Using my psychology hat, a combination of animalistic fear to protect ones family and a human trust in authority is more than enough to overcome and conceal any facts.
Said authorities are in authority in the first place as they understand and exploit this mechanism, and then watch as the rebelling minorities are herded into shape by the rest of their subjects.
Until we can expose and break this formula of divide and rule society will always be the pawns of tyrants. There is more than enough evidence this formula is true yet friends I have known for 50 years in some cases have dropped me as I fight to destroy this evil position as their fear and trust in authority is greater than their loyalty and intelligence. It is the most evil condition in society and one which can only ever cause division, poverty and in extreme cases deaths.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course this has been used since day one, but never worldwide and on such a scale as global warming. Every single element of it can fit this formula. Children being taught to police their parents' carbon emissions. Al Gore saying global warming threatens your unborn grandchildren. Greenpeace and James Hansen saying sea levels will go up 20 feet. They all have one thing in common. They can either be disproved instantly or are too vague to ever know the truth in real life. Once the public are caught in the sticky web of lies the quality no longer even needs to be tentatively based on reality, the truth sandwich of hiding a lie in real facts is abandoned, so when it stops warming, gets colder and the models are proved wrong they say it's warming faster than ever, the results are exactly as the models said, and colder weather was predicted as part of warming.
Normally an individual saying that would be put away either in prison if dishonest, or a mental institution if crazy, but here they are running the world and the herds of sheep all accept whatever they say as if they have been hypnotised to forget the number seven, or something operating exactly the same mechanism. Everything is because of the Jews, sorry, mankind, so nothing can't be caused by it. And everything is warming, even cooling.
For fuck's sake, wake up!
Saturday 18 January 2014
Wednesday 8 January 2014
Cheating, the basis of the 21st century
I have pinned down the element common to all areas of the decline of 21st century politics, the majority of our authorities and their related institutions such as the media are corrupt, ie rather than seeking to succeed in their areas through excellence, they are cheating. I am not making this up or exaggerating, and can present a long chain of examples to illustrate both obvious and subtle methods anyone who has either succeeded in their chosen field, or exerts power over others has done so by deception and altering the playing field and its related attributes.
Lance Armstrong represents the individual cheat, made possible through the bribery and corruption of countless others in order to carry it out, and technically not even individual as the majority of others in both cycling and individual sport were involved one way or another, even only to the extent of protecting the guilty, a crime in many legal systems as guilty as carrying it out yourself. The fact all the known individual and organised cheating took many years to surface is not relevant, as the largest element of all deception is invisibility, so unless they could work in the dark for that period of time, with the risk of discovery being acceptable compared to the potential gains in the meantime, it could never happen in the first place. And the fact some are discovered means it is far more likely most never will be and your government may indeed be spraying viruses in the air to reduce the population and you will never know it for certain. But regardless of the unknown examples we may never know about, the clues to suspicion are all similar. Anyone working with criminals will know the signs, evasiveness, wild claims and inconsistencies mean someone is almost guaranteed to be lying to you and has something nasty to hide. But behind all this filth is the belief it is both easier and acceptable to succeed not through winning fairly but necessary to cheat.
How this cheating is carried out is familiar to us all. From video games where you know the buttons to jump to the next level instead of qualifying, to looking over someone's exam paper to see their answers, what they all have in common is you haven't actually won. Yes, you may get a certificate, but for the rest of your life you will know if anyone ever finds out how you got it it will be taken away, just like Lance Armstrong's record numbers of Tour de France wins. I'd say the only missing element is the persuasive evidence whether cheating currently represents the majority motivation of power worldwide, or the Libor fixing, Bernie Madoff, Enron and Hillsborough evidence tampering are all isolated incidents (although all required massive collusion to continue for as long as they all did so if nothing else represent a very solid and powerful system to maintain fraud at the highest levels).
Because of the nature of human psychology, the top of the food chain believe bad is actually good, and boast about it openly as technically they are quite probably as fireproof, at least in the medium term, as they believe they are. Therefore Mike Hulme and Karl Kruszelnicki freely admit they have to lie and cheat to get the climate change message across or no one would do anything about it, while at the highest level members of David Rockefeller's groups publish and share quotes that they need to divide society against itself with imaginary fears to control them as one. Having lived through the end of one century and the beginning of the next, I can reliably state that this is not the norm, and has only taken over from its roots in the 70s of councils gradually beginning to restrict people's freedoms by closing roads and promoting political correctness, to the UN openly making plans to rule the entire planet based on the imaginary threat of global warming. That in itself could (along with Enron, who created carbon trading) be used to represent the entire threat and spread of cheating worldwide, as nearly every government in the world has become infected by the virus of global warming lies, and are restricting its citizens development in economic and physical ways as a result, diverting huge amounts of their wealth to businesses and scientists. The entire field of global warming was exposed as a cesspit of filthy detritus with the exposure of their internal communications, which to anyone but those personally involved in some way (including the faithful followers) would confirm beyond all doubt that their suspicions all the adjustments and selective data were indeed falsified. Add the admissions I've mentioned above from the very sources of such data and I would suggest the entire field is void.
The entire philosophy is erroneous and tainted. Yes, we can all find ways to succeed more without producing more, but as I said before, as well as leaving a permanent stain on our characters, even if no one else but ourselves know about it, there is no reason to do so as we can all have everything the proper way and also have no chance of being found out and punished at a later date. Bearing in mind Lance Armstrong now has nothing and will never get it back, he represents the full circle of cheating from start, middle and finish. He started winning, kept winning as he wasn't discovered, created a greater and greater network of protection, and was finally exposed and lost more than everything as he is now a convicted and branded cheat, and that is all he will ever now be known for, like Enron and Bernie Madoff alike.
