Saturday, 2 November 2013

Setting precedents

Outside the field of law, the one time  a single incident can be extended to cover all is a precedent. This is an example which demostrates something is actually possible, whether previously considered very unlikely or impossible. Once you then see it can happen once, it means it can happen at all, whatever it is, and then becomes part of the extended set of reality. This could be for instance exceeding the speed of light, something suspected last year but not correctly measured, but the rule in life is not to assume everything we know today is fixed or we know all there is to. A hundred and a thousand years ago most people thought they knew nearly all they could about science and there was very little new to find or invent, and it tends to be the driving belief in any times despite history proving the exact opposite.

As well as scientific discoveries, the others, often based on breaches of trust and covering up large scale wrongdoing are just as real. For example, the potential millions of people who refuse to believe scientists and politicians have anything to gain even thinking of exaggerating global warming (despite the trillions already changed hands in its name to no known end result besides its change of location), just because we haven't yet busted anyone for doing so that it sticks (the Climategate emails contained both confessions and conspiracies, but as investigated by their friends the result was only to be expected) in that example, simply comparing how organisations worked together already Mafia-like, requiring collusion at the highest levels, proves it at least is possible.

Even when the full details may never be known, 2012 provided two examples containing every possible element of such conspiracies, as however and whoever set them up, neither could have lasted a year let alone two decades or more without either consensus or direction from the top. You can't cheat the world if the legal system is awake, they need to be working for you and not the country and its people. Firstly the Libor fixing was worldwide and lasted many years. It had been suspected, checked (as these frauds always are) and exonerated, until whichever loose thread being pulled undid the curtain which exposed their activities. Using logic, the accusation it was ordered by the Bank of England (and ultimately the ministers connected with them) rather than overlooked is the likeliest answer, as not only would it be very hard to run a racket under the noses of the authorities for a month without being picked up, it also reflected the B of E's own policy of fixing interest rates rather than letting the market decide them.

The second fact that somehow those responsible have been removed from the legal system, having committed a conspiracy to defraud which may amount to ten figures, are not guilty of a crime tells me as much as the act itself. It was downgraded to a civil wrong so once they paid their fines (not to the people they took it from, they never do) no one was deemed responsible as an individual. Exactly as the Mafia would do they simply changed the law to make sure whatever they did could not stick. But however they choose to punish them it still happened and continued long enough to mean the authorities protected them the whole time otherwise it could never have happened.

The next example is known to originate from the very top so possibly a step above Libor, as they managed to hide the evidence from the Hillsborough disaster that the police had ordered their men to doctor the evidence to look as if they had handled the situation professionally and blame the Liverpool fans for causing the deaths through the police not opening gates or calling ambulances, which came out when the original evidence was known before it had been edited. How they played it was the top officers ordered mass changes so everyone's evidence agreed (much like the criminals do) and then made sure it took long enough for the truth to come out eventually (I don't even know how it did but very pleased) for those responsible to be dead or retired. Forget perjury and contempt of court, and perverting the course of justice- because of the age of the officers no one could be sacked and like Libor somehow they were excluded from the law of the land and apparently made immune to any of the abovementioned crimes, even though it was pretty much the equivalent of being caught red handed with no subsequent denials.

Anyone who still believes these are exceptions must realise they are just the ones we got to know about eventually, wouldn't it be more logical to imagine if two conspiracies between the highest levels of authority could run for that long how many others both are and have done without discovery? It's one thing to be trusting and another to be naive, and if you add Enron, Bernie Madoff and plenty of smaller examples where such crimes went undetected for years and siphoned millions from greedy investors who didn't bother to check their details do you really believe one let alone all would be possible without protection from outside as well?

So if anything else around you happens which breaks an existing belief, it becomes possible however rare or not it may be. A related item is the shibboleth, one I use all the time for politicians as it separates the friends from the enemy. That would be a word or phrase which only one group of people would ever use, as a certain hostile tribe in the Middle East in the bible couldn't say sh, so were asked to say shibboleth with the obvious and unavoidable results. It's like an inadvertent confession, especially when the phrase is one newly coined by the enemy such as low-carbon, clean energy and the like. When a citizen uses them they are simply repeating like parrots and rarely even know what it means, which in these cases is absolutely nothing. But like a password, you can't be in the position to use it and know it without either being the owner or part of their empire. Use any examples you like which work, but the current crop of green newspeak means when a politician uses a single one you know, assuming you believe it to be a dangerous conspiracy, they are of the dark side as no politician could ever talk about low-carbon unless he was determined to destroy the industrial base of their country and send everyone back to the days before electricity. If, on an aside, you say renewables generate electricity (which they can, but not when you need it, ie constantly) I always ask them to run their local hospital on wind and solar for a day and then I'll believe them. I'm still waiting.

There are countless other examples of both precedents and shibboleths, and hopefully the few I have have illustrated the phenomena exactly and distinguished them from less conclusive and exclusive examples. I also tend to find anyone who uses the term 'Zionist' in a negative fashion is normally not worth expectorating on, but that is a personal opinion.

No comments:

Post a Comment