One thing about members of any group is they can usually recognise others, as by being a member those traits are so familiar and distinctive it doesn't usually take very long to spot the others as you meet them. Now the phenomenon of lifting the veil of illusion of society, that which commends the inadequate and incompetent, and creates unlimited imaginary problems to control and hold back members from succeeding, means those who have already done so share the same clear vision beneath the veil, and say it how it really is.
Unfortunately the veil is so thick and heavy those behind it are in another mental dimension, and any suggestion from the other side they are not actually seeing things how they are are treated the same way as telling someone their mother's a whore. Even if she is, you don't like to hear it, so those actually equipped to have witness the act followed by money changing hands will usually be rejected in total for passing on such disgraceful but accurate material, and if actually accepted, even though only a messenger of an unpleasant fact, will probably be shunned for the rest of that person's life for doing so.
Mankind suffers from immaturity, not from age but development, and as the older kids bully the younger ones at school, the more mature in society but without any morals will exploit the gullibility and unconditional trust of the majority of society who have not and probably never will mature emotionally, and take advantage of them forever. Because the veil is opaque, those the other side witness it the same way a pantomime audience can see the villain behind you but the victim pretends not to be able to hear them. But what I do is at least to be aware of those free from the virus of misinformation, a couple of statements tell me the individual is grown up emotionally, and outside the influence of the backdrop which for example paints Barack Obama as a decent human being, nay, a hero with a Nobel Prize for fuck all, a category created especially for him, so certain they were he would do just that they awarded it before he had even been the president.
So, when anyone says gay marriage cannot be real marriage (it cannot be consummated, you cannot reproduce and children cannot have more than two parents in reality), immigration is a bad thing in general and races and cultures tend to stick together with their own people by their nature wherever you are in time or location, global warming appears not to be happening and probably never did, poor children who are good at school do better if they are educated with others like them from better backgrounds without even having to pay for it, most racism, sexism and homophobia is in the eye of the alleged victim and an excuse for their own failures in more cases than not, and women are probably not best designed to fight in the army.
The left and beyond want society to be a Utopian vision where everyone is equal and every culture is equal, which as every person is unique can only be treated equal, as unless we were all the identical height the entire argument would fall at step one. No, no one is equal except for their life itself, once you go beyond the right to your life being as good as everyone else's, you become what the left hate probably more than anything else in the universe, an individual. By being different from every single person now and beforehand you are destroying their entire means of existence, as they don't want women to be better at looking after children and tidying, or Indians being better at accounts, but put a thousand women and Indians in a test against a thousand others for those tasks with a checklist of a hundred criteria over an entire year and I think we can guess the results before we start, just like dare I say it black athletes (look at the medal tables if you are having racist accusatory thoughts). No, every group and individual within it is different, and instead of trying to shoehorn women into directorships in the EU by law despite the fact they do not want them, or get Jewish men to play professional sport, they will screw up if they do as they were not designed to do so as a general average rule. Families are similar, so individuals within any family will have simply inherited traits as all closely related groups must by scientific decree. If your parents were both athletic, without a single lesson more children will be than average, academic, whatever. The combination of millions or billions of other traits will then make the individuals unique, but with a bias towards their inherited traits. DNA analysis now recognises more and more of these and has only just begun.
All these illusions, from religion (regardless whether god is real or not, there's no need to worship and pray to him every day or at all) onwards, especially politics, are imposed on the immature masses by mature criminals to control and exploit them. And until you see through the veil you will be one of them and attack everyone who sees it and as a result refuse to open your cell door even though it was never locked and never will be, as that cell is your own mind and no one else can lock it except you.
Saturday, February 01, 2014
Friday, January 31, 2014
Time for some more 'isms'
As usual I randomly came across a quote based on the furthest liberal left foundations, and so complex unless I'm particularly off form tonight I couldn't figure it all out but do know the general meaning, and pure anger behind it:
"It is an absolute impossibility in this society to reversely sexually objectify heterosexual men, just as it is impossible for a poor person of color to be a racist. Such extreme prejudice must be accompanied by the power of society's approval and legislation. While women and poor people of color may become intolerant, personally abusive, even hateful, they do not have enough power to be racist or sexist."
"It is an absolute impossibility in this society to reversely sexually objectify heterosexual men, just as it is impossible for a poor person of color to be a racist. Such extreme prejudice must be accompanied by the power of society's approval and legislation. While women and poor people of color may become intolerant, personally abusive, even hateful, they do not have enough power to be racist or sexist."
The beginning starts using double negatives or mixed metaphors, or similar grammatical convolutions meaning the intended communication is partially lost due to an unnecessarily complex wording, but once you persist it's yet another angry rant by a clearly personally offended and affected individual, or more so a privileged educated elite member who likes to patronise those in society they feel require their pity and misplaced empathy and support. So who is this Ana Castillo? A left wing feminist political activist? A lesbian sociology professor? I have no idea, so based on my own hasty assumptions, let's see how close I was.
"Ana Castillo (born 15 June 1953) is a Mexican-American Chicana novelist, poet, short story writer, essayist, editor, playwright, translator and independent scolar. Considered as one of the leading voices in Chicana experience, known for her daring and experimental style as a Latino novelist. Her works offer pungent and passionate socio-political comment that is based on established oral and literary traditions."
Well I wasn't too far off. Details, "Castillo argues that Chicanas must combat multiple modes of oppression, including homophobia, racism, sexism and classism, and that Chicana feminism must acknowledge the presence of multiple diverse Chicana experiences" Yep, a PhD educated sociologist, second try lucky.
Anyway, this motivation to find imaginary barriers and divisions in society, and then demonise and attack the alleged perpetrators (financial penalties and castration being the main two weapons) is part of the most insidious malaise of the world, in fact one I am basing any required thesis on for the future should I ever secure a place on a course. Imaginary barriers are based on a few plausible observations, and then enlarged and widened to cover almost the entire panorama as if it represents the standard picture, which it never does but simply highlights some of both the worst and most exaggerated issues within any and every society, past, present, civilised or primitive. People have always been divided among tribal lines, and not always dominated by men, women, light or dark, but basically under Darwinian forces allowing the strongest in any area to dominate, until the Marxist forces allowed an opposing force to depose them ad infinitum. So this is nothing new, 'isms' are just focusing on a few natural tendencies in all groups and individuals, and then focusing on them as if they dominate, where they are actually generally personal views held by individuals who may or may not (far more so in primitive societies) form a powerful group and indeed dominate society, but only in places like pre-imperial India with the caste system, and Muslim countries who repress Sunni or Shia minorities.
But since equal opportunity law such isms are no longer a significant part of any western society, but these whining feminists and leftists of all colours and genders (they have added more than our given pair) try and paint a false impression they still dominate society and hold back all victims from success in any areas of society, from getting jobs to having racist and sexist remarks made to them. Yes, all this happens, but firstly as I said it always has, and secondly it is very rare nowadays outside what we would consider third world countries. Deliberately magnifying and inflaming imaginary divisions in society removes power from affected individuals who start believing firstly everyone is against them, and secondly it's far harder to succeed in their chosen field as such prejudices will hold them back in their career regardless of their ability. Adding a chip to ones shoulder simply makes you carry more weight and slows you down generally in every area, making you suspicious of others and tendency to join small special interest groups of similar individuals as a form of protection and solidarity, thus reinforcing the generally imaginary view most of the world is against you. So instead of doing your best and trying again and again till you succeed, listening to such academics will create a general paranoia among women, gays, ethnic minorities and religions, who can and do ultimately kill either someone else or themselves at the extreme end of the spectrum.
Divide and rule is a sick and tired method of controlling the masses who cannot think for themselves. Blame men, Jews or now even the whole of mankind for the evils of society, and of course they will become the enemy for doing absolutely nothing and absolutely nothing will convince those affected they have done absolutely nothing. All men are rapists, all straight people are homophobic, putting your heating on will destroy the planet are all memes which take maybe a percent or two of truth or so (as the best lies always do), mix in some scare stories and generalities, and to a greater or lesser extent you can get enough people to believe you to vote in a politician. Then such dangerous and divisive views can become law, such as attempts to make speaking against Muslim criminals and even global warming not being dangerous into criminal offences. These initially lunatic assumptions and claims have gripped western society so deeply in the late 20th and early 21st centuries that laws are now beginning to reflect such imaginary divisions, with the Labour party and BBC deliberately choosing women and ethnic minorities over white males for their top positions, as if they aren't good enough to compete equally on their merits.
Such results materialise nonsense views and opinions into solid reality, and the more they spread the more restrictions will be brought in on our freedoms to ostensibly deal with the alleged issues which barely existed in the first place but if a PhD Mexican says so people would rather believe her over real figures. That is the real tragedy.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
"The tree of life is dying"
"The tree of life is dying, prune the top 1% and feed the roots"
This is what we're up against, a protest poster representing the massed minds of Occupy, UK Uncut, the Greens, the liberal left, and basically every sod who either hasn't got and believes taking it from others is the way to get it, or the others, arguably worse, who are part of the 1% and still campaign to remove it from their positions high up in the Labour party and similar.
The third world, where this current idiocy appears to originate, is one situation, one not really our business beyond the weak attempts we could make to patronisingly civilise them and then get called imperialist invaders for doing so, or do nothing and be called uncaring fascists who are only interested in themselves and profit. Basically you can't win in relation to third world issues as whatever you do or don't do outside haemorrhaging money to be squandered on riches and arms in unlimited quantities, any genuine attempts to physically help and sort out their problems are seen as an invasion unless sponsored by pressure groups, I mean charities, like WWF and Greenpeace who go there and clear land for climate projects and burn their food. Nothing like invaders would do.
But back at home where I far better understand the economy, this is the politics of the playground. Ten year old style 'I want' mentality, from those unable to succeed in a relatively free society by their own efforts, so do the sums, realise the successful people are only limited in their wealth by the top tax rates, and assume as they have so bloody much it must mean everyone else doesn't. I've dealt with this false equation before, but as they insist on raising it constantly (someone mentioned it last night on the radio in typical fashion), I will take what it represents about the collective immaturity of society, as unfortunately it appears such views do make up the majority view, considering most European election results with either far or centre left governments bleeding each dry and ending up with no one getting anything more, rich or poor. That is the alternative, they take even more (they're taking a fucking huge amount already, if you want to experience someone taking 45% of your bank account see how you feel afterwards), which translates into a society void of incentives and encouragement to either do as little as possible to survive as once you do more than average you won't get much more anyhow, or learn to cheat and break the law. Both are negative enforcers, and discourage all forms of creativity and motivation as physical success no longer leads to financial rewards of any significance. These themselves are ancient propositions made by free marketeers from day one, and thoroughly rejected by all who genuinely appear to assume if the rich are made less rich, to a degree only depending on the whims of the leaders, everyone else will get it and be better off.
How much more would we all get if the richest were to be stripped of their wealth and kept at say 25% above average? This could and would not only skim a large percent of their income, which is bad enough, but now they want their savings as well, backdating wealth taxes on their existing capital, first based on property values and then who knows what else? I can't answer that directly as I don't have the staff to do the research, but remember there isn't a direct intravenous drip from the rich to the poor, the government collect the money, give some back in benefits and welfare, such as tax credits and housing benefits to the lowest earners, welfare could be increased for those not able to work, and the rest are pretty much still left to their own devices as nearly all the positive tax breaks go to the poorest, while everyone else earns all by themselves and then pays some back in taxes. The rest is spent on wars, lunatic building projects like shaky footbridges, cable cars and buses which cost ten times more than the ones they replaced. Governments prefer the power to enjoy spending your money than actually giving it back to those who have less, and looking back to the good old days when education was both free and selective, anyone academic could get the best state education followed by a free degree and grant on top of it, available to every single person. Now we pay for selective education as grammar schools are banned (except a few old remnants) and to reduce unemployment long term students are farmed at £27,000 a degree despite the value now being a tenth of what it was as ten times more people (50% over the original 5%) take them as the exams are made so easy that many more people get the qualifying marks to get in and assume they must be the ones who would have passed before anyway. No, they're not.
Encouraging this mentality grows divide and rule, as once you demonise the 1% then as there are so few it creeps to eventually demonise around the top 50%, anyone above average income. As a result our own government dropped the threshold for the 40% rate by about £4000 in the last budget, meaning people only slightly above average now pay nearly half the added amount above it, making far fewer able to have a reasonable standard of living as many more people earn just above average than the top 1% and they have (by a centre right coalition) been made to suffer, admittedly as the debt was so high they were desperate to collect it in every possible way regardless. Suspicion is cast over anyone with a nice car and house, as the implication is if they can get it either they simply inherited it and didn't work at all, or cheated. Of course virtually every doctor, dentist, accountant and lawyer does not cheat and studied for 4-7 years with gruelling exams (I know, I did them) and nowadays an absolute duel for further training and apprenticeship as the competition is huge (ie many more degrees being handed out) and the funding is vastly reduced, with tens of thousands needed for professional courses on top of graduate fees. So now these top few percent start with about a five year defecit, needing to work at least that long just to break even. Of course these a-holes whose parents probably earn that much to allow them out on the streets day after day urinating on public memorials and swearing at the police haven't thought of that, and the bottom line is the vast majority of successful people either studied or practised their art for years and lived on very little, and then worked very hard for many more years before they even caught up those who had worked after leaving school.
Reality has no bearing on imagination. If people imagine the rich cheated and don't deserve what they have, and furthermore by removing most of it you can have some instead without having done a small fraction of what they did you should simply have your right to vote removed. We don't need people with double digit IQs or pre-teen maturity being allowed to dictate government policy, that is not elitism but like employing a doctor or lawyer only allowing people capable of doing a job safely the privilege of doing so. If someone genuinely believes taking other people's money outside direct theft will give it back to them then they don't deserve anything.
This is what we're up against, a protest poster representing the massed minds of Occupy, UK Uncut, the Greens, the liberal left, and basically every sod who either hasn't got and believes taking it from others is the way to get it, or the others, arguably worse, who are part of the 1% and still campaign to remove it from their positions high up in the Labour party and similar.
The third world, where this current idiocy appears to originate, is one situation, one not really our business beyond the weak attempts we could make to patronisingly civilise them and then get called imperialist invaders for doing so, or do nothing and be called uncaring fascists who are only interested in themselves and profit. Basically you can't win in relation to third world issues as whatever you do or don't do outside haemorrhaging money to be squandered on riches and arms in unlimited quantities, any genuine attempts to physically help and sort out their problems are seen as an invasion unless sponsored by pressure groups, I mean charities, like WWF and Greenpeace who go there and clear land for climate projects and burn their food. Nothing like invaders would do.
But back at home where I far better understand the economy, this is the politics of the playground. Ten year old style 'I want' mentality, from those unable to succeed in a relatively free society by their own efforts, so do the sums, realise the successful people are only limited in their wealth by the top tax rates, and assume as they have so bloody much it must mean everyone else doesn't. I've dealt with this false equation before, but as they insist on raising it constantly (someone mentioned it last night on the radio in typical fashion), I will take what it represents about the collective immaturity of society, as unfortunately it appears such views do make up the majority view, considering most European election results with either far or centre left governments bleeding each dry and ending up with no one getting anything more, rich or poor. That is the alternative, they take even more (they're taking a fucking huge amount already, if you want to experience someone taking 45% of your bank account see how you feel afterwards), which translates into a society void of incentives and encouragement to either do as little as possible to survive as once you do more than average you won't get much more anyhow, or learn to cheat and break the law. Both are negative enforcers, and discourage all forms of creativity and motivation as physical success no longer leads to financial rewards of any significance. These themselves are ancient propositions made by free marketeers from day one, and thoroughly rejected by all who genuinely appear to assume if the rich are made less rich, to a degree only depending on the whims of the leaders, everyone else will get it and be better off.