I have already explained how businesses can succeed by treating the customers and staff as an equal part of the business, rather than slaves to be exploited and paid the bare minimum and the enemy who must be caught by cheating with false promises. The same applies to every achievement, if you can't do it properly then either improve and try again or try something you stand a better chance in. Simply altering the pass marks so more people get A grades and degrees doesn't mean they were ever good enough to pass them before, just that someone wanted more graduates to get them out of the unemployment figures for three years. Hospitals given targets don't make people wait less to be seen, they just measure the time differently by keeping them in ambulances or on trolleys which don't count as waiting time. Police will always fiddle crime figures when targets are created, and overlook some reports to give the impression the crimes have reduced. All on orders from above, like Hillsborough. People will always find ways round necessary rules to give the impression they were followed, and as a result will simply weaken the foundations of a system for their own personal convenience. Whyever or however they do it, they are both dirtying the society they are in, and gaining nothing genuine in the long run, even any wealth obtained from theft will be dirty money and spent in guilt, which if nothing else on the day of judgement, not when they are dead but know they are dying, may realise how much harm they caused to their victims and what people will think of them after they discover how they got it. Some things are greater than wealth and integrity and decency are two of them. Just because someone gets away with a crime doesn't mean it wasn't carried out, and they will still have one eye open for the rest of their lives, even if they don't realise it, as they know they did it and someone may eventually find out sooner or later.
But today, in the 21st century, most politics is driven by deception. From global warming to the false idea low interest rates are good for the masses, every policy by the ruling parties is based on pretending they are trying to help while picking your pockets. The tyranny of the EU, carrying out policies which were unable to complete from two world wars, with the greater Germany ruling the entire continent of Europe as is their perceived birthright, with their natural allies France and Italy, to UN plans for a carbon tax and currency to prevent global warming which they invented to bring in a world carbon tax, currency and the government required to administer it. Ultimately partly via Rockefeller's groups the world is being governed by a single coordinated system designed to these very ends, and when people speak out, against things like immigration (which sucks dry economies when uncontrolled as the structure cannot take the numbers, and allows people to simply leave poor countries and gain the benefits of richer ones without putting in the centuries of preparation that made them richer), weakening family values through gay marriage and alternative family systems (not through the marriage itself but family rights over children which are not the progeny of the 'parents'), and then demonising or criminalising its opponents. While the public are fighting amongst themselves accusing their peers of homophobia or hate speech for daring to mention the child sex gangs are Muslim immigrants (while the cheating authorities do their best to either hide their origins, or worse still not investigate them to keep the society ignorant of its existence), the same authorities are working to take away as much as they can from those who are paying their wages to look after the country, under the guise of protection. That is the most dangerous type of cheating, breach of trust, and unless and until we can see it for exactly what it is, Marx's principle of the pendulum eventually swinging back from its extremes may never happen. It is not up to them to stop doing it, it is up to us to see they are and expose it to all.
Lance Armstrong represents the individual cheat, made possible through the bribery and corruption of countless others in order to carry it out, and technically not even individual as the majority of others in both cycling and individual sport were involved one way or another, even only to the extent of protecting the guilty, a crime in many legal systems as guilty as carrying it out yourself. The fact all the known individual and organised cheating took many years to surface is not relevant, as the largest element of all deception is invisibility, so unless they could work in the dark for that period of time, with the risk of discovery being acceptable compared to the potential gains in the meantime, it could never happen in the first place. And the fact some are discovered means it is far more likely most never will be and your government may indeed be spraying viruses in the air to reduce the population and you will never know it for certain. But regardless of the unknown examples we may never know about, the clues to suspicion are all similar. Anyone working with criminals will know the signs, evasiveness, wild claims and inconsistencies mean someone is almost guaranteed to be lying to you and has something nasty to hide. But behind all this filth is the belief it is both easier and acceptable to succeed not through winning fairly but necessary to cheat.
How this cheating is carried out is familiar to us all. From video games where you know the buttons to jump to the next level instead of qualifying, to looking over someone's exam paper to see their answers, what they all have in common is you haven't actually won. Yes, you may get a certificate, but for the rest of your life you will know if anyone ever finds out how you got it it will be taken away, just like Lance Armstrong's record numbers of Tour de France wins. I'd say the only missing element is the persuasive evidence whether cheating currently represents the majority motivation of power worldwide, or the Libor fixing, Bernie Madoff, Enron and Hillsborough evidence tampering are all isolated incidents (although all required massive collusion to continue for as long as they all did so if nothing else represent a very solid and powerful system to maintain fraud at the highest levels).
Because of the nature of human psychology, the top of the food chain believe bad is actually good, and boast about it openly as technically they are quite probably as fireproof, at least in the medium term, as they believe they are. Therefore Mike Hulme and Karl Kruszelnicki freely admit they have to lie and cheat to get the climate change message across or no one would do anything about it, while at the highest level members of David Rockefeller's groups publish and share quotes that they need to divide society against itself with imaginary fears to control them as one. Having lived through the end of one century and the beginning of the next, I can reliably state that this is not the norm, and has only taken over from its roots in the 70s of councils gradually beginning to restrict people's freedoms by closing roads and promoting political correctness, to the UN openly making plans to rule the entire planet based on the imaginary threat of global warming. That in itself could (along with Enron, who created carbon trading) be used to represent the entire threat and spread of cheating worldwide, as nearly every government in the world has become infected by the virus of global warming lies, and are restricting its citizens development in economic and physical ways as a result, diverting huge amounts of their wealth to businesses and scientists. The entire field of global warming was exposed as a cesspit of filthy detritus with the exposure of their internal communications, which to anyone but those personally involved in some way (including the faithful followers) would confirm beyond all doubt that their suspicions all the adjustments and selective data were indeed falsified. Add the admissions I've mentioned above from the very sources of such data and I would suggest the entire field is void.
