoping if I see enough one may be verifiable (there is a document from the US government confirming the finding of an alien ship with three aliens which has turned up and looks real so far), but I'm looking for far better than that.

I have now officially dropped the campaign to educate those programmed on global warming online as I discovered I don't have the required authority, so will just sit back and leave that one. You can't do more than you are designed to do. I'll keep collecting the general material for fraud as there's a book in there besides the rare chance I may teach someone something they can use to reframe their picture of authority, and there's nothing better than a convert to spread the word further. Otherwise my teachers who send messages online every day remind me to accept the present moment for exactly what it is. That certainly isn't related to dismissing pleasure or pain, but transcending it by not trying to avoid the pain. That appears to be one basic form of active meditation designed to leave the duality, but a heck of a long haul, while the complex meditations must work faster. But because for me there has been enough evidence my life is now being guided, I must presume everything which happens is a lesson for my own development, and maybe the higher you want to go the harder you have to work, which includes more suffering than average. So all the conditions around me ought to then be designed for this task. I am aware of my knowledge of world affairs, which is enhanced by being able to tune in to individual personalities of total strangers of politicians I may have never come across before, and feel how each fits into the picture. I haven't been wrong yet, in fact after calling Julia Gillard as a disaster area and total liability so did her own party and kicked her out. Others see all these things as well, but we are the minority (or they wouldn't be voted in in the first place), and some less sensitive than others, able to call extremes like Gillard and Mandelson, or the utter flaccidity of Ed Miliband, but maybe not the more subtle ones like David Cameron or Kevin Rudd who are softer versions of the thorough psychos. That applies to good and bad equally, so Nigel Farage and more so his assistant Lord Monckton are the cavalry, as is the now universally hated by the dark side colleague Godfrey Bloom, who certainly speaks for me the short time he has been speaking in the public arena.

My communication of the dark and light sides (and all between) has to be certain in the same way a surgeon or lawyer have to be certain, or a journalist. If I am vague and offer alternatives and maybes I am simply muddying the water. I wait till I know and if I'm not sure about something I qualify it. Basically if I'm teaching something then how many people would want their teacher to say there were many sides to an argument when discussing facts? When I say the government have ripped us off with low interest rates it's because the accounts they themselves provide prove it. When I say the environmental movement has been taken over by homicidal misanthropists (regardless of whether any of its followers are) it is because they have said so. But my status is not adequate. The internet grades sources above material, even when most information is linked back to its source with the authority, simply passing it on invalidates it for the believers. So as a result my internet factual teaching is over, while I have moved to philosophy which can be taught by anyone as you are not trying to overcome someone's existing beliefs with contradictory facts, which produces a barrier higher than I can get over.

Should my intuition explain my future guidance I'd hope the practice in writing will not be a lifetime of talking to myself on the internet (when's the last time anyone saw a comment here?) but building up my abilities for a proper publisher. As the major hurdle has been passed, ie knowing the material, hawking my knowledge is the long haul which is part effort and part chance. The same goes for my spiritual work, why meditate for half your life and end up no different to how you were before? That would have wasted most of the time just for a few minor peak experiences and views of energy in the air for thousands of hours of sitting doing it. They are why I never give up, as if they can do that at all then they can do more. My family tell me directly and my friends presumably to each other say I've never reached my potential (how many people have?), but like using the gym as an example, you can't compare yourself with other people but aim for the goals you can do personally. I have done some of those, and now armed with firstly the qualifications and secondly the skills am now ready for the third element, the usage. I still have some years left for that to happen, and am on step two now having taken the first step in 2006 being filmed for the first of four TV programmes as a hypnotist and researcher. That led to my first and only magazine article, and am now working to build on that foundation and have enough for the book allowing everyone to see through organised fraud, like a translation manual, and would pay for it to be published as the purpose is to undo a level of crime never before seen in the world at one time. All I want is my name attached as credit, as the material itself is not something designed to further my career but bring about the cleansing of society. I probably have twice as much evidence as is required already, I'm sure if it was so easy to find for me then the media probably have ten times as much, but someone is making sure they never print a word of it beyond the first example of the temperature being below the 1990 UN predictions making their entire modelling invalid. They start the job but none will finish it. That is where I step in, but I do not have the status.