How much more would we all get if the richest were to be stripped of their wealth and kept at say 25% above average? This could and would not only skim a large percent of their income, which is bad enough, but now they want their savings as well, backdating wealth taxes on their existing capital, first based on property values and then who knows what else? I can't answer that directly as I don't have the staff to do the research, but remember there isn't a direct intravenous drip from the rich to the poor, the government collect the money, give some back in benefits and welfare, such as tax credits and housing benefits to the lowest earners, welfare could be increased for those not able to work, and the rest are pretty much still left to their own devices as nearly all the positive tax breaks go to the poorest, while everyone else earns all by themselves and then pays some back in taxes. The rest is spent on wars, lunatic building projects like shaky footbridges, cable cars and buses which cost ten times more than the ones they replaced. Governments prefer the power to enjoy spending your money than actually giving it back to those who have less, and looking back to the good old days when education was both free and selective, anyone academic could get the best state education followed by a free degree and grant on top of it, available to every single person. Now we pay for selective education as grammar schools are banned (except a few old remnants) and to reduce unemployment long term students are farmed at £27,000 a degree despite the value now being a tenth of what it was as ten times more people (50% over the original 5%) take them as the exams are made so easy that many more people get the qualifying marks to get in and assume they must be the ones who would have passed before anyway. No, they're not.
Encouraging this mentality grows divide and rule, as once you demonise the 1% then as there are so few it creeps to eventually demonise around the top 50%, anyone above average income. As a result our own government dropped the threshold for the 40% rate by about £4000 in the last budget, meaning people only slightly above average now pay nearly half the added amount above it, making far fewer able to have a reasonable standard of living as many more people earn just above average than the top 1% and they have (by a centre right coalition) been made to suffer, admittedly as the debt was so high they were desperate to collect it in every possible way regardless. Suspicion is cast over anyone with a nice car and house, as the implication is if they can get it either they simply inherited it and didn't work at all, or cheated. Of course virtually every doctor, dentist, accountant and lawyer does not cheat and studied for 4-7 years with gruelling exams (I know, I did them) and nowadays an absolute duel for further training and apprenticeship as the competition is huge (ie many more degrees being handed out) and the funding is vastly reduced, with tens of thousands needed for professional courses on top of graduate fees. So now these top few percent start with about a five year defecit, needing to work at least that long just to break even. Of course these a-holes whose parents probably earn that much to allow them out on the streets day after day urinating on public memorials and swearing at the police haven't thought of that, and the bottom line is the vast majority of successful people either studied or practised their art for years and lived on very little, and then worked very hard for many more years before they even caught up those who had worked after leaving school.
Reality has no bearing on imagination. If people imagine the rich cheated and don't deserve what they have, and furthermore by removing most of it you can have some instead without having done a small fraction of what they did you should simply have your right to vote removed. We don't need people with double digit IQs or pre-teen maturity being allowed to dictate government policy, that is not elitism but like employing a doctor or lawyer only allowing people capable of doing a job safely the privilege of doing so. If someone genuinely believes taking other people's money outside direct theft will give it back to them then they don't deserve anything.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Elitism
In my view elitism means 'favouring a section of society at the expense of others with no reason', ie getting jobs for family and friends, only employing people from certain backgrounds, basically picking and choosing favours for people you prefer who are no better than anyone else.
The dictionary says "government by an elite, consciousness of belonging to an elite, the favouring or creating of an elite" which extends the same principle, such as the hereditary House of Lords who govern by birth alone, and only allowing men to vote in the past etc.
Imagine my surprise when our current government (ie not the left wing opposition) said they would never bring back grammar schools as they were elitist. Now where exactly in the above descriptions does educating the best academic pupils with specialised teaching come up? No, the present system of the rich paying for selective schools which need Common Entrance exams to get in are elitist, not because they need to pass an exam to get in, as every single profession on the planet requires passing exams or a practical course, but because only the rich can afford them, unlike grammar schools which do exactly the same thing for nothing.
So why would a government shun any successful (as proved by decades of past success of poor students) system because it does not appeal to the masses. Ah, that was it. Just like Labour want 50% tax (more in France) knowing the total amount collected will always be less above 40% or so as people no longer work as much or hide what they do earn. That is physically bad for the economy, but appeals to the masses, who believe the rich should be punished, unless they win the lottery or rob a bank in which case they suddenly start voting to help themselves, unless they are so hidebound (like the middle class professionals who are left of Labour) they blindly hate so much they will always vote against the rich although they are the very people who will suffer if such a policy became reality. If they hate money so much very few give the same amount to charity even though it is theirs, which they could all do, but all hire accountants to squirrel away as much as possible for themselves so they can pay even less than they are supposed to.
Now the general opinion free selective education is elitist is not restricted to one specific issue, but represents a general attitude, one which would work to remove the general elitism, quite properly, such as reducing hereditary peerage, but then once completed then move on to what they like to call positive discrimination, where political parties and the BBC alike work to employ women and ethnic minorities because they believe they need more, so reject competent applicants who tend to be white and male, crossing the line between creating a neutral balance where everyone gets an equal chance (as in grammar schools, as everyone could get in as they all took the same exams) to, well, an alternative elite of women and ethnic minorities. All elitism is identical, tribes in Africa have the best jobs in some governments because of their family line, much as our House of Lords. Sunni and Shia Muslims are selected in many countries in the same way, with both frequently leading to wars, and the Indian caste system which was so successful in its elitism it could cripple someone's future for life.
Now tell me I'm crazy, but opening the doors equally to everyone and letting them succeed by their own merits sounds to me the exact opposite of elitism, and the art of doublespeak, saying the exact opposite of the truth as people trust you (like global warming causes colder winters and more snow), means by saying a policy actually designed to counter elitism is elitist just shows the proponents to be outright liars who should never be trusted under any circumstances to run a country or a pissup in a brewery. Imagine being led by rulers who not only know it is not correct, but deliberately claim offering all children a free good education if they need it is wrong? If they lie about that, then how much else are they lying about, and what do they think of you believing it's OK to do that, possibly as the opinion polls tell them it makes them more popular, like Labour raising the tax to 50% even though it raises less money. And guess what, by denying poor kids a good free education only the rich can afford one again so they are literally promoting an elitist result by doing so.
They're almost clever, but not quite.
The dictionary says "government by an elite, consciousness of belonging to an elite, the favouring or creating of an elite" which extends the same principle, such as the hereditary House of Lords who govern by birth alone, and only allowing men to vote in the past etc.
Imagine my surprise when our current government (ie not the left wing opposition) said they would never bring back grammar schools as they were elitist. Now where exactly in the above descriptions does educating the best academic pupils with specialised teaching come up? No, the present system of the rich paying for selective schools which need Common Entrance exams to get in are elitist, not because they need to pass an exam to get in, as every single profession on the planet requires passing exams or a practical course, but because only the rich can afford them, unlike grammar schools which do exactly the same thing for nothing.
So why would a government shun any successful (as proved by decades of past success of poor students) system because it does not appeal to the masses. Ah, that was it. Just like Labour want 50% tax (more in France) knowing the total amount collected will always be less above 40% or so as people no longer work as much or hide what they do earn. That is physically bad for the economy, but appeals to the masses, who believe the rich should be punished, unless they win the lottery or rob a bank in which case they suddenly start voting to help themselves, unless they are so hidebound (like the middle class professionals who are left of Labour) they blindly hate so much they will always vote against the rich although they are the very people who will suffer if such a policy became reality. If they hate money so much very few give the same amount to charity even though it is theirs, which they could all do, but all hire accountants to squirrel away as much as possible for themselves so they can pay even less than they are supposed to.
Now the general opinion free selective education is elitist is not restricted to one specific issue, but represents a general attitude, one which would work to remove the general elitism, quite properly, such as reducing hereditary peerage, but then once completed then move on to what they like to call positive discrimination, where political parties and the BBC alike work to employ women and ethnic minorities because they believe they need more, so reject competent applicants who tend to be white and male, crossing the line between creating a neutral balance where everyone gets an equal chance (as in grammar schools, as everyone could get in as they all took the same exams) to, well, an alternative elite of women and ethnic minorities. All elitism is identical, tribes in Africa have the best jobs in some governments because of their family line, much as our House of Lords. Sunni and Shia Muslims are selected in many countries in the same way, with both frequently leading to wars, and the Indian caste system which was so successful in its elitism it could cripple someone's future for life.
Now tell me I'm crazy, but opening the doors equally to everyone and letting them succeed by their own merits sounds to me the exact opposite of elitism, and the art of doublespeak, saying the exact opposite of the truth as people trust you (like global warming causes colder winters and more snow), means by saying a policy actually designed to counter elitism is elitist just shows the proponents to be outright liars who should never be trusted under any circumstances to run a country or a pissup in a brewery. Imagine being led by rulers who not only know it is not correct, but deliberately claim offering all children a free good education if they need it is wrong? If they lie about that, then how much else are they lying about, and what do they think of you believing it's OK to do that, possibly as the opinion polls tell them it makes them more popular, like Labour raising the tax to 50% even though it raises less money. And guess what, by denying poor kids a good free education only the rich can afford one again so they are literally promoting an elitist result by doing so.
They're almost clever, but not quite.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Global warming, the predicted armageddon
I realised recently that rather than begin with the bible and apply it to all of life, which requires faith and religion, I see real life events and then notice the bible was either correct in general principles or specific predictions. The ultimate, the final battle between light and dark, good and evil, truth and lies, is upon us right now, as with the entire world in the grip of deadly plans to enslave us all under the fake cause of man made global warming (which the longer you wait refuses to actually happen), they have so far persuaded the percentage of people worldwide it is true as a consensus, rather than of scientists, who nearly all know it's a load of hooey.
I've dealt with the reasons enough times to save repeating them yet again, but the actual phenomenon of the greatest world deal ever, one which attempts in one stroke to wipe out the rights and properties of all but the chosen elite is fulfilled in total agreement with the formula for Armageddon. I won't get bogged down in the detailed theology, you only need to read Revelation 16 and the simple description is there. Taking the elements one by one, the common mark of the devil forced on all the people could arguably be compared with the plans to end cash, replace it with electronic chips, and ultimately implant them in our bodies. Further plans to make wealth obsolete by replacing cash assets with carbon credits lasting a year will complete the enslavement by making it impossible for anyone to amass any capital whatsoever as any credits remaining at the end of the year simply expire. This is free to read online under the UN framework for the future.
Of course as the bible is written as a script with the ending already set, if this is the case we would already know what is going to happen, and of course the truth sits there forever while the fog of lies will blow away sooner or later so has to ultimately prevail as there is nothing there but that.
"The Bible teaching about the Battle of Armageddon is one of tragedy, evil, destruction – but of the ultimate victory of good over evil. It is pictured in the Bible as the final world war which will play out on the earth in the plains of Esdraelon near the city of Megiddo in central Israel (Revelation 16:16). Obviously, there are heavenly elements as well."
Taking these elements you can see the buildup over the last 30 years or so from the initial US and UN briefing to the announcements and presentations by Al Gore to legislation on national and international scales, and while the models produced phenomenal disasters beyond our lifetimes, as time passed those models became further and further separated from the growing reality of the genuine timeline. The sea level figures were easily the worst example of total fiction, as without the Greenland ice sheet melting and a great enough rise to cause it, the sea level would and does continue to rise pretty much as it did in the 20th century, 7 inches. That was irrelevant, and as you can't easily adjust or hide sea levels as every coastal point can measure it themselves, compare it with others, and always have, the records are far more thorough and complete than any others. Many areas have never risen in over a century while others have fallen, as it fluctuates constantly and requires various averages over a day per location and then all rolled together for the general world figure. They can tell you almost to the cubic inch how much ice must melt to cause an overall foot of sea level rise, and the temperature required to do so. I don't have these to hand, but the evidence speaks for itself. If the sea level isn't rising more than usual (ie 7 inches a century or therabouts) then it isn't much warmer, however much they adjust the graphs to look as if it was.
This is the uncovered truth. The sea remains where it is, continental drift and subduction mean as some land rises, others fall, and ones near sea level which are falling (most places are always doing one or the other at some degree) appear to be sinking, not because the sea is rising but the land is falling. In 2014 we have now seen each year the temperature does not rise it means the CO2 forcing must be weaker than the natural causes, otherwise it would keep rising whatever else happened unless we were actually entering a full ice age by total coincidence. But unless we are, then the CO2 is not pushing the temperature up very much at all, as it hasn't, and every year it hasn't even longer. That is the unvarnished truth. Whatever local and short term weather events and statistics the leftist papers roll out whenever it's going a bit quiet is no different to people saying a cold winter means there is no global warming, quite rightly so. But when it's warmer, and now colder as well, it's down to global warming according to the promoters of it. They know it's a lie, but most of us don't, as if someone with a PhD in anything (many aren't even scientists on the panel but they still get accepted for every word even if they tell you your parents are killing your children with their carbon footprint) says it is then it must be. No one bothers to check or test these assertions, if the northern hemisphere is getting colder winters it's because the north polar area is warming up. Yes, of course, and I won't come in your mouth either.
But it's only a matter of time. The damage is growing annually, the suffering from rationing heating and raising food prices, and even the damage to vehicle engines from alcohol which attacks metal and corrodes it from within. The next stage of blackouts and energy rationing has been promised by the EU as soon as our CO2 reduction falls below a certain point, as there won't be enough remaining power generation to be constant. Genocide is still genocide however slowly or indirectly it is caused. When more people's elderly relatives die of cold and people have to ditch their cars as they can't afford the modifications more and more governments are requiring, they will firstly realise the 'solution' costs far more than the removal of the 'problem' as why suffer definite hardship right now for a possible warmer planet where energy will cost less as you won't need to burn so much (IPCC report), and then as time passes each year the temperatures is stable then more people will simply drop off the system as they wake up and see nothing's happened so probably won't.
You can't hide nothing forever. They are currently revising temperatures down from 30 years ago in the US to make current flat lines look sloped. But that ice can't melt from adjusted graphs, it needs real warming. So does the sea level. Anyone living by the coast now can go to the coastguard station and probably get a printout of the last few hundred years for it there, and many will have lines on the dock to show the sea level at any point over time. If everyone shares it they will then see without a single satellite or computer program running the local and world sea level is pretty darn stable, meaning without thermal expansion and land ice melt (read 'Greenland' as the Antarctic is -40 degrees below so even Greenpeace can't claim that is going anywhere) it simply can't be warming more than it has for centuries.
Looking ahead maybe 20-30 years, when all but the most committed loonies will have (literally and figuratively) cooled off, it won't just be a quiet retreat and return to normal, but a few great reporters and politicians, such as Jim Inhofe and Ron Paul's descendants, will do all they can to remind everyone who would normally turn round and forget the entire situation, they have been lied to by every single political leader besides about three countries, from the entire UN down to all ruling parties. If so, all trust in our original leaders and methods of leadership will be gone, and a new system based on continual policy making by the people and flexible leadership, ie out as fast as in if they prove inadequate, with no waiting five years or so for the next election so they can keep their filth going for their entire terms.
If this is published and even given a tenth of the publicity of 'An Inconvenient Truth' then everyone will remember the fiasco forever, like the fall of the Roman Empire or the rise of Hitler, and say 'Never Again'.
This is not a prediction or a projection, it is a declaration of reality, the only doubts are the timescale of how many decades it will take of no significant rises in temperature before enough people drop off to allow the system to end and reality not only return but remain as a lesson on a worldwide scale.
I've dealt with the reasons enough times to save repeating them yet again, but the actual phenomenon of the greatest world deal ever, one which attempts in one stroke to wipe out the rights and properties of all but the chosen elite is fulfilled in total agreement with the formula for Armageddon. I won't get bogged down in the detailed theology, you only need to read Revelation 16 and the simple description is there. Taking the elements one by one, the common mark of the devil forced on all the people could arguably be compared with the plans to end cash, replace it with electronic chips, and ultimately implant them in our bodies. Further plans to make wealth obsolete by replacing cash assets with carbon credits lasting a year will complete the enslavement by making it impossible for anyone to amass any capital whatsoever as any credits remaining at the end of the year simply expire. This is free to read online under the UN framework for the future.
Of course as the bible is written as a script with the ending already set, if this is the case we would already know what is going to happen, and of course the truth sits there forever while the fog of lies will blow away sooner or later so has to ultimately prevail as there is nothing there but that.
"The Bible teaching about the Battle of Armageddon is one of tragedy, evil, destruction – but of the ultimate victory of good over evil. It is pictured in the Bible as the final world war which will play out on the earth in the plains of Esdraelon near the city of Megiddo in central Israel (Revelation 16:16). Obviously, there are heavenly elements as well."