The entire philosophy is erroneous and tainted. Yes, we can all find ways to succeed more without producing more, but as I said before, as well as leaving a permanent stain on our characters, even if no one else but ourselves know about it, there is no reason to do so as we can all have everything the proper way and also have no chance of being found out and punished at a later date. Bearing in mind Lance Armstrong now has nothing and will never get it back, he represents the full circle of cheating from start, middle and finish. He started winning, kept winning as he wasn't discovered, created a greater and greater network of protection, and was finally exposed and lost more than everything as he is now a convicted and branded cheat, and that is all he will ever now be known for, like Enron and Bernie Madoff alike.
I have already explained how businesses can succeed by treating the customers and staff as an equal part of the business, rather than slaves to be exploited and paid the bare minimum and the enemy who must be caught by cheating with false promises. The same applies to every achievement, if you can't do it properly then either improve and try again or try something you stand a better chance in. Simply altering the pass marks so more people get A grades and degrees doesn't mean they were ever good enough to pass them before, just that someone wanted more graduates to get them out of the unemployment figures for three years. Hospitals given targets don't make people wait less to be seen, they just measure the time differently by keeping them in ambulances or on trolleys which don't count as waiting time. Police will always fiddle crime figures when targets are created, and overlook some reports to give the impression the crimes have reduced. All on orders from above, like Hillsborough. People will always find ways round necessary rules to give the impression they were followed, and as a result will simply weaken the foundations of a system for their own personal convenience. Whyever or however they do it, they are both dirtying the society they are in, and gaining nothing genuine in the long run, even any wealth obtained from theft will be dirty money and spent in guilt, which if nothing else on the day of judgement, not when they are dead but know they are dying, may realise how much harm they caused to their victims and what people will think of them after they discover how they got it. Some things are greater than wealth and integrity and decency are two of them. Just because someone gets away with a crime doesn't mean it wasn't carried out, and they will still have one eye open for the rest of their lives, even if they don't realise it, as they know they did it and someone may eventually find out sooner or later.
But today, in the 21st century, most politics is driven by deception. From global warming to the false idea low interest rates are good for the masses, every policy by the ruling parties is based on pretending they are trying to help while picking your pockets. The tyranny of the EU, carrying out policies which were unable to complete from two world wars, with the greater Germany ruling the entire continent of Europe as is their perceived birthright, with their natural allies France and Italy, to UN plans for a carbon tax and currency to prevent global warming which they invented to bring in a world carbon tax, currency and the government required to administer it. Ultimately partly via Rockefeller's groups the world is being governed by a single coordinated system designed to these very ends, and when people speak out, against things like immigration (which sucks dry economies when uncontrolled as the structure cannot take the numbers, and allows people to simply leave poor countries and gain the benefits of richer ones without putting in the centuries of preparation that made them richer), weakening family values through gay marriage and alternative family systems (not through the marriage itself but family rights over children which are not the progeny of the 'parents'), and then demonising or criminalising its opponents. While the public are fighting amongst themselves accusing their peers of homophobia or hate speech for daring to mention the child sex gangs are Muslim immigrants (while the cheating authorities do their best to either hide their origins, or worse still not investigate them to keep the society ignorant of its existence), the same authorities are working to take away as much as they can from those who are paying their wages to look after the country, under the guise of protection. That is the most dangerous type of cheating, breach of trust, and unless and until we can see it for exactly what it is, Marx's principle of the pendulum eventually swinging back from its extremes may never happen. It is not up to them to stop doing it, it is up to us to see they are and expose it to all.
The enemies of civilisation
The enemy exposed
Having seen snippets from this article yesterday I realised a very simple formula. Society will become civilised when we no longer have enemies like this trying to destroy it. Whether Socialist Workers who attack every feature we have spent hundreds of years working to develop to make our lives all better, including theirs if they only realised it, to Muslims around the world, who kill random westerners if their country (or one anywhere) kill a single Muslim, but happy to wipe out thousands of other Muslims themselves when they happen to come from a different tribe.
Taking some of the most extreme examples, I hope you will be able to see both the general position and all lesser examples, as what every one of these individuals and groups has in common is they want to take away or destroy what you have worked to create, and others before you. I will begin by quoting some of the best classics from the article.
Firstly, being socialists, they have jumped on the bandwagon of global warming to promote the policies they have always wanted to undo the world's industry and civilisation under the false blanket of saving the planet. So when the northern hemisphere suffers extreme winters, first in Europe for a few years running and now America, they simply make stuff up "But Arctic weather systems are slipping south into the US because the Arctic is no longer cold enough to keep them there."
Yes, and the average temperature is presumably increasing but while the Arctic air is actually spreading in the north and ice increasing in the south since records began in the 70s, it surely must be rising somewhere else to raise the average overall otherwise these changes could never be driven by global warming. That is actually something many pressure groups have forgotten, since they called it climate change (from global warming) some new arrivals and old hands are now simply looking at climate changes (which are its nature) and blaming them on, er, the climate changing. How scientific.
Then they swiftly follow up with "But our rulers don’t want to talk about the rapidly shrinking ice cap—because turning it around would mean taking on a system that puts profit first." They don't actually go into any more details, which is not surprising, as 90% of the world's ice down south has grown since it was first measured by satellites, something quite unlike the temperature, and while the far thinner and entirely sea ice of the Arctic has indeed shrunk overall, it grew 50% this winter after a record low, as that is what it can do each year in response to local conditions. Then history tells us they navigated the North Pole by sea about 200 years ago which would not be possible today. And similar reports were being published in the 1920s when the polar ice was also very low and temperatures high. And unlike world or local temperature we can all see the ice clearly and they can't adjust its extent to suit the plans.
To give them their credit, they did call it global warming, so scored one point by sheer chance more than intent, which is still ironic as the advantages from warming won't be outweighed by the possible (they don't actually know as we've never witnessed it) disadvantages till it exceeds 2C, which we will never see.