Taking these elements you can see the buildup over the last 30 years or so from the initial US and UN briefing to the announcements and presentations by Al Gore to legislation on national and international scales, and while the models produced phenomenal disasters beyond our lifetimes, as time passed those models became further and further separated from the growing reality of the genuine timeline. The sea level figures were easily the worst example of total fiction, as without the Greenland ice sheet melting and a great enough rise to cause it, the sea level would and does continue to rise pretty much as it did in the 20th century, 7 inches. That was irrelevant, and as you can't easily adjust or hide sea levels as every coastal point can measure it themselves, compare it with others, and always have, the records are far more thorough and complete than any others. Many areas have never risen in over a century while others have fallen, as it fluctuates constantly and requires various averages over a day per location and then all rolled together for the general world figure. They can tell you almost to the cubic inch how much ice must melt to cause an overall foot of sea level rise, and the temperature required to do so. I don't have these to hand, but the evidence speaks for itself. If the sea level isn't rising more than usual (ie 7 inches a century or therabouts) then it isn't much warmer, however much they adjust the graphs to look as if it was.
This is the uncovered truth. The sea remains where it is, continental drift and subduction mean as some land rises, others fall, and ones near sea level which are falling (most places are always doing one or the other at some degree) appear to be sinking, not because the sea is rising but the land is falling. In 2014 we have now seen each year the temperature does not rise it means the CO2 forcing must be weaker than the natural causes, otherwise it would keep rising whatever else happened unless we were actually entering a full ice age by total coincidence. But unless we are, then the CO2 is not pushing the temperature up very much at all, as it hasn't, and every year it hasn't even longer. That is the unvarnished truth. Whatever local and short term weather events and statistics the leftist papers roll out whenever it's going a bit quiet is no different to people saying a cold winter means there is no global warming, quite rightly so. But when it's warmer, and now colder as well, it's down to global warming according to the promoters of it. They know it's a lie, but most of us don't, as if someone with a PhD in anything (many aren't even scientists on the panel but they still get accepted for every word even if they tell you your parents are killing your children with their carbon footprint) says it is then it must be. No one bothers to check or test these assertions, if the northern hemisphere is getting colder winters it's because the north polar area is warming up. Yes, of course, and I won't come in your mouth either.
But it's only a matter of time. The damage is growing annually, the suffering from rationing heating and raising food prices, and even the damage to vehicle engines from alcohol which attacks metal and corrodes it from within. The next stage of blackouts and energy rationing has been promised by the EU as soon as our CO2 reduction falls below a certain point, as there won't be enough remaining power generation to be constant. Genocide is still genocide however slowly or indirectly it is caused. When more people's elderly relatives die of cold and people have to ditch their cars as they can't afford the modifications more and more governments are requiring, they will firstly realise the 'solution' costs far more than the removal of the 'problem' as why suffer definite hardship right now for a possible warmer planet where energy will cost less as you won't need to burn so much (IPCC report), and then as time passes each year the temperatures is stable then more people will simply drop off the system as they wake up and see nothing's happened so probably won't.
You can't hide nothing forever. They are currently revising temperatures down from 30 years ago in the US to make current flat lines look sloped. But that ice can't melt from adjusted graphs, it needs real warming. So does the sea level. Anyone living by the coast now can go to the coastguard station and probably get a printout of the last few hundred years for it there, and many will have lines on the dock to show the sea level at any point over time. If everyone shares it they will then see without a single satellite or computer program running the local and world sea level is pretty darn stable, meaning without thermal expansion and land ice melt (read 'Greenland' as the Antarctic is -40 degrees below so even Greenpeace can't claim that is going anywhere) it simply can't be warming more than it has for centuries.
Looking ahead maybe 20-30 years, when all but the most committed loonies will have (literally and figuratively) cooled off, it won't just be a quiet retreat and return to normal, but a few great reporters and politicians, such as Jim Inhofe and Ron Paul's descendants, will do all they can to remind everyone who would normally turn round and forget the entire situation, they have been lied to by every single political leader besides about three countries, from the entire UN down to all ruling parties. If so, all trust in our original leaders and methods of leadership will be gone, and a new system based on continual policy making by the people and flexible leadership, ie out as fast as in if they prove inadequate, with no waiting five years or so for the next election so they can keep their filth going for their entire terms.
If this is published and even given a tenth of the publicity of 'An Inconvenient Truth' then everyone will remember the fiasco forever, like the fall of the Roman Empire or the rise of Hitler, and say 'Never Again'.
This is not a prediction or a projection, it is a declaration of reality, the only doubts are the timescale of how many decades it will take of no significant rises in temperature before enough people drop off to allow the system to end and reality not only return but remain as a lesson on a worldwide scale.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Self harm and Munchhausens by proxy
All my life I've been surrounded by what can best be called Champagne socialists, the North London professional elite who would sit around their Norwegian designer dining tables in Kentish Town and Highgate talking about how they could create more equality by taxing the rich. Their misplaced or nebulous senses of guilt, for doing well while still aware of poverty around them, was a motivation for something but they were (and still are) never quite sure what. Some did something positive and joined charities, many back then like the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace attracting thousands of middle class intellectuals from similar places around the world who used the opportunities to return some of what they had to the animals and the third world as a direct way of putting something back, while others got involved in mainly local politics.
The one thing they all had in common was they were always talking about ways to remove other people's money and freedom, while sending their children to public schools (many as their efforts to wipe out the free alternative of grammar schools were a success by the 1970s) and paying accountants to avoid paying as much tax as possible. I am not exaggerating as I grew up with them for many years and was the proverbial fly on the wall watching and listening and taking it all in. It was like a discussion about an execution, with Marx and Lenin being compared in their merits of 'wealth redistribution', akin to offering the choice of an electric chair and a firing squad. But it was always for everyone else, as none ever realised they were the very type of victims they had it in for but at no point ever realised should their policies actually become reality they would be the only type of people to lose, and their actual behaviour proved this was the last thing they actually wanted.
Till fairly recently they were a vocal nuisance, able to block roads and charge people more for driving in local councils, as that was where they all ended up when motivated to put their misanthropic views into practice. Few if any gained power in national politics simply because in a democracy very few people want to see any possible future wealth removed at source. But come the 90s and the theory man's industry itself was going to wreck the planet and must be curbed at all costs and suddenly they woke up. Forget the fact that none of this had (or still has) reached any point of possible danger, and even if it was en route (which it isn't) we couldn't know in our lifetimes so a totally futile effort regardless unless the temperature was actually rising at a rate likely to exceed 2C when they said it would (which it didn't). But the proposed 'solutions', which involved a major redistribution of wealth from large companies and allegedly to the third world, meaning a vast reduction in industry in the west was the divine intervention they could never have imagined possible. Now without a single political campaign, all they needed were a group of top scientists and politicians to create a problem whose solution was pretty well exactly what they had been plotting for generations, and now regardless of the reasons they all jumped on the bandwagon, ie not because they believed (or even understood) any of the science (how could they, it's got more holes than a Berlin brothel) but because it offered a major world form of the collectivist dream they had been promoting by pure chance.
Therefore we now have a political movement, which uses science to justify what would normally be considered totalitarian policies. Banning cars (as planned by the EU), travel restrictions such as flying tax, enforced carbon credits, removing a sum from every energy user allegedly for green projects home and abroad, and basically more and more grotesque versions of communism and Stalinism as the policies grow and mature, bringing more and more support from The Guardian and its readers. But bringing us back down to earth, science is no more political than shoving the same thermometers up your arse and then suggesting the weekly results mean you should be taxed more, and only right wing oil barons would ever support a rising temperature. Yes, it's madness, nothing else. Had they not already had such views they would have seen the vague and varying nature of the case for global warming just like everyone else not afflicted with socialism has who has spent any time looking into it. So they accuse us of being right wing, while in fact everyone who is not left wing simply hasn't got any dirt in their eyes which stops them from looking at the policies without the science which drives them.So basically they jumped straight to the solution and were so enamoured and intoxicated by the first mass imposition of collectivist restrictions on the first world they had to support the cause otherwise the solution could never be continued.
That, then is the formula. It seemed on the surface as self harm, as nothing they support helps them, but being hypocrites who will no doubt turn sides when the taxes affect them enough, as if they can't aford their own holidays and gas bills they'll soon go off the idea and start finding the same faults in the science (it really should be called something else as it is anti-science), so is technically inadvertent self harm but actually Munchausen's by proxy as they are inventing the illness in others and treating them with the painful and harmful chemotherapy, which nearly always kills the subject before the actual illness (yes, look it up). So the reason has been totally leapfrogged and the solution alone adopted by the left en masse as it was what they always wanted to do anyway, so despite not even usually knowing the figures, simply parrot the memes such as 97% and big oil I see nearly every day as they haven't a clue really. This is the most dangerous combination we have ever seen in the world, as it unites every single lunatic and megalomaniac worldwide and handed them power to do exactly what they all dreamed of but was always dismissed till now. The scientists however are trained so know perfectly well if you dream up an experiment which won't be possible to complete, even if they won the bet in another dimension of time they are taking the piss. So it is totally understandable how nearly all left wingers suddenly think they are scientists and repeating every word Al Gore and James Hansen said not because they understand or even care about global warming, but it's given them the power they always wanted.
The one thing they all had in common was they were always talking about ways to remove other people's money and freedom, while sending their children to public schools (many as their efforts to wipe out the free alternative of grammar schools were a success by the 1970s) and paying accountants to avoid paying as much tax as possible. I am not exaggerating as I grew up with them for many years and was the proverbial fly on the wall watching and listening and taking it all in. It was like a discussion about an execution, with Marx and Lenin being compared in their merits of 'wealth redistribution', akin to offering the choice of an electric chair and a firing squad. But it was always for everyone else, as none ever realised they were the very type of victims they had it in for but at no point ever realised should their policies actually become reality they would be the only type of people to lose, and their actual behaviour proved this was the last thing they actually wanted.
Till fairly recently they were a vocal nuisance, able to block roads and charge people more for driving in local councils, as that was where they all ended up when motivated to put their misanthropic views into practice. Few if any gained power in national politics simply because in a democracy very few people want to see any possible future wealth removed at source. But come the 90s and the theory man's industry itself was going to wreck the planet and must be curbed at all costs and suddenly they woke up. Forget the fact that none of this had (or still has) reached any point of possible danger, and even if it was en route (which it isn't) we couldn't know in our lifetimes so a totally futile effort regardless unless the temperature was actually rising at a rate likely to exceed 2C when they said it would (which it didn't). But the proposed 'solutions', which involved a major redistribution of wealth from large companies and allegedly to the third world, meaning a vast reduction in industry in the west was the divine intervention they could never have imagined possible. Now without a single political campaign, all they needed were a group of top scientists and politicians to create a problem whose solution was pretty well exactly what they had been plotting for generations, and now regardless of the reasons they all jumped on the bandwagon, ie not because they believed (or even understood) any of the science (how could they, it's got more holes than a Berlin brothel) but because it offered a major world form of the collectivist dream they had been promoting by pure chance.
Therefore we now have a political movement, which uses science to justify what would normally be considered totalitarian policies. Banning cars (as planned by the EU), travel restrictions such as flying tax, enforced carbon credits, removing a sum from every energy user allegedly for green projects home and abroad, and basically more and more grotesque versions of communism and Stalinism as the policies grow and mature, bringing more and more support from The Guardian and its readers. But bringing us back down to earth, science is no more political than shoving the same thermometers up your arse and then suggesting the weekly results mean you should be taxed more, and only right wing oil barons would ever support a rising temperature. Yes, it's madness, nothing else. Had they not already had such views they would have seen the vague and varying nature of the case for global warming just like everyone else not afflicted with socialism has who has spent any time looking into it. So they accuse us of being right wing, while in fact everyone who is not left wing simply hasn't got any dirt in their eyes which stops them from looking at the policies without the science which drives them.So basically they jumped straight to the solution and were so enamoured and intoxicated by the first mass imposition of collectivist restrictions on the first world they had to support the cause otherwise the solution could never be continued.
That, then is the formula. It seemed on the surface as self harm, as nothing they support helps them, but being hypocrites who will no doubt turn sides when the taxes affect them enough, as if they can't aford their own holidays and gas bills they'll soon go off the idea and start finding the same faults in the science (it really should be called something else as it is anti-science), so is technically inadvertent self harm but actually Munchausen's by proxy as they are inventing the illness in others and treating them with the painful and harmful chemotherapy, which nearly always kills the subject before the actual illness (yes, look it up). So the reason has been totally leapfrogged and the solution alone adopted by the left en masse as it was what they always wanted to do anyway, so despite not even usually knowing the figures, simply parrot the memes such as 97% and big oil I see nearly every day as they haven't a clue really. This is the most dangerous combination we have ever seen in the world, as it unites every single lunatic and megalomaniac worldwide and handed them power to do exactly what they all dreamed of but was always dismissed till now. The scientists however are trained so know perfectly well if you dream up an experiment which won't be possible to complete, even if they won the bet in another dimension of time they are taking the piss. So it is totally understandable how nearly all left wingers suddenly think they are scientists and repeating every word Al Gore and James Hansen said not because they understand or even care about global warming, but it's given them the power they always wanted.
Wednesday, January 08, 2014
Seeing the big picture part 2
Following my first entry about seeing the big picture, I can explain some more, and simplify the system I discovered and hopefully allow everyone reading to understand the mechanism clearly. There are two elements to this, firstly the political machine which I discovered to be working like a well organised Mafia, and since then can see who is part of it and what policies are related to it and how each one fits in. The second is the general one of philosophy itself, with not a single lesson in philosophy beyond being an observer of life. We all have the same tools to observe right and wrong, and separate facts from opinions. The second can simply be learnt by training and practice, the first tends to be more innate and a reaction of the heart or intuition to what goes on outside you.
Paper qualifications are more useful for the readers than the writers, as they do not affect the legitimacy or otherwise of the observations, and technically the material would be far better offered anonymously to avoid unnecessary focus on the messenger. No one has the monopoly on common sense, anyone capable can become qualified in a specific subject but however much they may know about it does not automatically give them awareness over either the outside areas or how their own field fits in with them. But because of their achieved status many people simply assume because they are experts in their field and may have doctorates they know or understand more than everyone else, which is the first illusion and error. Anyone suitably equipped is able to see such issues, qualifications may give insight into specific areas and give the opportunity to see more, but besides the mental discipline required to complete a degree which means a minimum level of ability has been shown, they are not at all required to see the big picture. It is more like IQ, anyone can be tested and find out straight away what their overall capabilities are. Intuition goes above direct knowledge, as it is knowing something before you have the evidence, and may or may not ever discover enough to actually prove what you know to others. I won't try and go into the mechanism it works as that has troubled researchers since the dawn of time, but its presence is recorded in all spiritual teachings and I have enough direct experience of it myself to accept it.
I find the best way my own intuition works is answering questions and responding to news incidents. I can then put it down to basic principles, the main ones being the simple golden rule, of treating others the way you would be wanted to be treated, and secondly never stopping anyone doing anything that doesn't harm other people just because you don't like it. No one has the right to enforce their opinions on others but laws are still made which do that as society has not seen this principle to be as important as the first. My own discretion allows me somehow to assess most of these events in relation to these two principles, so it is very simple and basic, and anyone who questions them tends to primarily have an emotional reason to fear or object to any action or decision simply because it offends them in some way. There is also the element of deciding on a lack of information, so creating a belief system based on no more than inadequate evidence and filling in the spaces with assumptions, and then treating the entire picture as as genuine as all others. Once someone is affected with the disease of assumption, their reality takes on superstition as if genuine, and if powerful enough will then convince an entire group following them it is based on their trust alone and biased presentation of the few pieces of information they have used to jump to their conclusions.
In relation to the previous entry, one feature of the big picture politics wise is cheating. The world is becoming dominated by a system just the same as the Mafia. The evidence is clear, direct and overwhelming, once you are aware of who has done what everything before and since fits in nicely, and the original sense things were not right became confirmed, especially when some of the top operators openly boast about doing so. The minority in power have none as they are outvoted nearly every time by the big guys, just allowing the odd concession and also throwing a curve ball every now and then to give the impression they aren't doing whatever they are. All they do then is give with one hand and take away with another, spending a pound to save 75p and knowing most people won't notice. When they just reduced green taxes they didn't really, all they did was take a little off energy bills and pay it through the treasury. As it goes the EU wouldn't allow them to reduce any green taxes as it's not their place to do so.
So politically the big picture is based on organised deception, allowed only because most people trust them and can't figure out what they're doing as all they see are random pieces and don't know they all fit together in a big jigsaw. Put them in a whole and it says 'You've been had'. Right now as temperatures plummet every winter and in the south pole they are saying it's because of global warming, and the herds of sheep around the world bleat in unison 'oh yeeeees'. Oh bloody no. Picture a spider's web, as in my climate fraud page, with all the organisations and individuals connected and streams of money flowing from the public around them via wind turbines and carbon credits. Throw in some worse motives trying (for reasons it really isn't worth trying to figure out) to reduce living standards in both the developed and third world, making people freeze to death and starve while their crops are being burnt to provide fuel to the west. And once we discover the geoengineering is taking place then spraying poison in massive quantities into the atmosphere will confirm the very worst of their ambitions.
But back to the main point, there comes a point where things just click. The final example fits into place and it all becomes clear, like solving an equation. The previous events which may not all have made sense are now all part of a known plan and system. Strange events and decisions now mean money and power were changing hands in exchange for contributing to the plans. Like hearing a confession after a crime, all the earlier acts which seemed strange or out of character all make sense casting the light of the present across the past. This is a confession of an entire world system, and once known you can test any and every other event before and since and see how it is part of what is one grand conspiracy. The philosophical grand design is quite different, as it shows how to make the best of life and wipe out such conspiracies at every level, ideally until the world becomes civilised and there are no enemies. No one will judge others for doing things which do not hurt anyone but they don't personally like the idea of. No one will physically hurt others for power or property. No one will try to take what others have worked for because they want it themselves without working for it. And no one in government, business and sport will feel they have to cheat to get where they want without earning it. You can but hope.
Paper qualifications are more useful for the readers than the writers, as they do not affect the legitimacy or otherwise of the observations, and technically the material would be far better offered anonymously to avoid unnecessary focus on the messenger. No one has the monopoly on common sense, anyone capable can become qualified in a specific subject but however much they may know about it does not automatically give them awareness over either the outside areas or how their own field fits in with them. But because of their achieved status many people simply assume because they are experts in their field and may have doctorates they know or understand more than everyone else, which is the first illusion and error. Anyone suitably equipped is able to see such issues, qualifications may give insight into specific areas and give the opportunity to see more, but besides the mental discipline required to complete a degree which means a minimum level of ability has been shown, they are not at all required to see the big picture. It is more like IQ, anyone can be tested and find out straight away what their overall capabilities are. Intuition goes above direct knowledge, as it is knowing something before you have the evidence, and may or may not ever discover enough to actually prove what you know to others. I won't try and go into the mechanism it works as that has troubled researchers since the dawn of time, but its presence is recorded in all spiritual teachings and I have enough direct experience of it myself to accept it.
I find the best way my own intuition works is answering questions and responding to news incidents. I can then put it down to basic principles, the main ones being the simple golden rule, of treating others the way you would be wanted to be treated, and secondly never stopping anyone doing anything that doesn't harm other people just because you don't like it. No one has the right to enforce their opinions on others but laws are still made which do that as society has not seen this principle to be as important as the first. My own discretion allows me somehow to assess most of these events in relation to these two principles, so it is very simple and basic, and anyone who questions them tends to primarily have an emotional reason to fear or object to any action or decision simply because it offends them in some way. There is also the element of deciding on a lack of information, so creating a belief system based on no more than inadequate evidence and filling in the spaces with assumptions, and then treating the entire picture as as genuine as all others. Once someone is affected with the disease of assumption, their reality takes on superstition as if genuine, and if powerful enough will then convince an entire group following them it is based on their trust alone and biased presentation of the few pieces of information they have used to jump to their conclusions.
In relation to the previous entry, one feature of the big picture politics wise is cheating. The world is becoming dominated by a system just the same as the Mafia. The evidence is clear, direct and overwhelming, once you are aware of who has done what everything before and since fits in nicely, and the original sense things were not right became confirmed, especially when some of the top operators openly boast about doing so. The minority in power have none as they are outvoted nearly every time by the big guys, just allowing the odd concession and also throwing a curve ball every now and then to give the impression they aren't doing whatever they are. All they do then is give with one hand and take away with another, spending a pound to save 75p and knowing most people won't notice. When they just reduced green taxes they didn't really, all they did was take a little off energy bills and pay it through the treasury. As it goes the EU wouldn't allow them to reduce any green taxes as it's not their place to do so.
So politically the big picture is based on organised deception, allowed only because most people trust them and can't figure out what they're doing as all they see are random pieces and don't know they all fit together in a big jigsaw. Put them in a whole and it says 'You've been had'. Right now as temperatures plummet every winter and in the south pole they are saying it's because of global warming, and the herds of sheep around the world bleat in unison 'oh yeeeees'. Oh bloody no. Picture a spider's web, as in my climate fraud page, with all the organisations and individuals connected and streams of money flowing from the public around them via wind turbines and carbon credits. Throw in some worse motives trying (for reasons it really isn't worth trying to figure out) to reduce living standards in both the developed and third world, making people freeze to death and starve while their crops are being burnt to provide fuel to the west. And once we discover the geoengineering is taking place then spraying poison in massive quantities into the atmosphere will confirm the very worst of their ambitions.
But back to the main point, there comes a point where things just click. The final example fits into place and it all becomes clear, like solving an equation. The previous events which may not all have made sense are now all part of a known plan and system. Strange events and decisions now mean money and power were changing hands in exchange for contributing to the plans. Like hearing a confession after a crime, all the earlier acts which seemed strange or out of character all make sense casting the light of the present across the past. This is a confession of an entire world system, and once known you can test any and every other event before and since and see how it is part of what is one grand conspiracy. The philosophical grand design is quite different, as it shows how to make the best of life and wipe out such conspiracies at every level, ideally until the world becomes civilised and there are no enemies. No one will judge others for doing things which do not hurt anyone but they don't personally like the idea of. No one will physically hurt others for power or property. No one will try to take what others have worked for because they want it themselves without working for it. And no one in government, business and sport will feel they have to cheat to get where they want without earning it. You can but hope.
Wednesday, January 01, 2014
Theory vs practice. How would they really like it up 'em?
Today's question: Do political policies you want or get actually affect you directly, and if so how?
My long term study of politics (beginning with A level in 1977) has shown me a large gap between theory and practice among those most politically active, and from them nearly all on the left. The right is really anti-policies, as the purer you become the fewer actual policies you want, as you believe the people can pretty well govern their own lives with a strong legal system and safety net for the poorest and sick. More than that is simply interference, so technically the libertarian right have so few policies the consequences can basically be seen as freedom.
The left clearly do not trust others to behave nicely without a lot of direction. Therefore their fears feed upon every threat and develop a constant stream of new ideas to patch holes in society wherever they see it happening, as well as building an entire social system from the bottom up.
Now my own parents are examples of the absence of policies, as both came from fairly poor families who worked hard and did well with barely a qualification between them, my grandma could probably have become a doctor but even though she got a further education scholarship her family could not afford the compulsory uniform and instead she qualified as a book keeper. But they certainly could not pay for my parents to go to private school as I did, but as they were both highly academic simply went to grammar school, and whizzed through with top marks, my father ending up at Cambridge as a result. They had no spare money or privilege, just the brains combined with education and hard work to do it.
Wind forward to today. From a relatively lightly governed 1950s we now have a growing level of restrictions, ones I remember watching in the USSR in the 70s onwards and wondering how a massive country could actually be run to restrict everyone's freedom for many decades and nothing was done about it. Of course the actual reason was Stalin simply killed serious opponents and put the rest in prison camps so the opposition was simply mopped up until whatever caused the shift in the 90s (I have no idea why it suddenly fell without even a slight push). Technically the policies just went westward from the Soviet Union to the European Union, but without Stalin's purges had to be subtle and mainly secretive. How many British laws do you know were from the EU? They don't stamp it on the papers, you need a lot of effort to find who makes each new law now, and believe me most of the big ones are neither ours or voted through any parliament as that is not how theirs are made. Drifting off the main issue a little, besides the fact one consequence which certainly affects us having been voted into the EU as it now is are the fact we no longer make most of our own laws.
I will list some of the major themes of interventionist ideas, the greatest being redistribution of wealth. Beginning with the fact the majority of those in Britain who promote this policy are actually the top 10% and probably far less of the wealthiest is more than ironic, but moronic. As if they did get Labour in and ramped up the top rate to 50% then 60% or more, as well as reducing the threshold it came in, they would lose more than nearly everyone else, and no doubt do all they can right now to pay as little tax as possible.
One word hits me in the head so hard it nearly knocked me out. Hypocrisy. The intellectual left are mainly rich and if they are fervent in removing the wealth of the richest few, then they are promoting a policy to give away their own money more than anyone else's, as most people are not affected by this policy except them and their friends and families. All of whom will join them in avoiding any possible tax payment. I can wholeheartedly say, simply from observation of maybe hundreds of similar London professionals, whose houses now nearly all are worth over a million pounds, these people act like someone prepared to cut their foot off if it argues with their hand. Or so they say for everyone else. They support a mansion tax, which would cost each and every one of them around £10,000 a year should Labour get in, and as soon as it does come in they will be at their accountants finding ways to avoid it. I have been surrounded by these types all my life, sitting in their Hampstead lounges mouthing off about how wonderful Russia is and how they need to march and support the workers and plunder the rich. Except they are all the rich they are talking about. Besides SW1 you can't actually be any richer than dwelling in Hampstead, so if they really mean what they are saying they would have to employ a government to remove their wealth as well, and after a few years of mansion tax they'd all be selling up and moving to pastures new as they'd have nothing left to pay it any more.
Free speech is another London grown classic. I am very doubtful if either such proponents of word banning, some councils actually now have long lists given to every employee of words they are not allowed to use (you know, the ones I roll out every time), actually both learn them by heart and then don't even use one when seriously intoxicated. But far more importantly, banning a bad word doesn't ban the attitude behind it. I don't have any major examples, but would bet my left testicle on the fact many such council employees and academics from the red band of north London have either considered moving or actually moved when their area became too, er, dark for them. Those shrill androgynous ranters who stand up and harangue the staff and public on racism and sexism, diversity and tolerance, in private dinner parties and family gatherings, are quite probably echoing the exact words of their less deceitful neighbours in wondering how long it will be before there are fewer white people in Camden than blacks, and whether they should consider moving to Dorset. Again, the great demon hypocrisy raises its vile and ugly head. Flies on walls ought to confirm this suspicion, and I'm pretty sure when caught in relaxed states without witnesses I've heard comments to that theme, which in themselves are perfectly reasonable, unless from someone whose entire mission in life is to stop other people from saying it.
Travel restrictions are easily the simplest to observe. Those mountains in the middle of roads from Cornwall to Kirkwall hit the suspension of Porsches and Skodas alike. And buses and ambulances. They fuck up every single journey on the planet where in place, and the only possible explanation I can think of is those who place them on every road in their borough at a cost of around £10,000 each do not drive themselves so have little to affect them directly. But like spraying metal salts in the air to pretend to control the climate, they are breathed in by everyone and their own families so unless you are a fourth dimensional lizard being without human lungs you will also get respiratory and digestive problems like everyone else if you arrange spraying. But everyone uses the roads one way or another, and the delays and damage caused whenever traversing a road so affected also hurts passengers including using public transport. And the widespread idiot brigade trying to ban driving and flying altogether have nearly all been abroad and unless they live in the Antarctic probably use cars nearly every day even if they've ponced someone else to drive them as they won't own one themselves. They can't rely on a minicab if they are injured but not badly enough to get an ambulance, they will have to get themselves to a station or bus stop and hope it's a time when they're even running as some places have no bus after 9pm.
Unfortunately idiocy trumps rock, paper, scissors and even nuclear devices. Nothing, not even personal experience, will shine through the thick fog of stupid. It is not connected with academic ability, as most of the worst culprits have enough letters after their name to form a page of anagrams, but they have no common sense. They are simply very good at learning and repeating facts, but as a teacher myself am very familiar with the set of pupils who can do this but when you try and get them to explain what it is about haven't a clue, and can never fit the small parts into a single picture. Therefore they can easily think that person X has too much money and ought to share it, but even given a mirror they will never in their lives imagine they have more money than X so would lose even more as tax is not selective. They park their BMW in their private space in Camden and then post on Facebook driving cars is destroying the planet, and then go and lobby their friend's friend Ed Miliband to increase the restrictions on car ownership in their manifesto, which will usually be accepted as these people are who get Labour elected if they are catered to.
In the end it is pretty easy to imagine the world of the politically correct anti-success anti-individuality left as we know their views so bloody well it's impossible not to. Taking their most pure or extreme form I come across frequently enough to know if they get in they will go as far as they can, we will end up in a country with:
No cars for private use. A wealth cap. Taxation based on property value. Using banned words will be a criminal offence. Every public (and probably private) office must employ staff representing society as a whole. Racism will be a crime simply by inference, with serious penalties. It will be a crime to state the race of any criminals. Fossil fuel will be banned totally leading to permanent energy rationing. Remaining energy prices will be so high only the people with the most remaining wealth after tax will be able to heat their homes constantly when required. Most if not all foreign businesses will leave the country, leaving many offices empty and vastly raising unemployment. Many people will be employed by the government to constantly scan the internet and publications for dissident speech which, like Russia previously, will be a serious crime. Ultimately a constitution may be drawn up being almost impossible to amend, writing in the new permanent values of society which must be followed at all time. There must be no mentioning of racial differences. Immigration is a universal right. No person is born more talented than any other so must not be treated differently through selective education or tuition. Denying climate change will be a capital offence as more dangerous than murder. It is illegal to be obliged to reveal your birth gender. It will be illegal to document your birth parents as no individual has more rights over a child than another, anyone taking up the responsibility of parenthood automatically becomes that child's parent. No area will be allowed to have a different racial mix relating to the country as a whole, so if an area has a lower number of black people they will be moved into the area until it matches up with the total. The same will apply to every place of work. There will be a universal wealth limit based on the number of times above average income and capital reach, after which everything will be returned to the state.
I've come across nearly every single one of these ideas many many times, and added a few extras of my own (can you tell which they are?), and can guarantee on my family's life not a single person's life would be better had their entire set of well known and expressed wishes been granted by this or any other magic fairy. Not that I'm magic. Or a fairy.
My long term study of politics (beginning with A level in 1977) has shown me a large gap between theory and practice among those most politically active, and from them nearly all on the left. The right is really anti-policies, as the purer you become the fewer actual policies you want, as you believe the people can pretty well govern their own lives with a strong legal system and safety net for the poorest and sick. More than that is simply interference, so technically the libertarian right have so few policies the consequences can basically be seen as freedom.
The left clearly do not trust others to behave nicely without a lot of direction. Therefore their fears feed upon every threat and develop a constant stream of new ideas to patch holes in society wherever they see it happening, as well as building an entire social system from the bottom up.
Now my own parents are examples of the absence of policies, as both came from fairly poor families who worked hard and did well with barely a qualification between them, my grandma could probably have become a doctor but even though she got a further education scholarship her family could not afford the compulsory uniform and instead she qualified as a book keeper. But they certainly could not pay for my parents to go to private school as I did, but as they were both highly academic simply went to grammar school, and whizzed through with top marks, my father ending up at Cambridge as a result. They had no spare money or privilege, just the brains combined with education and hard work to do it.
Wind forward to today. From a relatively lightly governed 1950s we now have a growing level of restrictions, ones I remember watching in the USSR in the 70s onwards and wondering how a massive country could actually be run to restrict everyone's freedom for many decades and nothing was done about it. Of course the actual reason was Stalin simply killed serious opponents and put the rest in prison camps so the opposition was simply mopped up until whatever caused the shift in the 90s (I have no idea why it suddenly fell without even a slight push). Technically the policies just went westward from the Soviet Union to the European Union, but without Stalin's purges had to be subtle and mainly secretive. How many British laws do you know were from the EU? They don't stamp it on the papers, you need a lot of effort to find who makes each new law now, and believe me most of the big ones are neither ours or voted through any parliament as that is not how theirs are made. Drifting off the main issue a little, besides the fact one consequence which certainly affects us having been voted into the EU as it now is are the fact we no longer make most of our own laws.