Back to the general point, enmity comes in all shapes and sizes. In the west it usually has a reason to justify its actions, saving the planet or making the world safer or fairer. This justifies road and travel restrictions, to the point of attempting to ban cars altogether. Then raising energy prices so high the poor can freeze and the rest (except the rich) spend most of their income on it, while in the third world they don't need reasons besides either the wrath of God or ancient tribal feuds going back centuries, and just randomly wipe out their neighbours or the president steals their money without the justification of needing to collect carbon taxes. Either way the people suffer unnecessarily, and the freedoms and wealth of everyone involved is put at risk at the justification of a greater cause being sacrificed for. Of course some rulers actually believe removing the money of the better off makes the worse off better off, so feel very noble raising taxes to 75% and more as they feel they are really doing some good. But the reasons for being dangerous are not relevant, as whatever the intentions of a murderer, even if they believe the victim is Satan and they are saving the world by destroying them, an innocent person has still been murdered. If a million people are deluded into believing women are witches and must save the area by killing them, or removing more wealth from those who have worked to collect it, the results are identical and they are no less the enemy than the suicide bombers who have been programmed to believe all westerners or anyone else they target has been ordered to die by Allah and they will be rewarded for doing so.
So, the intentions, like the motivation for a crime, is irrelevant. We have millions of confused people, many in power with the ability to carry out their madness, who are either anything from pure evil, mental or just misguided, who have the common features of doing all they can for their own personal reasons to take away what you and I have. Until we reach a point where such views are the minority and no longer able to have any influence in either politics or warfare, we will not be civilised as a society worldwide, and only when we reach the point where everyone realises there is enough for us all, if others do well it does not mean there is less for everyone else, you cannot succeed by taking what they have for yourself or to give it to others, and attacking others physically is no different to how we were in the stone age.
No matter what form the enmity takes the results are the same. Your freedom and property are at risk. Being told what we can and cannot say or think in the cause of fairness is inexcusable. We all have some opinions others will find obnoxious, but the mark of civilisation is we do not act on them. Our personal tastes and opinions are unique and not subject to an outside authority saying if we even dare to think homosexuality is not normal, even though we do nothing about it and probably have never even said so in public, makes us evil and ideally liable for prosecution is more of a crime than anything they can accuse people of thinking. How many people haven't wanted to kill or hurt someone at times in their lives, but so far thinking bad thoughts has never been illegal as the test of being decent is you do not act on the thoughts everyone has which the indecent do act on. So whether you enjoy being part of an area where English is rarely heard or not, or wonder how any marriage not between a male and female can be considered marriage, let alone equal, it is no one else's place to criminalise you for disagreeing with them. Our personal feelings and preferences are something we witness, and as such are not generally in control of them, but only in control of what we do about them. That is why some people become violent when they are drunk. The alcohol does not change them, it just removes their inhibitions. So unless they were naturally violent and restrained themselves then no amount of alcohol could make it happen. This restraint is what makes people with views and feelings you may not like or are hostile civilised, as everyone has a mixture of them and no one is a saint and believes every single politically correct view they may pretend to in public.
Take the disabled. There is a list in every council in Britain of banned words, cripple, backward, Mongol, spastic, idiot, imbecile etc., all medical words used till the late 20th century until someone decided because some kids used them to insult each other in the playground new words must be used as they were demeaning to the real cripples and spastics. Except if you actually know anyone who is disabled you start to discover they are not personally part of this loop, and some call themselves crippled, handicapped, and far worse, as they have got used to living with these disabilities and are comfortable with them, while the guilty left of north London who are no more disabled than not knowing how to wire a plug, and could probably buy a council block rather than a single flat, decide on other people's behalf what you can and can't think or say about them. They are the enemy, they have patronisingly chosen who they see as the underdogs and made up an entire set of artificial rights for them, which by using their inherent power and connections, can then enforce through a combination of laws and media reporting to make the great majority of society go along with at the penalty of losing your job or worse, while the disabled and immigrants do not want to be treated that way, and Muslims do celebrate Christmas and many immigrants do not want more coming in either.
Emnity comes in infinite forms, but based on a single model. Groups and individuals with or without the power to carry out their wishes whose beliefs mean they think society cannot be as they think it should be without taking something away from others in any way at all. I am not talking about reasonable taxation, but as the overall take reduces when tax rises above around 50% as people leave, stop working or avoid payment, any tax above that simply hurts people for absolutely no benefit for others. Taking a set of opinions and making them the only ones you are allowed to have, whether or not the alleged victims want them themselves is not caring of fairness, but a variation of imposing your own wishes on others on pain of great loss. I don't think many of the furthest of the western extremists condone suicide bombing, although some like George Galloway and Ken Livingstone befriend its promoters and agree with their general causes, and every other element I am describing only vary in degree. Killing a patient as the ambulance can't get to them in time to save them as there are humps on the road is no different to a random religious assassination of an infidel. Just because one is clear and obvious with absolutely no possible justification outside a delusion, and the other is hidden and extremely subtle, the act and intentions behind the act are no better however the killing happens.
We could all cooperate. There is enough for everyone, and the only threat to this is the exponentially growing world population which threatens space and resources being stretched. There is more than enough to feed the world at its current population, and while terrorists kill the opposition in South Sudan simply as they don't like the president and want theirs instead, we are infested with enemies at the most obvious level worldwide while on the subtle levels they either hide their atrocities behind other policies or get other people to do it for them. You must also be able to recognise them, as in the west half the attacks are in the shadows and unless you learn the ways of the silent killers they will become as inherent as a herpes virus which is invisible to our immune system and lives within us for life. Once recognised and understood, you can then read the enemy as well as the white cells can see the known germs arriving and if you can't throttle them like a macrophage can at least recognise them for exactly who they are and not fall for their subtle persuasion many innocent people take on and use to attack the others they are told require it. The bottom line is you can't build by destroying, you can't create freedom by restricting it, and can't enhance life by taking it away from others.