I will list some of the major themes of interventionist ideas, the greatest being redistribution of wealth. Beginning with the fact the majority of those in Britain who promote this policy are actually the top 10% and probably far less of the wealthiest is more than ironic, but moronic. As if they did get Labour in and ramped up the top rate to 50% then 60% or more, as well as reducing the threshold it came in, they would lose more than nearly everyone else, and no doubt do all they can right now to pay as little tax as possible.
One word hits me in the head so hard it nearly knocked me out. Hypocrisy. The intellectual left are mainly rich and if they are fervent in removing the wealth of the richest few, then they are promoting a policy to give away their own money more than anyone else's, as most people are not affected by this policy except them and their friends and families. All of whom will join them in avoiding any possible tax payment. I can wholeheartedly say, simply from observation of maybe hundreds of similar London professionals, whose houses now nearly all are worth over a million pounds, these people act like someone prepared to cut their foot off if it argues with their hand. Or so they say for everyone else. They support a mansion tax, which would cost each and every one of them around £10,000 a year should Labour get in, and as soon as it does come in they will be at their accountants finding ways to avoid it. I have been surrounded by these types all my life, sitting in their Hampstead lounges mouthing off about how wonderful Russia is and how they need to march and support the workers and plunder the rich. Except they are all the rich they are talking about. Besides SW1 you can't actually be any richer than dwelling in Hampstead, so if they really mean what they are saying they would have to employ a government to remove their wealth as well, and after a few years of mansion tax they'd all be selling up and moving to pastures new as they'd have nothing left to pay it any more.
Free speech is another London grown classic. I am very doubtful if either such proponents of word banning, some councils actually now have long lists given to every employee of words they are not allowed to use (you know, the ones I roll out every time), actually both learn them by heart and then don't even use one when seriously intoxicated. But far more importantly, banning a bad word doesn't ban the attitude behind it. I don't have any major examples, but would bet my left testicle on the fact many such council employees and academics from the red band of north London have either considered moving or actually moved when their area became too, er, dark for them. Those shrill androgynous ranters who stand up and harangue the staff and public on racism and sexism, diversity and tolerance, in private dinner parties and family gatherings, are quite probably echoing the exact words of their less deceitful neighbours in wondering how long it will be before there are fewer white people in Camden than blacks, and whether they should consider moving to Dorset. Again, the great demon hypocrisy raises its vile and ugly head. Flies on walls ought to confirm this suspicion, and I'm pretty sure when caught in relaxed states without witnesses I've heard comments to that theme, which in themselves are perfectly reasonable, unless from someone whose entire mission in life is to stop other people from saying it.
Travel restrictions are easily the simplest to observe. Those mountains in the middle of roads from Cornwall to Kirkwall hit the suspension of Porsches and Skodas alike. And buses and ambulances. They fuck up every single journey on the planet where in place, and the only possible explanation I can think of is those who place them on every road in their borough at a cost of around £10,000 each do not drive themselves so have little to affect them directly. But like spraying metal salts in the air to pretend to control the climate, they are breathed in by everyone and their own families so unless you are a fourth dimensional lizard being without human lungs you will also get respiratory and digestive problems like everyone else if you arrange spraying. But everyone uses the roads one way or another, and the delays and damage caused whenever traversing a road so affected also hurts passengers including using public transport. And the widespread idiot brigade trying to ban driving and flying altogether have nearly all been abroad and unless they live in the Antarctic probably use cars nearly every day even if they've ponced someone else to drive them as they won't own one themselves. They can't rely on a minicab if they are injured but not badly enough to get an ambulance, they will have to get themselves to a station or bus stop and hope it's a time when they're even running as some places have no bus after 9pm.
Unfortunately idiocy trumps rock, paper, scissors and even nuclear devices. Nothing, not even personal experience, will shine through the thick fog of stupid. It is not connected with academic ability, as most of the worst culprits have enough letters after their name to form a page of anagrams, but they have no common sense. They are simply very good at learning and repeating facts, but as a teacher myself am very familiar with the set of pupils who can do this but when you try and get them to explain what it is about haven't a clue, and can never fit the small parts into a single picture. Therefore they can easily think that person X has too much money and ought to share it, but even given a mirror they will never in their lives imagine they have more money than X so would lose even more as tax is not selective. They park their BMW in their private space in Camden and then post on Facebook driving cars is destroying the planet, and then go and lobby their friend's friend Ed Miliband to increase the restrictions on car ownership in their manifesto, which will usually be accepted as these people are who get Labour elected if they are catered to.
In the end it is pretty easy to imagine the world of the politically correct anti-success anti-individuality left as we know their views so bloody well it's impossible not to. Taking their most pure or extreme form I come across frequently enough to know if they get in they will go as far as they can, we will end up in a country with:
No cars for private use. A wealth cap. Taxation based on property value. Using banned words will be a criminal offence. Every public (and probably private) office must employ staff representing society as a whole. Racism will be a crime simply by inference, with serious penalties. It will be a crime to state the race of any criminals. Fossil fuel will be banned totally leading to permanent energy rationing. Remaining energy prices will be so high only the people with the most remaining wealth after tax will be able to heat their homes constantly when required. Most if not all foreign businesses will leave the country, leaving many offices empty and vastly raising unemployment. Many people will be employed by the government to constantly scan the internet and publications for dissident speech which, like Russia previously, will be a serious crime. Ultimately a constitution may be drawn up being almost impossible to amend, writing in the new permanent values of society which must be followed at all time. There must be no mentioning of racial differences. Immigration is a universal right. No person is born more talented than any other so must not be treated differently through selective education or tuition. Denying climate change will be a capital offence as more dangerous than murder. It is illegal to be obliged to reveal your birth gender. It will be illegal to document your birth parents as no individual has more rights over a child than another, anyone taking up the responsibility of parenthood automatically becomes that child's parent. No area will be allowed to have a different racial mix relating to the country as a whole, so if an area has a lower number of black people they will be moved into the area until it matches up with the total. The same will apply to every place of work. There will be a universal wealth limit based on the number of times above average income and capital reach, after which everything will be returned to the state.
I've come across nearly every single one of these ideas many many times, and added a few extras of my own (can you tell which they are?), and can guarantee on my family's life not a single person's life would be better had their entire set of well known and expressed wishes been granted by this or any other magic fairy. Not that I'm magic. Or a fairy.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Traditional values are now evil?
It is very sad that in the 21st century anyone with what used to be considered traditional, even family values is not just considered wrong but often evil by the mainstream. What I mean by this is the simple, old-fashioned way of life before the 1960s (not that I was there, but it only slowly began to change a couple of decades after that when I certainly was), where the ideal way of life (although far from exclusive) was a family of parents and children, where the mother stayed at home and looked after the children before they went to school, and then may have worked afterwards but could normally afford not to if they didn't want to. The cleverest children got a free selective education, courtesy of grammar schools, and if clever enough were then able to take a degree and be paid to do so. Granted immigration only began in large numbers from the 70s onwards, and in Britain (whether or not by coincidence) also came with gradual and then more radical changes in our society. Such changes which are not just celebrated by the left, but actually set out as if they are the only way to live, even though we lived very happily long before any such areas were present.
I suppose apart from the policies which affect everyone, such as flooding London and places around with immigrants from anywhere and everywhere, should really be down to personal choice, and if someone wants to live in a family of two men and a transsexual and their children from various means of production it is entirely their business, but there are also studies which may show the optimum environments for raising children which do not include them. Getting rid of grammar schools most definitely destroyed education from that point on, as now unless they are given the money only the rich can now get a decent education. There were also simple pleasures associated, even in London, with a lower density of population. The queues or waiting times for medical and dental appointments and council offices etc were never as long, (although admittedly my surgery did not have appointments so we just went and waited), parking was normally free outside the centre of London, and the roads rarely got jammed besides the old bottlenecks now bridged or tunnelled. Petrol and energy was cheap, electricity prices were almost negligible and car insurance was in two figures. If you'd earned money and saved enough to invest you could get 5-10% interest, which was normally above inflation and if not still provided enough income to select what you spent it on, as inflation is not uniform so can be partly avoided.
Back then the environmental movement was literally protecting animals and keeping the environment clean, something even I would call givens and something society needs to enforce on the less enlightened areas who give neither area any concern. People saved up for cars and holidays and debt was the exception to the rule for the rare expensive item paid for by working in the same job for so long you could rely on meeting the payments in most cases. Only a small minority of students and sociologists criticised the middle class values of the time, wanting to make the best of yourself and improve on the previous generation's position. The far left were considered a fringe on the extreme, who wanted (usually from the highest positions in society they told everyone else were wrong) to remove the differences in wealth and force all poor children to go to the same schools. Somehow, under Harold Wilson and following governments (including Conservatives) these policies became realities, with 98% supertax and the abolition of grammar schools in the early 70s. Margaret Thatcher reversed the high taxation at least, but by then we were deep into the Common Market and losing more and more of our own ability to make national laws.
The academic London left never stop. Having worked in Haringey and Camden, two of the richest and furthest left councils in the entire world, I saw the beginnings of political correctness in the 80s, following the extreme anti-Semitism expressed by fellow students at college in the 70s. Words and attitudes became gradually outlawed, first racial, then social (like 'backward' and 'subnormal') and medical ('mongol', 'spastic', 'cripple' etc), and then extended to covering up bad behaviour by racial groups, as if a high percentage of rapes or muggings were carried out by a certain group it was actually (and still is) attempted in every possible way to hide their racial origins, and then deny it was relevant if not possible to. You then heard of councils deliberately hiding crimes carried out in the ethnic communities, as they didn't want to create divisions and reactions against them. Of course to them keeping the multicultural dream alive was far more important than protecting society from criminals, including a huge gang of organised child molestors who only just began being prosecuted in 2013 after being hidden for years.
What we are now left with is the left wing view of the only way society must be, otherwise described by me as hell.
We are either in or heading towards a country (and any other where the same policies have been adopted) with no dominant racial group in numbers, but each racial group sticking in tightly knit local communities with a minimum amount of interaction with any other group, an education system where only the rich can make the most of their abilities, and then the degrees everyone does get are devalued as they pass half the population even though till the rules were changed only 5% of all students were capable of completing them. This means a generation or more of professionals mainly incompetent in their chosen fields but let through as the standards had been dropped secretly. We are looking towards swathes of professionals and their employees not understanding much of their subjects, making simple errors, and in the case of science and architecture making extremely dangerous miscalculations. Only the better off can afford to drive and travel for pleasure, while more and more people can no longer afford adequate heating. And should anyone dare to complain, whether about how their area hardly has anyone speaking English and how long they have to queue for the doctors while the receptionists are using interpreters for many of the patients, or how they can't afford to visit their families as the costs of transport are too high they are called racists or told not to travel to save the planet.
The Soviets or Chairman Mao could not have created a worse society if they'd sent in all their troops and ordered everyone to integrate at gunpoint, mainly as this revolution has actually distorted people's minds as well as their lives. The longer this situation is maintained the more people actually start believing it is the right way to be, and they join the leaders, nagging people to reduce their carbon footprints and calling anyone who makes the slightest complaint against modern life a racist, homophobe and possibly a murderer. The Russians were also not allowed to speak freely, but it is debatable whether many of the citizens believed much of what Stalin or Brezhnev made them say was true, unlike today's herds.
The socialists and greens would not want to have their money taken from the either, and if anyone dared to block the road when they were driving to their family for Christmas as they had exceeded this year's carbon emissions, they would probably try and fight them as much as every other.
What those at the bottom wish for everyone else will hurt them as much as everyone else, the Russian Communist party members did not suffer from the poverty or lack of freedom of the masses, neither do Al Gore or Chris Huhne suffer the same restrictions they legislated on everyone else. None of the Greenpeace elite, UN committee members, climate professors or London council leaders will suffer much of the policies they are imposing on us, as they make the rules they can make the loopholes. So by betting against the market they can own wind farms, collect carbon credits, and basically suck all the money out of society everyone else is forced to hand over for themselves. That is why supposedly left wing green activists will force severe restrictions on everyone else's lives as most if not all will benefit from it directly, otherwise why would they create a hell on earth unless they were immune and exempt from it? Now it makes perfect sense.
I suppose apart from the policies which affect everyone, such as flooding London and places around with immigrants from anywhere and everywhere, should really be down to personal choice, and if someone wants to live in a family of two men and a transsexual and their children from various means of production it is entirely their business, but there are also studies which may show the optimum environments for raising children which do not include them. Getting rid of grammar schools most definitely destroyed education from that point on, as now unless they are given the money only the rich can now get a decent education. There were also simple pleasures associated, even in London, with a lower density of population. The queues or waiting times for medical and dental appointments and council offices etc were never as long, (although admittedly my surgery did not have appointments so we just went and waited), parking was normally free outside the centre of London, and the roads rarely got jammed besides the old bottlenecks now bridged or tunnelled. Petrol and energy was cheap, electricity prices were almost negligible and car insurance was in two figures. If you'd earned money and saved enough to invest you could get 5-10% interest, which was normally above inflation and if not still provided enough income to select what you spent it on, as inflation is not uniform so can be partly avoided.
Back then the environmental movement was literally protecting animals and keeping the environment clean, something even I would call givens and something society needs to enforce on the less enlightened areas who give neither area any concern. People saved up for cars and holidays and debt was the exception to the rule for the rare expensive item paid for by working in the same job for so long you could rely on meeting the payments in most cases. Only a small minority of students and sociologists criticised the middle class values of the time, wanting to make the best of yourself and improve on the previous generation's position. The far left were considered a fringe on the extreme, who wanted (usually from the highest positions in society they told everyone else were wrong) to remove the differences in wealth and force all poor children to go to the same schools. Somehow, under Harold Wilson and following governments (including Conservatives) these policies became realities, with 98% supertax and the abolition of grammar schools in the early 70s. Margaret Thatcher reversed the high taxation at least, but by then we were deep into the Common Market and losing more and more of our own ability to make national laws.
The academic London left never stop. Having worked in Haringey and Camden, two of the richest and furthest left councils in the entire world, I saw the beginnings of political correctness in the 80s, following the extreme anti-Semitism expressed by fellow students at college in the 70s. Words and attitudes became gradually outlawed, first racial, then social (like 'backward' and 'subnormal') and medical ('mongol', 'spastic', 'cripple' etc), and then extended to covering up bad behaviour by racial groups, as if a high percentage of rapes or muggings were carried out by a certain group it was actually (and still is) attempted in every possible way to hide their racial origins, and then deny it was relevant if not possible to. You then heard of councils deliberately hiding crimes carried out in the ethnic communities, as they didn't want to create divisions and reactions against them. Of course to them keeping the multicultural dream alive was far more important than protecting society from criminals, including a huge gang of organised child molestors who only just began being prosecuted in 2013 after being hidden for years.
What we are now left with is the left wing view of the only way society must be, otherwise described by me as hell.
We are either in or heading towards a country (and any other where the same policies have been adopted) with no dominant racial group in numbers, but each racial group sticking in tightly knit local communities with a minimum amount of interaction with any other group, an education system where only the rich can make the most of their abilities, and then the degrees everyone does get are devalued as they pass half the population even though till the rules were changed only 5% of all students were capable of completing them. This means a generation or more of professionals mainly incompetent in their chosen fields but let through as the standards had been dropped secretly. We are looking towards swathes of professionals and their employees not understanding much of their subjects, making simple errors, and in the case of science and architecture making extremely dangerous miscalculations. Only the better off can afford to drive and travel for pleasure, while more and more people can no longer afford adequate heating. And should anyone dare to complain, whether about how their area hardly has anyone speaking English and how long they have to queue for the doctors while the receptionists are using interpreters for many of the patients, or how they can't afford to visit their families as the costs of transport are too high they are called racists or told not to travel to save the planet.
The Soviets or Chairman Mao could not have created a worse society if they'd sent in all their troops and ordered everyone to integrate at gunpoint, mainly as this revolution has actually distorted people's minds as well as their lives. The longer this situation is maintained the more people actually start believing it is the right way to be, and they join the leaders, nagging people to reduce their carbon footprints and calling anyone who makes the slightest complaint against modern life a racist, homophobe and possibly a murderer. The Russians were also not allowed to speak freely, but it is debatable whether many of the citizens believed much of what Stalin or Brezhnev made them say was true, unlike today's herds.
The socialists and greens would not want to have their money taken from the either, and if anyone dared to block the road when they were driving to their family for Christmas as they had exceeded this year's carbon emissions, they would probably try and fight them as much as every other.