Therefore, as long as we have tribes and religious groups intent on dominating and destroying their enemies, political movements based on the shortage mentality, division and unity (they are actually sides of the same coin), we will be no more mature as a society than the decadent empires of history or the stone age. The division is created by demonising anyone against their views of enforced unity, from Mao's Cultural Revolution where everyone had to dress the same, to the Londonista's view of multicultural diversity we must accept or be sent to re-education camps. In the end diversity and multiculturalism becomes homogenised, as everywhere is an equal mix of races, cultures and types, and by intermarrying in the end there will indeed be no races to speak of as everyone will have mixed together over so many generations that racial differences will have been bred away. Of course many people believe this is a good thing, but many do not, and those are both their opinions, and dare I say equally valid. And anyone who disagrees either opinion is right is the enemy. Get it now?
Having more than a few fringe lunatics operating alone in a society means there is still something wrong with it as a whole. We may not be eating people, making people spend their life in the caste they were born in, or murder widows as people have only a hundred or so years ago, but we still have people boiling animals alive for food in Asia, terrorist bombers worldwide (although nearly all are Muslims, which is just an unfortunate statistic), low interest rates wrecking half the world's economies, subsidies for wind and solar which don't produce more than they cost, massive levels of existing and planned taxation on the rich, planned energy rationing (see the Stern Report and UN documents), reduced pass levels for exams, match fixing, protection for organised criminals (who's been prosecuted for fraud in the Libor fixing or Hillsborough for a start?), and the claims it's colder in the winter due to global warming while Antarctic ice continues to grow every single year which accounts for 90% of the world's ice? However stupid the claims, if people still believe them they will continue. These used to be the exception to the rule, now they are the rule itself. We can't rely on Marx's pendulum to swing the other way, we must be aware of it and root it out at every level.
Having seen snippets from this article yesterday I realised a very simple formula. Society will become civilised when we no longer have enemies like this trying to destroy it. Whether Socialist Workers who attack every feature we have spent hundreds of years working to develop to make our lives all better, including theirs if they only realised it, to Muslims around the world, who kill random westerners if their country (or one anywhere) kill a single Muslim, but happy to wipe out thousands of other Muslims themselves when they happen to come from a different tribe.
Taking some of the most extreme examples, I hope you will be able to see both the general position and all lesser examples, as what every one of these individuals and groups has in common is they want to take away or destroy what you have worked to create, and others before you. I will begin by quoting some of the best classics from the article.
Firstly, being socialists, they have jumped on the bandwagon of global warming to promote the policies they have always wanted to undo the world's industry and civilisation under the false blanket of saving the planet. So when the northern hemisphere suffers extreme winters, first in Europe for a few years running and now America, they simply make stuff up "But Arctic weather systems are slipping south into the US because the Arctic is no longer cold enough to keep them there."
Yes, and the average temperature is presumably increasing but while the Arctic air is actually spreading in the north and ice increasing in the south since records began in the 70s, it surely must be rising somewhere else to raise the average overall otherwise these changes could never be driven by global warming. That is actually something many pressure groups have forgotten, since they called it climate change (from global warming) some new arrivals and old hands are now simply looking at climate changes (which are its nature) and blaming them on, er, the climate changing. How scientific.
Then they swiftly follow up with "But our rulers don’t want to talk about the rapidly shrinking ice cap—because turning it around would mean taking on a system that puts profit first." They don't actually go into any more details, which is not surprising, as 90% of the world's ice down south has grown since it was first measured by satellites, something quite unlike the temperature, and while the far thinner and entirely sea ice of the Arctic has indeed shrunk overall, it grew 50% this winter after a record low, as that is what it can do each year in response to local conditions. Then history tells us they navigated the North Pole by sea about 200 years ago which would not be possible today. And similar reports were being published in the 1920s when the polar ice was also very low and temperatures high. And unlike world or local temperature we can all see the ice clearly and they can't adjust its extent to suit the plans.
To give them their credit, they did call it global warming, so scored one point by sheer chance more than intent, which is still ironic as the advantages from warming won't be outweighed by the possible (they don't actually know as we've never witnessed it) disadvantages till it exceeds 2C, which we will never see.
Back to the general point, enmity comes in all shapes and sizes. In the west it usually has a reason to justify its actions, saving the planet or making the world safer or fairer. This justifies road and travel restrictions, to the point of attempting to ban cars altogether. Then raising energy prices so high the poor can freeze and the rest (except the rich) spend most of their income on it, while in the third world they don't need reasons besides either the wrath of God or ancient tribal feuds going back centuries, and just randomly wipe out their neighbours or the president steals their money without the justification of needing to collect carbon taxes. Either way the people suffer unnecessarily, and the freedoms and wealth of everyone involved is put at risk at the justification of a greater cause being sacrificed for. Of course some rulers actually believe removing the money of the better off makes the worse off better off, so feel very noble raising taxes to 75% and more as they feel they are really doing some good. But the reasons for being dangerous are not relevant, as whatever the intentions of a murderer, even if they believe the victim is Satan and they are saving the world by destroying them, an innocent person has still been murdered. If a million people are deluded into believing women are witches and must save the area by killing them, or removing more wealth from those who have worked to collect it, the results are identical and they are no less the enemy than the suicide bombers who have been programmed to believe all westerners or anyone else they target has been ordered to die by Allah and they will be rewarded for doing so.
So, the intentions, like the motivation for a crime, is irrelevant. We have millions of confused people, many in power with the ability to carry out their madness, who are either anything from pure evil, mental or just misguided, who have the common features of doing all they can for their own personal reasons to take away what you and I have. Until we reach a point where such views are the minority and no longer able to have any influence in either politics or warfare, we will not be civilised as a society worldwide, and only when we reach the point where everyone realises there is enough for us all, if others do well it does not mean there is less for everyone else, you cannot succeed by taking what they have for yourself or to give it to others, and attacking others physically is no different to how we were in the stone age.