What those at the bottom wish for everyone else will hurt them as much as everyone else, the Russian Communist party members did not suffer from the poverty or lack of freedom of the masses, neither do Al Gore or Chris Huhne suffer the same restrictions they legislated on everyone else. None of the Greenpeace elite, UN committee members, climate professors or London council leaders will suffer much of the policies they are imposing on us, as they make the rules they can make the loopholes. So by betting against the market they can own wind farms, collect carbon credits, and basically suck all the money out of society everyone else is forced to hand over for themselves. That is why supposedly left wing green activists will force severe restrictions on everyone else's lives as most if not all will benefit from it directly, otherwise why would they create a hell on earth unless they were immune and exempt from it? Now it makes perfect sense.
Getting in the way
Throughout history, there has been a consistent theme in both spiritual and natural teaching, of the evil enemy doing all they can to stop you from becoming more capable so their tricks no longer work on you. This can be from the simplest level of ignorance of vital knowledge to preventing your enlightenment meaning you are no longer subject to temptation from the dark side. Either way, there are a heck of a lot of people around us the whole time intent on destroying our personal development as it threatens their power over us.
My new blog the Information Revolution deals with as much of the natural political side I can, which basically teaches anyone who cares to read it the tricks our lords and masters use to try and make us believe any old shit in order so they can offer the painful but vital solution to remedy it. Ones which coincidentally make them incredibly rich and successful and paid for by those supposed to be being protected by them. There is a 100% difference between protecting someone from harm, and a protection racket, and these sods are simply running the same protection rackets since day one in never ending variations of 'Pay us and your house won't burn down' type insurance policies.
Spiritual teachings uses the dark side entities which are meant to block every chance we have of developing our senses beyond the physical as they will no longer be able to mess with those who do. Now having practised such abilities for over 20 years they are definitely real, to what extent I can only go by what I have been taught, but assuming they can increase infinitely (as we are infinite in our ultimate nature) some teach that those who are already able to do this do not want the competition and will do all they can to keep every single person back who is working to do so. Whether or not they can is another matter, my area of interest is they clearly want to, in all areas of life, as in running this race they would prefer to maim the opposition than win it fairly. The second point all tyrants miss is other people's success can not stop our own as we are all running a personal race to our own goals, which are not the same for any two people as we are all different. There are enough women for every man, so stopping one person from having one you want does not mean they will want you, or there are not thousands more who would suit you equally. If someone you know makes millions it does not mean there is less left for you or others, but ask any socialist and that is exactly what they believe, so they work to stop you from succeeding financially as they genuinely imagine if any individual amasses 'too much money' (whatever amount that may be) it genuinely takes it from others, as if there is only a certain fixed amount of wealth ever created to be shared around.
Of course every motivation to block the success of others in any way is deluded, but human, and if you believe it, applies to evil spirits as well. Either way they all share one thing, they want to stop their competition by all possible means. Whether it's a mother telling their son their girlfriend rang to say she's dumped you (as she doesn't approve of her), or Al Gore asking you (no, telling you) for your money to stop global warming (which made him a billionaire), they want to succeed at your expense, and believe unless you also fail they cannot complete their own personal mission. Such delusions will mean along your road to success every so often you will come across some of these characters, and what they all have in common is nothing they say or do is motivated by the truth. The entire foundation of their plan is to destroy the perceived enemy, which may be you, and even though nothing they stop you from doing will make a single difference to their actual lives, they believe if you get whatever it is you are working towards it will hold them back as a direct result.
So, going back to the spiritual, if invisible entities are all around us making our lives go wrong, then being able to see them and communicate with them would stop it happening as we would become aware of it. Whether or not this really happens it is part of the oldest teachings around, and is the identical mechanism whether operated by Al Gore or Satan himself, some would ask what's the actual difference anyway. I am pointing this phenomenon out, in all its variations, so next time you want to go on holiday and you find the flight has doubled in price due to green taxes it's old Satan again trying to keep the masses where he can keep an eye on them and not getting around enjoying their freedom. Yes, it's utterly mental, and many companies end up losing money as it stops more people affording flights at all, but it's in their minds they need to tax you to carry out their mission. There have been so many films made where the police have tried to stop the cars of people trying to stop their girl from marrying someone else in time, or get to a dying relative, and the efforts made by the drivers to avoid them doing so, all based on the imaginary belief that person is a threat to the powers that be and must be stopped at every cost.
Cuba and China, as well as the old USSR did this on a grand scale, and set examples for the EU today. Why else would they be gradually banning cars in cities as well as already limiting the use of commercial vehicles, putting many self employed people out of business. Technically it's far more likely the motivation is they don't want so many people travelling freely (don't try and ask why, you end up going as mad as they are if you try to figure out their actual reasons), but has always been a major part of totalitarian forces worldwide. The London Congestion Charge stops people seeing friends and family, my neighbour can't take his son to stay with his grandma during the day in the holidays as he can't afford it, and this entirely immoral and worthless charge has guaranteed to be a block in the route of everyone now unable to afford to get to where they want to as the added amount puts it over the point of managing to.
That is why I value my freedom over everything else. How many times have you been desperate to get somewhere or get something and the road has been blocked by some pointless road works or the police who have shut the road for half the day after an accident even though it's already happened and working out exactly whose fault it is won't fix it either way? Then you realise many if not most of these blockages were not necessary, as the police could have simply moved all the damaged vehicles out of the way and used their knowledge to pin down the likely causes without hours of dusting the road with fingerprint powder and rubbing it with carbon paper. The road works need not normally cover two lanes when they are either only working on one, or not working at all but don't bother to remove the cones at night even when the roads behind them are usable. After about 50% (and probably quite a bit less), the amount taken in tax reduces as the rate rises, as people leave, work less and find ways to avoid paying. Therefore, by proven economic tests, any tax rate over 50%, as in present day France, is no more than a vindictive act against the very people making the national economy healthy, as everyone in power already knows it will take less than it did when lower.
Our entire lives will be a constant path of dodging people intent on blocking us. But every body and plant grows anyway, and although they can cut off our limbs they cannot shut our minds, so however hard they work to stop you developing both mentally and spiritually, technically if you are prepared for it then nothing they try will have any effect. If you meditate and accept it will work, then any attempts from outside forces will bounce off as you are protecting yourself against them. That would work even if such forces do not exist, as you will still be fully open to everything that could happen simply by knowing there is no force able to prevent it happening. Whether you believe in the spiritual or not, we all have the right to develop ourselves fully, and if not doing it by harming others, then in the very short time we have on this earth then no one should have the right to stop our means of progress. So whether it's stopping you from travelling, being with a certain partner, amassing wealth, finding out information you need (no one has the right to withhold information as it belongs to all of us), meeting your real parents, basically anything and everything some bugger will always try to stop you getting anything you really need or should have, it is both immoral, wrong and of absolutely no actual benefit to the person trying to stop you. What do the police get from seeing people die of a heart attack as the vehicle they were in cannot get to a hospital in time, or the council from slowing ambulances to 20mph with endless road humps? What benefit is it to your parents when they finally break up your marriage to someone they don't approve of? How much better off are the Occupy protestors in France now the rich have to pay 75% tax than they were before?
Answer to all, a big fat zero. But that simple fact has and will never stop them doing it anyway, so be aware, alert and ready to push through the barriers they will put up for you, and tell anyone else you see it being done to as well. No one has the right to interfere with other's lives, not even politicians, as officially they are working to help us do what we want and how we want to live, not how they want us to. Not in a democracy anyway, and if that's not the way it works where you live then it's not a democracy whatever system they use.
My new blog the Information Revolution deals with as much of the natural political side I can, which basically teaches anyone who cares to read it the tricks our lords and masters use to try and make us believe any old shit in order so they can offer the painful but vital solution to remedy it. Ones which coincidentally make them incredibly rich and successful and paid for by those supposed to be being protected by them. There is a 100% difference between protecting someone from harm, and a protection racket, and these sods are simply running the same protection rackets since day one in never ending variations of 'Pay us and your house won't burn down' type insurance policies.
Spiritual teachings uses the dark side entities which are meant to block every chance we have of developing our senses beyond the physical as they will no longer be able to mess with those who do. Now having practised such abilities for over 20 years they are definitely real, to what extent I can only go by what I have been taught, but assuming they can increase infinitely (as we are infinite in our ultimate nature) some teach that those who are already able to do this do not want the competition and will do all they can to keep every single person back who is working to do so. Whether or not they can is another matter, my area of interest is they clearly want to, in all areas of life, as in running this race they would prefer to maim the opposition than win it fairly. The second point all tyrants miss is other people's success can not stop our own as we are all running a personal race to our own goals, which are not the same for any two people as we are all different. There are enough women for every man, so stopping one person from having one you want does not mean they will want you, or there are not thousands more who would suit you equally. If someone you know makes millions it does not mean there is less left for you or others, but ask any socialist and that is exactly what they believe, so they work to stop you from succeeding financially as they genuinely imagine if any individual amasses 'too much money' (whatever amount that may be) it genuinely takes it from others, as if there is only a certain fixed amount of wealth ever created to be shared around.
Of course every motivation to block the success of others in any way is deluded, but human, and if you believe it, applies to evil spirits as well. Either way they all share one thing, they want to stop their competition by all possible means. Whether it's a mother telling their son their girlfriend rang to say she's dumped you (as she doesn't approve of her), or Al Gore asking you (no, telling you) for your money to stop global warming (which made him a billionaire), they want to succeed at your expense, and believe unless you also fail they cannot complete their own personal mission. Such delusions will mean along your road to success every so often you will come across some of these characters, and what they all have in common is nothing they say or do is motivated by the truth. The entire foundation of their plan is to destroy the perceived enemy, which may be you, and even though nothing they stop you from doing will make a single difference to their actual lives, they believe if you get whatever it is you are working towards it will hold them back as a direct result.
So, going back to the spiritual, if invisible entities are all around us making our lives go wrong, then being able to see them and communicate with them would stop it happening as we would become aware of it. Whether or not this really happens it is part of the oldest teachings around, and is the identical mechanism whether operated by Al Gore or Satan himself, some would ask what's the actual difference anyway. I am pointing this phenomenon out, in all its variations, so next time you want to go on holiday and you find the flight has doubled in price due to green taxes it's old Satan again trying to keep the masses where he can keep an eye on them and not getting around enjoying their freedom. Yes, it's utterly mental, and many companies end up losing money as it stops more people affording flights at all, but it's in their minds they need to tax you to carry out their mission. There have been so many films made where the police have tried to stop the cars of people trying to stop their girl from marrying someone else in time, or get to a dying relative, and the efforts made by the drivers to avoid them doing so, all based on the imaginary belief that person is a threat to the powers that be and must be stopped at every cost.
Cuba and China, as well as the old USSR did this on a grand scale, and set examples for the EU today. Why else would they be gradually banning cars in cities as well as already limiting the use of commercial vehicles, putting many self employed people out of business. Technically it's far more likely the motivation is they don't want so many people travelling freely (don't try and ask why, you end up going as mad as they are if you try to figure out their actual reasons), but has always been a major part of totalitarian forces worldwide. The London Congestion Charge stops people seeing friends and family, my neighbour can't take his son to stay with his grandma during the day in the holidays as he can't afford it, and this entirely immoral and worthless charge has guaranteed to be a block in the route of everyone now unable to afford to get to where they want to as the added amount puts it over the point of managing to.
That is why I value my freedom over everything else. How many times have you been desperate to get somewhere or get something and the road has been blocked by some pointless road works or the police who have shut the road for half the day after an accident even though it's already happened and working out exactly whose fault it is won't fix it either way? Then you realise many if not most of these blockages were not necessary, as the police could have simply moved all the damaged vehicles out of the way and used their knowledge to pin down the likely causes without hours of dusting the road with fingerprint powder and rubbing it with carbon paper. The road works need not normally cover two lanes when they are either only working on one, or not working at all but don't bother to remove the cones at night even when the roads behind them are usable. After about 50% (and probably quite a bit less), the amount taken in tax reduces as the rate rises, as people leave, work less and find ways to avoid paying. Therefore, by proven economic tests, any tax rate over 50%, as in present day France, is no more than a vindictive act against the very people making the national economy healthy, as everyone in power already knows it will take less than it did when lower.
Our entire lives will be a constant path of dodging people intent on blocking us. But every body and plant grows anyway, and although they can cut off our limbs they cannot shut our minds, so however hard they work to stop you developing both mentally and spiritually, technically if you are prepared for it then nothing they try will have any effect. If you meditate and accept it will work, then any attempts from outside forces will bounce off as you are protecting yourself against them. That would work even if such forces do not exist, as you will still be fully open to everything that could happen simply by knowing there is no force able to prevent it happening. Whether you believe in the spiritual or not, we all have the right to develop ourselves fully, and if not doing it by harming others, then in the very short time we have on this earth then no one should have the right to stop our means of progress. So whether it's stopping you from travelling, being with a certain partner, amassing wealth, finding out information you need (no one has the right to withhold information as it belongs to all of us), meeting your real parents, basically anything and everything some bugger will always try to stop you getting anything you really need or should have, it is both immoral, wrong and of absolutely no actual benefit to the person trying to stop you. What do the police get from seeing people die of a heart attack as the vehicle they were in cannot get to a hospital in time, or the council from slowing ambulances to 20mph with endless road humps? What benefit is it to your parents when they finally break up your marriage to someone they don't approve of? How much better off are the Occupy protestors in France now the rich have to pay 75% tax than they were before?
Answer to all, a big fat zero. But that simple fact has and will never stop them doing it anyway, so be aware, alert and ready to push through the barriers they will put up for you, and tell anyone else you see it being done to as well. No one has the right to interfere with other's lives, not even politicians, as officially they are working to help us do what we want and how we want to live, not how they want us to. Not in a democracy anyway, and if that's not the way it works where you live then it's not a democracy whatever system they use.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Science and politics part 2
This is such a massive subject the trends I've been watching recently mean it deserves an entire new entry. I know for certain, 100%, that a height chart needs no interpretation. You measure a person, you may have to convert it to and from metric, and everyone knows if they'll fit under a door or not. No questions at all. If someone is ill then you take their temperature, again maybe needing to convert to or from Centigrade, and you know if they're well or not, impossible to interpret. Any extension of measurements anywhere in nature is direct or indirect, but only either known or estimated. But not contentious.
Then we get to the climate. It is exactly the same as all above. No difference at all. But the people who believe in global warming nearly all fall into the left wing, and as such both accuse those not convinced and have the compliment returned of being on the other side politically. Just because an ideological group has become enamoured with a theory does not make it a political theory. Measuring scientific data will always be the same, whatever you are measuring. So assigning a political wing to physical data is anthropomorhism, only more so than with living things, but to totally dead lifeless objects. No, the rocks and sky cannot sing, or the sea cannot cry, they are dead inanimate physical material incapable of awareness, life or emotions, so no, what they are doing is not possible to interpret in sociological and psychological terms any more than suggesting a high temperature from the flu is a communist plot.
But this is exactly what the fighters on both sides have begun to do, they have fallen in a trap with absolutely no substance or value to it, and pointlessly expending energy on imagining the climate somehow is a political issue no different to socialism or fascism. So the climate can think, organise itself consciously and be manipulated depending on who is in power? Surely if it is a political issue it can only mean the climate is something subject to societal choice just like wages, taxes and curbing environmental pollution?
I suppose the one clue here is the believers assume (there is no proof as such) that because 'big business' and its offshoots have caused the climate to change, then those against capitalism will literally believe free enterprise has wrecked the climate, so as the guilty party must be curbed and punished, as it now is. But it is not a political issue, either CO2 is dangerous to the climate or it is not. How it got there is irrelevant, if it was from volcanoes or outer space then there would be no way to imagine it was part of the political system any more than the rain is now, but because of the most tenuous of links between big business creating the added CO2 and suggested wrecking of the climate the fly got into the transporter and the science is now tainted irredemably with fly DNA, if anyone has watched the film of that name.
But take the fly out of the equation and imagine CO2 had risen either naturally or inexplicably, and we'd all be observers, curious but only the weaker minded concerned about the consequences, as if the temperature hadn't risen very much after a 50% rise then we could all breathe a sigh of relief and get back to business as usual, as it has. But apparently just because this CO2 has 3% from man made energy usage (that's all that is man made, not much actually) that is enough to cause a scientific issue to have become tainted with the poisonous element of politics despite still being a dead scientific issue regardless of the cause. I am aware telling big business not to do its thing is indeed extremely political, but that is just the knee jerk response of, unfortunately, the left, who have been hooked into this accidentally as for the first time ever the western powers are now using policies they had been advocating from the fringes for centuries. Only the extreme left have made an issue as physical as the weight of their testicles into something designed to destroy western society and its values and use science to justify their existing wishes which could never have come into being without a totally unconnected reason which they now have.
But shift things around in any way you like and climate and other physical measurements can and will only ever be dead science, and anyone who says more should be sent to reeducation camps until they learn better.
Then we get to the climate. It is exactly the same as all above. No difference at all. But the people who believe in global warming nearly all fall into the left wing, and as such both accuse those not convinced and have the compliment returned of being on the other side politically. Just because an ideological group has become enamoured with a theory does not make it a political theory. Measuring scientific data will always be the same, whatever you are measuring. So assigning a political wing to physical data is anthropomorhism, only more so than with living things, but to totally dead lifeless objects. No, the rocks and sky cannot sing, or the sea cannot cry, they are dead inanimate physical material incapable of awareness, life or emotions, so no, what they are doing is not possible to interpret in sociological and psychological terms any more than suggesting a high temperature from the flu is a communist plot.
But this is exactly what the fighters on both sides have begun to do, they have fallen in a trap with absolutely no substance or value to it, and pointlessly expending energy on imagining the climate somehow is a political issue no different to socialism or fascism. So the climate can think, organise itself consciously and be manipulated depending on who is in power? Surely if it is a political issue it can only mean the climate is something subject to societal choice just like wages, taxes and curbing environmental pollution?
I suppose the one clue here is the believers assume (there is no proof as such) that because 'big business' and its offshoots have caused the climate to change, then those against capitalism will literally believe free enterprise has wrecked the climate, so as the guilty party must be curbed and punished, as it now is. But it is not a political issue, either CO2 is dangerous to the climate or it is not. How it got there is irrelevant, if it was from volcanoes or outer space then there would be no way to imagine it was part of the political system any more than the rain is now, but because of the most tenuous of links between big business creating the added CO2 and suggested wrecking of the climate the fly got into the transporter and the science is now tainted irredemably with fly DNA, if anyone has watched the film of that name.
But take the fly out of the equation and imagine CO2 had risen either naturally or inexplicably, and we'd all be observers, curious but only the weaker minded concerned about the consequences, as if the temperature hadn't risen very much after a 50% rise then we could all breathe a sigh of relief and get back to business as usual, as it has. But apparently just because this CO2 has 3% from man made energy usage (that's all that is man made, not much actually) that is enough to cause a scientific issue to have become tainted with the poisonous element of politics despite still being a dead scientific issue regardless of the cause. I am aware telling big business not to do its thing is indeed extremely political, but that is just the knee jerk response of, unfortunately, the left, who have been hooked into this accidentally as for the first time ever the western powers are now using policies they had been advocating from the fringes for centuries. Only the extreme left have made an issue as physical as the weight of their testicles into something designed to destroy western society and its values and use science to justify their existing wishes which could never have come into being without a totally unconnected reason which they now have.
But shift things around in any way you like and climate and other physical measurements can and will only ever be dead science, and anyone who says more should be sent to reeducation camps until they learn better.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Fear and loathing in 2013
I have never held back from speaking my mind, and seen through simple tricks for most of my life, with the most violent reaction being from a magician on the radio in around 1980 when I rang up and explained how he did his trick. No, he didn't congratulate me for being clever, he thought I was a magician and trying to ruin him.
30 years later I have never in my life received such a constant and consistent reaction whenever I point out global warming is totally unproven. They are so paralysed with fear and trust in authority they can't see or follow the data itself, just the generalities without any of the details (or lack of) behind them. This is a psychological assault of unprecedented scale, and one which has already begun to destroy society as we know it.
From children mistrusting their parents as schools teach them about their carbon footprints, friends I've known since childhood questioning and turning away from me, all represent a worldwide phenomenon against people immune from basic stinking bullcrap from the vast majority who suck it up like infinite sponges. Nothing factual gets through, they have a wall of fear and nothing can enter unless from the same people who told them it was happening. But what exactly is happening?
CO2 has risen by 50% since 1850. Temperatures have risen almost 0.8C in the same period. The UN claim at 2C the obvious advantages from warming will be outweighed by the problems, and they have created nothing more than incredibly long term forecasts finishing after we're all dead in 2100. The CO2 can't add more than 1C on its own, so relies on positive feedbacks, mainly ocean evaporation, and the CO2 and humidity has to settle in the specific atmospheric bands to work, or nothing can happen, and if the water forms clouds instead it will be cooling instead.
The forecasts were made in the 90s, we've had 20-25 years to see their accuracy, and the simple diagram finally released by the press this year showed we are on the bottom edge of their lowest forecasts. The experiment is half run and removing the existing warming there is zero amplification. Cloud cover has increased and CO2 is replacing water vapour, thus two negative feedbacks have been discovered. Aerosol dirt and cloud cover, both major coolants from natural and man made sources in the case of dirt pollution are not included in the models, not because they are cheating, but the simpler answer is they are too complex to model. So by making models leaving out the coolants and overestimating the warming from everything else, what else could happen except overestimating the warming in real life?
Not content with a physical experiment's results from direct observations, the believers/followers have now reverted to soothsaying, claiming the models say it may cross 2C in 2100 so we can't stop trusting them. They do not know what positive feedback is, let alone what causes it, and they don't want to. They just listen to their elders and betters and when someone like them, ie a peer (peer review in fact) tells them the experiment is almost over and done, they call you a baby killer and racist. Why? Because instead of doing what we were all taught in school to follow the facts, present all the elements and draw a conclusion, they do the same as in North Korea and China and follow their leaders without question, as they are qualified, and 'why would they want to lie to us?'. The fact interest rates are kept low and they tell us it's helping the economy as house prices are rising and they believe that as well pretty well illustrates how colder winters are now caused by global warming.
Intelligence is not even a protection, as many academics believe this implicitly, maybe as academic prowess only partly overlaps with IQ, so does not either always require a high IQ or converted from those with high IQs to excellent results. Therefore we have many hard working not very bright academics, trusting in the same way as 'how could thousands of scientists cheat worldwide?' attitude which allowed Dr Harold Shipman to quietly murder pensioners for years. As long as the heavy bottom of the pyramid remains unawoken, they will not be immune to illusions but immune to facts. The latest trick NOAA, the US official meterological agency have pulled off is altering the temperature data dropping the last 30 years down (after raising the later 20 years up already) to recreate a rise on paper, despite today's actual temperature being identical. Who even noticed?
It would be bad enough if people blindly accepted projections 110 years ahead in 1990 with no evidence you can predict complex systems (as you can't), but to still totally trust them over 20 years later when they were clearly wrong is to me another reason for God to come down and flood the earth, wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah or send Jonah to sort out Nineveh. The world has hit an all time low, with idiots drooling in every continent and taking their knives out for those who dare to question the almighty Al Gore, that great climatologist with so much more knowledge and experience than the rest put together, except, he's just a politician who has used global warming to become a billionaire. But they'll never get it.
30 years later I have never in my life received such a constant and consistent reaction whenever I point out global warming is totally unproven. They are so paralysed with fear and trust in authority they can't see or follow the data itself, just the generalities without any of the details (or lack of) behind them. This is a psychological assault of unprecedented scale, and one which has already begun to destroy society as we know it.
From children mistrusting their parents as schools teach them about their carbon footprints, friends I've known since childhood questioning and turning away from me, all represent a worldwide phenomenon against people immune from basic stinking bullcrap from the vast majority who suck it up like infinite sponges. Nothing factual gets through, they have a wall of fear and nothing can enter unless from the same people who told them it was happening. But what exactly is happening?
CO2 has risen by 50% since 1850. Temperatures have risen almost 0.8C in the same period. The UN claim at 2C the obvious advantages from warming will be outweighed by the problems, and they have created nothing more than incredibly long term forecasts finishing after we're all dead in 2100. The CO2 can't add more than 1C on its own, so relies on positive feedbacks, mainly ocean evaporation, and the CO2 and humidity has to settle in the specific atmospheric bands to work, or nothing can happen, and if the water forms clouds instead it will be cooling instead.
The forecasts were made in the 90s, we've had 20-25 years to see their accuracy, and the simple diagram finally released by the press this year showed we are on the bottom edge of their lowest forecasts. The experiment is half run and removing the existing warming there is zero amplification. Cloud cover has increased and CO2 is replacing water vapour, thus two negative feedbacks have been discovered. Aerosol dirt and cloud cover, both major coolants from natural and man made sources in the case of dirt pollution are not included in the models, not because they are cheating, but the simpler answer is they are too complex to model. So by making models leaving out the coolants and overestimating the warming from everything else, what else could happen except overestimating the warming in real life?
Not content with a physical experiment's results from direct observations, the believers/followers have now reverted to soothsaying, claiming the models say it may cross 2C in 2100 so we can't stop trusting them. They do not know what positive feedback is, let alone what causes it, and they don't want to. They just listen to their elders and betters and when someone like them, ie a peer (peer review in fact) tells them the experiment is almost over and done, they call you a baby killer and racist. Why? Because instead of doing what we were all taught in school to follow the facts, present all the elements and draw a conclusion, they do the same as in North Korea and China and follow their leaders without question, as they are qualified, and 'why would they want to lie to us?'. The fact interest rates are kept low and they tell us it's helping the economy as house prices are rising and they believe that as well pretty well illustrates how colder winters are now caused by global warming.
Intelligence is not even a protection, as many academics believe this implicitly, maybe as academic prowess only partly overlaps with IQ, so does not either always require a high IQ or converted from those with high IQs to excellent results. Therefore we have many hard working not very bright academics, trusting in the same way as 'how could thousands of scientists cheat worldwide?' attitude which allowed Dr Harold Shipman to quietly murder pensioners for years. As long as the heavy bottom of the pyramid remains unawoken, they will not be immune to illusions but immune to facts. The latest trick NOAA, the US official meterological agency have pulled off is altering the temperature data dropping the last 30 years down (after raising the later 20 years up already) to recreate a rise on paper, despite today's actual temperature being identical. Who even noticed?
It would be bad enough if people blindly accepted projections 110 years ahead in 1990 with no evidence you can predict complex systems (as you can't), but to still totally trust them over 20 years later when they were clearly wrong is to me another reason for God to come down and flood the earth, wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah or send Jonah to sort out Nineveh. The world has hit an all time low, with idiots drooling in every continent and taking their knives out for those who dare to question the almighty Al Gore, that great climatologist with so much more knowledge and experience than the rest put together, except, he's just a politician who has used global warming to become a billionaire. But they'll never get it.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Max Keiser's second (?) career
Max Keiser on global warming alarmism
"MK: My interest in AGW is economic. The science debate ended 20 years ago. The deniers lost. AGW is now accelerating and the costs are skyrocketing. Pension costs as indicated in link, climate migrants, insurance market collapse, etc. are out of control. Carbon trading and carbon taxes are just diversions and will never cover the cost of AGW. You never hear me talking about them because it’s too late for either carbon taxes or carbon trading (carbon trading could work by the way, check out the history of sulphur trading and acid rain). If you thought you were poor now, wait another five years. Welcome to the reservation. Buying Silver en masse will destroy the banks and give us a medium of exchange to rebuild society from scratch. Humanity 1.0 is finished."
Max Keiser slates global warming deniers
That's one hell of an academic article, worthy of peer review and publication in 'Science'
What's this, has he seen the light? Profiting from climate change
Who knows? He didn't write it
Climate change, more dangerous than terrorism
These are not the work of either a genuine economist, whistle blower or fighter of fraud. And he really can't add up, or quote scientific titles, let alone abstracts and direct quotes from papers.
My trust is melting like the ice isn't.
"MK: My interest in AGW is economic. The science debate ended 20 years ago. The deniers lost. AGW is now accelerating and the costs are skyrocketing. Pension costs as indicated in link, climate migrants, insurance market collapse, etc. are out of control. Carbon trading and carbon taxes are just diversions and will never cover the cost of AGW. You never hear me talking about them because it’s too late for either carbon taxes or carbon trading (carbon trading could work by the way, check out the history of sulphur trading and acid rain). If you thought you were poor now, wait another five years. Welcome to the reservation. Buying Silver en masse will destroy the banks and give us a medium of exchange to rebuild society from scratch. Humanity 1.0 is finished."
Max Keiser slates global warming deniers
Climate change researchers have been able to attribute recent examples of extreme weather to the effects of human activity on the planet’s climate systems for the first time, marking a major step forward in climate research."
That's one hell of an academic article, worthy of peer review and publication in 'Science'
What's this, has he seen the light? Profiting from climate change
Who knows? He didn't write it
Climate change, more dangerous than terrorism
These are not the work of either a genuine economist, whistle blower or fighter of fraud. And he really can't add up, or quote scientific titles, let alone abstracts and direct quotes from papers.
My trust is melting like the ice isn't.
Max Keiser, an enigma wrapped in a conundrum
I have been following Max Keiser a few years now, and he has taught me all I need to know about 21st century economics, which is absolutely accurate. But in his position, what would I do? I totally agree knowledge in itself is power, and he is indeed, as his programme claims, spreading the truth about markets. But given the privilege for both him and his guests to share a platform internationally to share the details of international organised fraud and not actually do any more than offer a solution than invest in gold, silver, and (spit) bitcoins, and boycott selected companies, is not exactly my idea of power. The gold he tipped for $6000 started well, shooting up from $300 to $1500 before it plateaued, which he claims is by market manipulation, but then again had I been employed in economics I would have realised the forthcoming credit crash I knew would happen would mean cash being diverted to commodities, the first always being gold, with consequent direct price rises through sudden demand.
I will also bring another mentor in here, LBC's Anthony Davis, who firstly confirmed every single person has the right to see through the errors (deliberate or otherwise) of professionals through the higher quality of common sense. He created (with me) the Information Revolution when he asked what we'd do to create a revolution, and that was my response. So to complete the circle he also told me Max Keiser's NYU education was not in economics, which he learned afterwards on the job, but drama. He is not on TV because he is an economist, but an actor. That in itself does not disqualify him, me, Anthony or anyone else from speaking the truth about other professions but does mean maybe his width of knowledge is nowhere near as great as you'd have had he actually been an economist. So, he is not an economist, but at least he has worked in the markets on Wall Street and seen the inherent fraud within and used its exposure to create a unique career.
But his knowledge is focussed like a professionals', narrow and specific. Outside his narrow band of expertise, he is a klutz. A lowest of the low sheep who is no less ignorant as the dumb fucks who both voted Obama in a second time, but call 'racist' every time he is criticised. He is down in the sewers with all the idiots, unless, even worse, he is one of the leaders pretending on TV to be a dumb sheep and poison millions of trusting minds every time he opens his mouth outside his narrow field of market fraud. Yes, I mean science. He and Stacey, Mrs Keiser, are a two person Janus, a two faced monster making claims of the lowest possible quality about the planet heating up, melting ice, frying, and all the other Hansenisms based on data which never existed at all, let alone happened and stopped.
So either they are both as thick as their victims, which doesn't seem right as they are neither liberal or left, he appears to be a centre-right Democrat or thereabouts, a capitalist who is not intent on destroying western capitalism which is all global warming was ever about, or part of the problem. Logic dictates the likelihood anyone capable of such insight in a field not exactly within his own study is unlikely to be so ignorant to doing sums in science which don't add up either? If he is not as thick as two short planks and unable to work out exactly what he worked out is being done to the economy is happening in science it would make little sense. So more likely he is using his power not to sort out the economic fraud, but use it to divert attention from the scientific driven economic fraud. ie don't hand your money over to the Gambini clan, but to the Obama clan. Same organisation, different beneficiary.
Logically there is little other conclusion. Unless he genuinely can't add up 0.7C and relate it to the world ice coverage, and realise the energy involved is unable to do anything anyone can measure with certainty, he knows perfectly well, and wants the 'solution' to be to divert our cash from the bankers to the illuminati, Rockefeller's boys running the biggest game in town. They have more money than their family could spend in eternity, so it's not the cash but making everyone else poor to then control them in slavery. Don't ask me why, as Henry Kissinger said, we need to reduce the population by 80% as life will be so much better for those remaining. Fine as long as you're not the person choosing the 80% and dealing with it. More than that is not needed to know except people have wanted to run the world since Genesis and still do. It doesn't need to be rational as well.