No matter what form the enmity takes the results are the same. Your freedom and property are at risk. Being told what we can and cannot say or think in the cause of fairness is inexcusable. We all have some opinions others will find obnoxious, but the mark of civilisation is we do not act on them. Our personal tastes and opinions are unique and not subject to an outside authority saying if we even dare to think homosexuality is not normal, even though we do nothing about it and probably have never even said so in public, makes us evil and ideally liable for prosecution is more of a crime than anything they can accuse people of thinking. How many people haven't wanted to kill or hurt someone at times in their lives, but so far thinking bad thoughts has never been illegal as the test of being decent is you do not act on the thoughts everyone has which the indecent do act on. So whether you enjoy being part of an area where English is rarely heard or not, or wonder how any marriage not between a male and female can be considered marriage, let alone equal, it is no one else's place to criminalise you for disagreeing with them. Our personal feelings and preferences are something we witness, and as such are not generally in control of them, but only in control of what we do about them. That is why some people become violent when they are drunk. The alcohol does not change them, it just removes their inhibitions. So unless they were naturally violent and restrained themselves then no amount of alcohol could make it happen. This restraint is what makes people with views and feelings you may not like or are hostile civilised, as everyone has a mixture of them and no one is a saint and believes every single politically correct view they may pretend to in public.
Take the disabled. There is a list in every council in Britain of banned words, cripple, backward, Mongol, spastic, idiot, imbecile etc., all medical words used till the late 20th century until someone decided because some kids used them to insult each other in the playground new words must be used as they were demeaning to the real cripples and spastics. Except if you actually know anyone who is disabled you start to discover they are not personally part of this loop, and some call themselves crippled, handicapped, and far worse, as they have got used to living with these disabilities and are comfortable with them, while the guilty left of north London who are no more disabled than not knowing how to wire a plug, and could probably buy a council block rather than a single flat, decide on other people's behalf what you can and can't think or say about them. They are the enemy, they have patronisingly chosen who they see as the underdogs and made up an entire set of artificial rights for them, which by using their inherent power and connections, can then enforce through a combination of laws and media reporting to make the great majority of society go along with at the penalty of losing your job or worse, while the disabled and immigrants do not want to be treated that way, and Muslims do celebrate Christmas and many immigrants do not want more coming in either.
Emnity comes in infinite forms, but based on a single model. Groups and individuals with or without the power to carry out their wishes whose beliefs mean they think society cannot be as they think it should be without taking something away from others in any way at all. I am not talking about reasonable taxation, but as the overall take reduces when tax rises above around 50% as people leave, stop working or avoid payment, any tax above that simply hurts people for absolutely no benefit for others. Taking a set of opinions and making them the only ones you are allowed to have, whether or not the alleged victims want them themselves is not caring of fairness, but a variation of imposing your own wishes on others on pain of great loss. I don't think many of the furthest of the western extremists condone suicide bombing, although some like George Galloway and Ken Livingstone befriend its promoters and agree with their general causes, and every other element I am describing only vary in degree. Killing a patient as the ambulance can't get to them in time to save them as there are humps on the road is no different to a random religious assassination of an infidel. Just because one is clear and obvious with absolutely no possible justification outside a delusion, and the other is hidden and extremely subtle, the act and intentions behind the act are no better however the killing happens.
We could all cooperate. There is enough for everyone, and the only threat to this is the exponentially growing world population which threatens space and resources being stretched. There is more than enough to feed the world at its current population, and while terrorists kill the opposition in South Sudan simply as they don't like the president and want theirs instead, we are infested with enemies at the most obvious level worldwide while on the subtle levels they either hide their atrocities behind other policies or get other people to do it for them. You must also be able to recognise them, as in the west half the attacks are in the shadows and unless you learn the ways of the silent killers they will become as inherent as a herpes virus which is invisible to our immune system and lives within us for life. Once recognised and understood, you can then read the enemy as well as the white cells can see the known germs arriving and if you can't throttle them like a macrophage can at least recognise them for exactly who they are and not fall for their subtle persuasion many innocent people take on and use to attack the others they are told require it. The bottom line is you can't build by destroying, you can't create freedom by restricting it, and can't enhance life by taking it away from others.
Therefore, as long as we have tribes and religious groups intent on dominating and destroying their enemies, political movements based on the shortage mentality, division and unity (they are actually sides of the same coin), we will be no more mature as a society than the decadent empires of history or the stone age. The division is created by demonising anyone against their views of enforced unity, from Mao's Cultural Revolution where everyone had to dress the same, to the Londonista's view of multicultural diversity we must accept or be sent to re-education camps. In the end diversity and multiculturalism becomes homogenised, as everywhere is an equal mix of races, cultures and types, and by intermarrying in the end there will indeed be no races to speak of as everyone will have mixed together over so many generations that racial differences will have been bred away. Of course many people believe this is a good thing, but many do not, and those are both their opinions, and dare I say equally valid. And anyone who disagrees either opinion is right is the enemy. Get it now?
Having more than a few fringe lunatics operating alone in a society means there is still something wrong with it as a whole. We may not be eating people, making people spend their life in the caste they were born in, or murder widows as people have only a hundred or so years ago, but we still have people boiling animals alive for food in Asia, terrorist bombers worldwide (although nearly all are Muslims, which is just an unfortunate statistic), low interest rates wrecking half the world's economies, subsidies for wind and solar which don't produce more than they cost, massive levels of existing and planned taxation on the rich, planned energy rationing (see the Stern Report and UN documents), reduced pass levels for exams, match fixing, protection for organised criminals (who's been prosecuted for fraud in the Libor fixing or Hillsborough for a start?), and the claims it's colder in the winter due to global warming while Antarctic ice continues to grow every single year which accounts for 90% of the world's ice? However stupid the claims, if people still believe them they will continue. These used to be the exception to the rule, now they are the rule itself. We can't rely on Marx's pendulum to swing the other way, we must be aware of it and root it out at every level.