Of course this is only a theory, but there are only two possible answers and I leave it to you to decide. But surely, if I or anyone actually wishing not just to expose the fraud, but remove it, which in five years has not happened, simply standing by and commentating on how much they have stolen and who from every three days is not really constructive. And then (he wouldn't do it much or it would become obvious and detract from his personal field) drop global warming every few months, using the lowest possible standard of claims to do so which no one outside the people who believe it is possible to know what will happen in 2100 (yes, it's many millions, god help us), and everyone else realises is bogus. He can add up. If he can add up he knows his climate claims are bogus as he would be reading numbers off a calculator and quoting others, which is dishonest.
So, to be charitable, let's say he is so blinded by fear of nothing (he won't be alive in 2100 either, fancy that) he can't think right when the climate cloud comes down, he is not fit for purpose and should be retired and sent to learn about science, preferably in the Antarctic, for a few years, so he can also directly experience what he believes is warming and melting.
I am fed up with heads on sticks, qualified or otherwise, doing the same mock auctions by showing you some really valuable stuff, hooking you in, and then selling you a plastic and glass necklace for £100. If he was really sincere as well as astute, he would genuinely work out a proper set of actions to undo this worldwide fraud which we now all know about (it's because most don't care that nothing happens) rather than simply tell people where to hedge their bets. He did not, however, tell them the guaranteed place to invest out a depression, which everyone with excess cash does anyhow, which is to buy property in London. Gold will go down, houses in London will not only increase many times faster than inflation, but provide an annual income and maturity value whenever you want to cash in.
I am not a broker, economist, or broadcaster, but I could have told you all to do that and the reply I'd have got is 'we knew that already'. Unlike gold, silver and bitcoin, which are ultimately fairly worthless (gold), marginally useful but not scarce (silver) or a mock auction (bitcoin), which may have the real gold ring in the pack or the plastic ones everyone else gets. They are not as random as the stock market, but just swing more slowly over time. And can all go down to where they were at the start, which property does not. So even his risky and sketchy advice not even to reform a corrupt system, but hedge against and profit from it, is not as good as mine. QED?
I will also bring another mentor in here, LBC's Anthony Davis, who firstly confirmed every single person has the right to see through the errors (deliberate or otherwise) of professionals through the higher quality of common sense. He created (with me) the Information Revolution when he asked what we'd do to create a revolution, and that was my response. So to complete the circle he also told me Max Keiser's NYU education was not in economics, which he learned afterwards on the job, but drama. He is not on TV because he is an economist, but an actor. That in itself does not disqualify him, me, Anthony or anyone else from speaking the truth about other professions but does mean maybe his width of knowledge is nowhere near as great as you'd have had he actually been an economist. So, he is not an economist, but at least he has worked in the markets on Wall Street and seen the inherent fraud within and used its exposure to create a unique career.
But his knowledge is focussed like a professionals', narrow and specific. Outside his narrow band of expertise, he is a klutz. A lowest of the low sheep who is no less ignorant as the dumb fucks who both voted Obama in a second time, but call 'racist' every time he is criticised. He is down in the sewers with all the idiots, unless, even worse, he is one of the leaders pretending on TV to be a dumb sheep and poison millions of trusting minds every time he opens his mouth outside his narrow field of market fraud. Yes, I mean science. He and Stacey, Mrs Keiser, are a two person Janus, a two faced monster making claims of the lowest possible quality about the planet heating up, melting ice, frying, and all the other Hansenisms based on data which never existed at all, let alone happened and stopped.
So either they are both as thick as their victims, which doesn't seem right as they are neither liberal or left, he appears to be a centre-right Democrat or thereabouts, a capitalist who is not intent on destroying western capitalism which is all global warming was ever about, or part of the problem. Logic dictates the likelihood anyone capable of such insight in a field not exactly within his own study is unlikely to be so ignorant to doing sums in science which don't add up either? If he is not as thick as two short planks and unable to work out exactly what he worked out is being done to the economy is happening in science it would make little sense. So more likely he is using his power not to sort out the economic fraud, but use it to divert attention from the scientific driven economic fraud. ie don't hand your money over to the Gambini clan, but to the Obama clan. Same organisation, different beneficiary.
Logically there is little other conclusion. Unless he genuinely can't add up 0.7C and relate it to the world ice coverage, and realise the energy involved is unable to do anything anyone can measure with certainty, he knows perfectly well, and wants the 'solution' to be to divert our cash from the bankers to the illuminati, Rockefeller's boys running the biggest game in town. They have more money than their family could spend in eternity, so it's not the cash but making everyone else poor to then control them in slavery. Don't ask me why, as Henry Kissinger said, we need to reduce the population by 80% as life will be so much better for those remaining. Fine as long as you're not the person choosing the 80% and dealing with it. More than that is not needed to know except people have wanted to run the world since Genesis and still do. It doesn't need to be rational as well.
Of course this is only a theory, but there are only two possible answers and I leave it to you to decide. But surely, if I or anyone actually wishing not just to expose the fraud, but remove it, which in five years has not happened, simply standing by and commentating on how much they have stolen and who from every three days is not really constructive. And then (he wouldn't do it much or it would become obvious and detract from his personal field) drop global warming every few months, using the lowest possible standard of claims to do so which no one outside the people who believe it is possible to know what will happen in 2100 (yes, it's many millions, god help us), and everyone else realises is bogus. He can add up. If he can add up he knows his climate claims are bogus as he would be reading numbers off a calculator and quoting others, which is dishonest.
So, to be charitable, let's say he is so blinded by fear of nothing (he won't be alive in 2100 either, fancy that) he can't think right when the climate cloud comes down, he is not fit for purpose and should be retired and sent to learn about science, preferably in the Antarctic, for a few years, so he can also directly experience what he believes is warming and melting.
I am fed up with heads on sticks, qualified or otherwise, doing the same mock auctions by showing you some really valuable stuff, hooking you in, and then selling you a plastic and glass necklace for £100. If he was really sincere as well as astute, he would genuinely work out a proper set of actions to undo this worldwide fraud which we now all know about (it's because most don't care that nothing happens) rather than simply tell people where to hedge their bets. He did not, however, tell them the guaranteed place to invest out a depression, which everyone with excess cash does anyhow, which is to buy property in London. Gold will go down, houses in London will not only increase many times faster than inflation, but provide an annual income and maturity value whenever you want to cash in.
I am not a broker, economist, or broadcaster, but I could have told you all to do that and the reply I'd have got is 'we knew that already'. Unlike gold, silver and bitcoin, which are ultimately fairly worthless (gold), marginally useful but not scarce (silver) or a mock auction (bitcoin), which may have the real gold ring in the pack or the plastic ones everyone else gets. They are not as random as the stock market, but just swing more slowly over time. And can all go down to where they were at the start, which property does not. So even his risky and sketchy advice not even to reform a corrupt system, but hedge against and profit from it, is not as good as mine. QED?
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Practising the higher mind
Great claims require great evidence, so as my own practice at opening the universal mind I have simply opened a box here and see what it provides for me. I have known enough since day one that something was attached to my being, in a way of a pre-loaded library, like a disk drive, which from soon after birth was carrying a large area of information I knew already, and have had no doubt since was totally genuine. What about coincidences? Validation from others in the form of corroboration, when something which just came to you is then mentioned virtually word for word by another, or others? Clearly you are less likely to be making it up, or they, if something that specific and often fairly obscure became obvious to you both in the same way. Plus the feeling of certainty, the stability you get when you simply feel something is right in your entire body and being.
My next step is to do anything I can to expand this ability so it opens up and eventually becomes as natural as thought. As with my psychic readings, the first level, it's simply a matter of doing it. The higher level of psychic readings is active, where you are asked specific questions rather than just unloading everything which comes to you. Full discovery should then involve asking questions and letting the answers come. My own sensing works pretty well on strangers and bogus claims. Once you get the feeling of bad, unfortunately with me at least that is the strongest feeling of all, so can sense a bad atmosphere and anything else apparently positive or neutral but I can see straight into it. And never be put off because you can't prove it to others. You can tell them, they may discover later on but will always know you knew first. And don't allow anyone to make you doubt.
There is a lot of traditional spiritual teaching here, simply as the truth never changes. God itself if nothing else exists as a frequency, so when I sense bad vibes, literally, you can also sense good vibes, and at the highest known level is called god. I can't answer much more than that on god as I haven't got any further, but all frequencies are common, and also affect groups and entire societies, blowing in like a dose of flu and hopefully clearing again as flu. That affects those caught up in it, sadly again currently the vast majority being negative, as if they are the same person. So global warming victims (as in mentally), anti-racists (ie obsessively seeing it everywhere as a paranoiac would), immature rants, whatever the current possession by evil expresses itself as, mean these affected individuals are interchangeable, switching one for another is barely noticeable if only in writing and often in speech as well. They seem to actually represent that person as an individual, but although they are susceptible to mental invasion when it wears off then they can carry on as before without whichever delusion has taken hold of them. Basically all aspects of mental illness being woven into otherwise weak but normal personalities as if affected by poison gas.
The upside was the hippy movement, when a vast section of society gradually fell into a higher level in the mid 60s, and expressed (without the need for drugs) visually in the psychedelic art and designs which have not been matched before or since. Having lived through the middle of it at my most formative period, when life shifted from home and school alone to the outside world around the age of seven, I was personally swept up in it and the energy (as stated on my biog here) has never left. That has kept out the bogeymen of bad thoughts ever since, and allowed me to see others drunk on the spiked punch of political correctness and divide and rule which cults use to separate victims from their families.
The universal mind must have helped me to identify these areas, as no one told me, it is simply directly from my own experience. I counselled people from the age of 13, and knew exactly what to say as to me it was so obvious there was no conscious method required. And I never offered the service, I'd be talking to someone about other things and out came their deepest problems, and the gratitude, for an hour or so of talking, was the reward in return. No weekly sessions and deep therapy, just hearing the problem and offering the solutions. I qualified in order to validate my natural abilities, make them reliable and conscious, and get paid to do it. I regularly hear about unseen third parties in my client's lives, and can tune in to the people so well I may as well have them there, and the times I have met them they were pretty much as expected. I also speak about them in ways many are amazed by as I am talking about their detailed personality as if I knew them better than they do. That is partly simply using the information but added to the tuning in to the people directly.
I do the same with news stories and any information presented in the media, and for example the Dutch study which claimed people became more racist when interviewed in poor areas than nice struck me as so bogus it represented everything wrong with 21st century science. Then a year or so later it turned out by pure chance (some students saw the figures were too regular and ran them through a test algorithm finding they must be deliberate not random) the entire study was made up, as were most of the head of department's other studies, he wrote them at home while taking months off for fieldwork, and simply invented the subject matter and interviewees and their responses. As peer review includes implicit trust they don't challenge if a study is bogus as they assume they are all genuine. Then up to half become retracted at a later date as they are spotted by sharp eyes, as reported on Retraction Watch.
So my current aim is to shift from level one (basic) to level two (total), there are no other levels as either you have a loose connection or a good one. I know it can be done and explained many examples. I now need more as my personal success to now has been so far below my early plans something extra is required. I can see the potential, and spoken to people who have already reached it, although the one difference is many gifted people don't understand the gifts as they have the power but not much knowledge or control of it so let it come and go as it wishes, and do little with the information they bring in. I was trained since 1991 to make the most of any little ability I had, and can drag it out of others who have already reached the higher levels but many are not even aware they can. Once you cross a line and set a precedent, like having an out of body experience, you have evolved to a higher level knowing there is more. It's like a film with other dimensions, even if only a few people are using them and the rest have no idea they exist, in that universe they do and could become apparent at any time.
So I will keep opening the door to the universal mind and see what comes in, there isn't any direct way of raising vibrations and the ensuing results or we'd all be doing it already.
My next step is to do anything I can to expand this ability so it opens up and eventually becomes as natural as thought. As with my psychic readings, the first level, it's simply a matter of doing it. The higher level of psychic readings is active, where you are asked specific questions rather than just unloading everything which comes to you. Full discovery should then involve asking questions and letting the answers come. My own sensing works pretty well on strangers and bogus claims. Once you get the feeling of bad, unfortunately with me at least that is the strongest feeling of all, so can sense a bad atmosphere and anything else apparently positive or neutral but I can see straight into it. And never be put off because you can't prove it to others. You can tell them, they may discover later on but will always know you knew first. And don't allow anyone to make you doubt.
There is a lot of traditional spiritual teaching here, simply as the truth never changes. God itself if nothing else exists as a frequency, so when I sense bad vibes, literally, you can also sense good vibes, and at the highest known level is called god. I can't answer much more than that on god as I haven't got any further, but all frequencies are common, and also affect groups and entire societies, blowing in like a dose of flu and hopefully clearing again as flu. That affects those caught up in it, sadly again currently the vast majority being negative, as if they are the same person. So global warming victims (as in mentally), anti-racists (ie obsessively seeing it everywhere as a paranoiac would), immature rants, whatever the current possession by evil expresses itself as, mean these affected individuals are interchangeable, switching one for another is barely noticeable if only in writing and often in speech as well. They seem to actually represent that person as an individual, but although they are susceptible to mental invasion when it wears off then they can carry on as before without whichever delusion has taken hold of them. Basically all aspects of mental illness being woven into otherwise weak but normal personalities as if affected by poison gas.
The upside was the hippy movement, when a vast section of society gradually fell into a higher level in the mid 60s, and expressed (without the need for drugs) visually in the psychedelic art and designs which have not been matched before or since. Having lived through the middle of it at my most formative period, when life shifted from home and school alone to the outside world around the age of seven, I was personally swept up in it and the energy (as stated on my biog here) has never left. That has kept out the bogeymen of bad thoughts ever since, and allowed me to see others drunk on the spiked punch of political correctness and divide and rule which cults use to separate victims from their families.
The universal mind must have helped me to identify these areas, as no one told me, it is simply directly from my own experience. I counselled people from the age of 13, and knew exactly what to say as to me it was so obvious there was no conscious method required. And I never offered the service, I'd be talking to someone about other things and out came their deepest problems, and the gratitude, for an hour or so of talking, was the reward in return. No weekly sessions and deep therapy, just hearing the problem and offering the solutions. I qualified in order to validate my natural abilities, make them reliable and conscious, and get paid to do it. I regularly hear about unseen third parties in my client's lives, and can tune in to the people so well I may as well have them there, and the times I have met them they were pretty much as expected. I also speak about them in ways many are amazed by as I am talking about their detailed personality as if I knew them better than they do. That is partly simply using the information but added to the tuning in to the people directly.
I do the same with news stories and any information presented in the media, and for example the Dutch study which claimed people became more racist when interviewed in poor areas than nice struck me as so bogus it represented everything wrong with 21st century science. Then a year or so later it turned out by pure chance (some students saw the figures were too regular and ran them through a test algorithm finding they must be deliberate not random) the entire study was made up, as were most of the head of department's other studies, he wrote them at home while taking months off for fieldwork, and simply invented the subject matter and interviewees and their responses. As peer review includes implicit trust they don't challenge if a study is bogus as they assume they are all genuine. Then up to half become retracted at a later date as they are spotted by sharp eyes, as reported on Retraction Watch.
So my current aim is to shift from level one (basic) to level two (total), there are no other levels as either you have a loose connection or a good one. I know it can be done and explained many examples. I now need more as my personal success to now has been so far below my early plans something extra is required. I can see the potential, and spoken to people who have already reached it, although the one difference is many gifted people don't understand the gifts as they have the power but not much knowledge or control of it so let it come and go as it wishes, and do little with the information they bring in. I was trained since 1991 to make the most of any little ability I had, and can drag it out of others who have already reached the higher levels but many are not even aware they can. Once you cross a line and set a precedent, like having an out of body experience, you have evolved to a higher level knowing there is more. It's like a film with other dimensions, even if only a few people are using them and the rest have no idea they exist, in that universe they do and could become apparent at any time.
So I will keep opening the door to the universal mind and see what comes in, there isn't any direct way of raising vibrations and the ensuing results or we'd all be doing it already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