Friday 3 January 2014
Global warming- a deadly cult
I have finally pinned down the exact reason the entire field of man made global warming is bogus. It is not happening. Yes, technically, it is that simple. Let me explain:
You will already be familiar with the basics as I repeat them over and over. CO2 has risen 50% since 1850, a doubling adds 1C, the UN say over 2C is the point where the overall benefits of warming are overtaken by the problems (although we have never experienced such conditions to actually know), and on a rising trend at the 50% rise the total is just under 0.8C. Subtract the natural rise and you are left fairly close to the exact 0.5C figure the CO2 would add. The element the UN claim is going to raise the temperature anywhere from 2-6C is from oceanic evaporation, causing increased water vapour in the required atmospheric bands, and not forming clouds. Unfortunately you cannot model cloud cover, which is a cooling factor, so the models only included water vapour and also left out the other major coolant, aerosol pollution, for the same reason. So by leaving out the cooling factors the models had to be too high, as they were.
Cults tell you they are the only source of information you can have. No one and nothing else counts, and if they disagree then they are your enemy, including and especially your own family. Telling young children to tell their parents to reduce their carbon footprints, and put their health at risk by turning down the heating, is the sort of dangerous divisive act exactly from the worst possible cults. Telling their followers a lack of warming and growing Antarctic ice and colder European winters are signs of warming is admittedly bloody stupid, but they do and are fully believed. Despite there being absolutely no studies expecting a delay in warming from added CO2, or any known physical processes, as water evaporates evenly, that is not a possible factor in their ammunition. Except for James Hansen, who claims warming is logarithmic, and won't really happen till around 2080 according to his unique sea level diagram with no references to how he worked out the mechanism.
So, they want you to believe that despite CO2 being a weak insulator and no evidence of positive feedback from any other source (melting sea ice would also do it slightly by the ocean absorbing more heat, but overall it hasn't melted), and every single parameter indicating after a 50% rise in CO2 it is physically impossible to raise the temperature anywhere near 2C people still believe it. Therefore global warming is not an area of science, but entirely of belief, ie faith. The believers ignore all they know, ie the current and historic facts we can measure and be certain of, and dismiss it entirely on projections in the future, even though the existing evidence it totally against its existence, and they will not live to see the result anyway.
So those of us who simply assess what we already know, and then compare it with the trends of the projections into the future, can both see the warming which has occurred is negligible, and with such a high rise in CO2 can clearly not be significantly affected however much is added, as once it doubles it must then double again to add another 1C, which couldn't be produced at such a high level of over 1000ppm. So the believers have to actually dismiss current knowledge as well as have total faith in predictions which they can never know the outcome of.
Here is a diagram of interglacial periods. Every 125,000 years or so most ice melts and then freezes again for small and large ice ages. The CO2 can clearly be seen to rise, but not before it heats but after, as it is released from the ocean as warming releases gas from water. Hippos lived in Britain the last peak, as bones have been found as far as the north of England, and it needed a higher temperature than present for them to survive the winters.
History can clearly be relied on, and so can present evidence. But when you have faith then every current figure is interpreted in relation to your beliefs, and when they conflict the belief must win, as people with faith put it as their highest value and any actual facts which disagree with it here and now must ultimately turn out to be wrong in their system. As long as that is the case the cult will cause more damage over time, restricting the availability of energy and power and forcing poor people to die of cold and starvation from rising food prices. This increases in range and intensity over time as more countries adopt the same policies and increase the taxes annually. And it is all entirely founded on faith at the total expense of reality. That is a deadly combination.
You will already be familiar with the basics as I repeat them over and over. CO2 has risen 50% since 1850, a doubling adds 1C, the UN say over 2C is the point where the overall benefits of warming are overtaken by the problems (although we have never experienced such conditions to actually know), and on a rising trend at the 50% rise the total is just under 0.8C. Subtract the natural rise and you are left fairly close to the exact 0.5C figure the CO2 would add. The element the UN claim is going to raise the temperature anywhere from 2-6C is from oceanic evaporation, causing increased water vapour in the required atmospheric bands, and not forming clouds. Unfortunately you cannot model cloud cover, which is a cooling factor, so the models only included water vapour and also left out the other major coolant, aerosol pollution, for the same reason. So by leaving out the cooling factors the models had to be too high, as they were.
Cults tell you they are the only source of information you can have. No one and nothing else counts, and if they disagree then they are your enemy, including and especially your own family. Telling young children to tell their parents to reduce their carbon footprints, and put their health at risk by turning down the heating, is the sort of dangerous divisive act exactly from the worst possible cults. Telling their followers a lack of warming and growing Antarctic ice and colder European winters are signs of warming is admittedly bloody stupid, but they do and are fully believed. Despite there being absolutely no studies expecting a delay in warming from added CO2, or any known physical processes, as water evaporates evenly, that is not a possible factor in their ammunition. Except for James Hansen, who claims warming is logarithmic, and won't really happen till around 2080 according to his unique sea level diagram with no references to how he worked out the mechanism.
So, they want you to believe that despite CO2 being a weak insulator and no evidence of positive feedback from any other source (melting sea ice would also do it slightly by the ocean absorbing more heat, but overall it hasn't melted), and every single parameter indicating after a 50% rise in CO2 it is physically impossible to raise the temperature anywhere near 2C people still believe it. Therefore global warming is not an area of science, but entirely of belief, ie faith. The believers ignore all they know, ie the current and historic facts we can measure and be certain of, and dismiss it entirely on projections in the future, even though the existing evidence it totally against its existence, and they will not live to see the result anyway.
So those of us who simply assess what we already know, and then compare it with the trends of the projections into the future, can both see the warming which has occurred is negligible, and with such a high rise in CO2 can clearly not be significantly affected however much is added, as once it doubles it must then double again to add another 1C, which couldn't be produced at such a high level of over 1000ppm. So the believers have to actually dismiss current knowledge as well as have total faith in predictions which they can never know the outcome of.
Here is a diagram of interglacial periods. Every 125,000 years or so most ice melts and then freezes again for small and large ice ages. The CO2 can clearly be seen to rise, but not before it heats but after, as it is released from the ocean as warming releases gas from water. Hippos lived in Britain the last peak, as bones have been found as far as the north of England, and it needed a higher temperature than present for them to survive the winters.
History can clearly be relied on, and so can present evidence. But when you have faith then every current figure is interpreted in relation to your beliefs, and when they conflict the belief must win, as people with faith put it as their highest value and any actual facts which disagree with it here and now must ultimately turn out to be wrong in their system. As long as that is the case the cult will cause more damage over time, restricting the availability of energy and power and forcing poor people to die of cold and starvation from rising food prices. This increases in range and intensity over time as more countries adopt the same policies and increase the taxes annually. And it is all entirely founded on faith at the total expense of reality. That is a deadly combination.
Thursday 2 January 2014
How to run a business
In my early years I was lucky enough to witness two businesses which were either the peak of their field at the time for one or became it later on after building up from a bedroom sales industry of stereo equipment. Both had a single thing in common. Have the best products at the best prices, ie provide exactly what the customers wanted.
Now most customers assume this is a universal business model, but in fact the scale is from there to trying to get as much as possible for as little as possible, and both ends are ideologically based on either seeing the customer as a pawn to squeeze as much out of as possible, or your means to success.
Other business can be run the same way and include staff as well using the identical rules. If you make the business attractive to staff then they will be loyal, work harder and feel part of the business, which of course they are. Both mean there is no 'them and us' attitude, but everyone working as a team. Seeing both customers and employees as 'human resources' as they now call them is like treating them as cows and doing anything you can to keep them in their place and milk them dry at the lowest cost to you, and absolutely no consideration for their welfare as long as you get as much as you can from them. That's why we get businesses buying rejects and selling them as perfect, refusing refunds at the slightest opportunity, cheating with prices, offering a few items which vanish after a couple of minutes but kept advertised for days or weeks to bring people in, buying any old rubbish for stock as long as it's on clearance, and usually not paying suppliers on time if at all (I've worked for both types and know the lot of them from experience).
Basically it's all about attitudes. If you see the world in terms of you are working against everyone else in competition, and you can't trust anyone including your business partners, your entire business will reflect this and your staff and customers will never stick around for long, and it will either go broke or make money by cheating. But in fact it's so easy to succeed not by finding the quickest ways to make the most and then switch to a new scam when people get wise to it, like wind or solar sales, or pyramid schemes etc, but by learning about the products, only selling the best and keeping the prices down as low as possible. My first shop never had a sale, the reason being the items were on sale the whole year round. As a result they had regular customers for 40 years and many came from abroad specially rather than buy the same things where they lived. The next business had short working hours, offered a bonus for the highest sales per store, high wages and basically treated every member of staff the way they'd like to wherever they worked. It is now one of the richest companies in Britain and has been growing since the early 80s. Some branches only need to open 5-6 hours a day, people are often queuing to the door and staff flock to work there and stay put. They are not doing anything unusual, and in fact like Lidl as another example I see doing the same sort of things, can be copied by every single shop owner and will get similar results. Unless you see the customers as your only means of success, instead of a combination of a nuisance and a victim to be exploited, your business will never provide what people want or succeed.
Now most customers assume this is a universal business model, but in fact the scale is from there to trying to get as much as possible for as little as possible, and both ends are ideologically based on either seeing the customer as a pawn to squeeze as much out of as possible, or your means to success.
Other business can be run the same way and include staff as well using the identical rules. If you make the business attractive to staff then they will be loyal, work harder and feel part of the business, which of course they are. Both mean there is no 'them and us' attitude, but everyone working as a team. Seeing both customers and employees as 'human resources' as they now call them is like treating them as cows and doing anything you can to keep them in their place and milk them dry at the lowest cost to you, and absolutely no consideration for their welfare as long as you get as much as you can from them. That's why we get businesses buying rejects and selling them as perfect, refusing refunds at the slightest opportunity, cheating with prices, offering a few items which vanish after a couple of minutes but kept advertised for days or weeks to bring people in, buying any old rubbish for stock as long as it's on clearance, and usually not paying suppliers on time if at all (I've worked for both types and know the lot of them from experience).
Basically it's all about attitudes. If you see the world in terms of you are working against everyone else in competition, and you can't trust anyone including your business partners, your entire business will reflect this and your staff and customers will never stick around for long, and it will either go broke or make money by cheating. But in fact it's so easy to succeed not by finding the quickest ways to make the most and then switch to a new scam when people get wise to it, like wind or solar sales, or pyramid schemes etc, but by learning about the products, only selling the best and keeping the prices down as low as possible. My first shop never had a sale, the reason being the items were on sale the whole year round. As a result they had regular customers for 40 years and many came from abroad specially rather than buy the same things where they lived. The next business had short working hours, offered a bonus for the highest sales per store, high wages and basically treated every member of staff the way they'd like to wherever they worked. It is now one of the richest companies in Britain and has been growing since the early 80s. Some branches only need to open 5-6 hours a day, people are often queuing to the door and staff flock to work there and stay put. They are not doing anything unusual, and in fact like Lidl as another example I see doing the same sort of things, can be copied by every single shop owner and will get similar results. Unless you see the customers as your only means of success, instead of a combination of a nuisance and a victim to be exploited, your business will never provide what people want or succeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)