Sunday, 22 February 2015

Climate propaganda funding reference

The false accusations made constantly against 'climate change deniers' are that they are funded by big oil, and have so much money available they can persuade the world not to believe the truth about global warming is not possible to maintain in reality as most of the figures are public. This list focuses on the main players and just scratches the surface of the total picture, but the figures alone speak for themselves. Ultimately both pale into insignificance when compared with the billions of our money spent by the governments and UN to promote climate belief, so this is the remainder, but must take into account as a result before we include the private sector the huge majority is all on one side and it's not the denial one.

Sierra club- $25 million from gas alone funded by big oil (Rockefellers)


The Sierra Club has received funding from the following groups: the Pew Charitable Trusts,[19] the Joyce Foundation,[20] the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation,[21] the Blue Moon Fund,[22] the David and Lucile Packard Foundation,[23] the Energy Foundation,[24] the Turner Foundation[25] and the Tides Foundation and Tides Center.[26]
In November 2011, the Los Angeles Times reported that green-energy investor David Gelbaum has donated over $100 million to the Sierra Club in recent decades. [27] Additionally, in July 2011, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s charity announced plans for a $50 million dollar donation to the Sierra Club’s “campaign to shut down coal-fired power plants.”[28]

In 2011, the Sierra Club had total revenues of $97,757,678.


" has the look and feel of an amateur, grassroots operation, but in reality, it is a multi-million dollar campaign run by staff earning six-digit salaries.
By my analysis of information from the U.S. Foundation Center and the tax filings of American charitable foundations, McKibben’s campaigns have received more than 100 grants since 2005 for a total of US$10-million from 50 charitable foundations. Six of those grants were for roughly US$1-million each."

George Soros, the oil billionaire among other investments, funds a number of climate propaganda organisations, Environmental Media Services,, The Open Society Institute, I thought jut the main well known groups pushing the climate agenda were his, but the list here goes on for pages.
Soros funded groups

"MoveOn spends millions to support liberal politicians while simultaneously attacking conservatives. MoveOn spent $21.6 million to support Democrats in the 2004 election.[16] Hollywood elites such as Oliver Stone and Rob Reiner have made ads for MoveOn.[17]"

 "GetUp was inspired by, and modelled on similar US groups, such as and Win Back Respect. Madden and Heniman were co-founders of Win Back Respect. According to public records published on, when they were drawing expenses from the group in 2004, the major donor that year, with a contribution of $150,000 was George Soros.
Madden and Heimans are also involved with another Soros-financed left-wing activist group,  Public records reveal that between January 2003 and December 2004, Soros contributed $2,500,999 to"  Source

DeSmogBlog are a typical cowboy outfit DeSmogBlog details

DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by "dirty money"
Al Gore's Climate Reality Group: "The Climate Reality Project is a non-profit group. It has come under scrutiny for electioneering and charges have been filed with the Federal Election Commission.[2] Describing its work as a “mass persuasion exercise,” the Climate Reality Project generated $88 million in revenues in 2008.[3]
Climate Reality Group

"Earthworks is an American non-profit environmental organization. Based in Washington, D.C., Earthworks seeks to prevent or limit mining operations, natural gas production, hydraulic fracturing and oil production. Earthworks is a vocal opponent of mining in Bristol Bay, Alaska,  an area commonly known as the Pebble Mine." Now why would they want to do that exactly?

"Extreme left-wing foundations such as the Tides Foundation, the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation and the David & Lucile Packard Foundation provide significant funding to Earthworks."


One of the largest organisations, and the ones who fund Michael Mann's so far unsuccessful lawsuits for anyone who questions his work, is the Suzuki Foundation. This includes a graph of their funding. I'd guess they alone  wouldwipe out the total for every single group on the other side. Their average funding has risen from $3 million a year to closer to $9 million. And guess what, these donations aren't for charity, they all expect something back and more. That's the nature and basis of political donations, they are seen as investments as well as helpful tax losses.

General overview 2014 total US political donations subject to disclosure

Of course, ultimately, the piddling amounts paid to the 'denial organisations' like the Heartland Institute, and GWPF, compared to the governments and UN vanish into obscurity. These 'deniers', who incidentally regularly publish data which can all be independently verified, rather than the models and predictions from the other side, neither of which pass a single test of scientific method, and simply allow the small scale media to publish the genuine material many of the larger levels won't touch. Comparing the amounts spent on a handful of contrary organisations compared to the vast array of large scale environmental groups headed by Greenpeace and the WWF, who are actually supposed to be apolitical charities (although Greenpeace has had its charitable status stripped in some countries now as a direct result), means the combined amounts from heavyweight PR and the far greater amounts spent by governments, in the billions, are an irrelevant diversion. Eventually I may be able to balance the two general sums so everyone can both see the difference and the official sources, but till then the figures here still speak for themselves and point to the obvious known conclusion.

Friday, 20 February 2015

Policies for others affect you as well

I remember back as far as the 60s, listening to the intellectual north London professionals and businesspeople around me talking about how people have too much money, it's not fair, and it should be taxed heavily (at a time when the top rate was already around 97%) to somehow even things out. The first obvious thing hit me, as a small child under ten, was that how did they make their money and wouldn't it hurt them and people like them the most? Of course it would. In fact my erstwhile friend of the 1970s, Toby Young, also made the same observation where his family and their friends, many times wealthier than mine, would discuss exactly the same things over the most expensive wine and then drive home in their Rolls Royces and Jaguars, and such hypocrisy was the major reason for him becoming a Tory.

Money is not the only area, but the clearest. Besides the fact once you take more than about 40% of people's earnings you collect less (as people cheat more, work less and move abroad), so it is punitive and bad for the country, and it doesn't actually go directly to poor people but the treasury pot, who then decide where it goes using their own current policies. Nothing has changed, people I know who have done well in business and the professions are the most raging socialists, advocating policies which would take away their houses (mansion tax), cars (green tax and restrictions), and power (green taxes and renewables). They, having the most, will of course lose the most. Their cars, not mine, now cost them maybe £400 for road tax compared to around £100 for me as the policies were changed to relate to the size, and I can't afford anything like it. In smaller ways like this which they can easily afford the irony goes straight under their radar, but even as they renew their Labour Party membership, where they want to reverse tax cuts for 'millionaires' (it's actually people who earn more than £150,000 p.a. so they are liars) from the measly 45% back to 50%, even though they've found people paid less overall since it was increased to 45% from the original 40%. I won't pay 50,40, or nowadays even 20% as I don't earn it, but I still fight for those who do, mainly  as it's their money among various other equally logical reasons, and also because unless they stole it or cheated to obtain it then it's the combination of their hard work and superior talents, often paid for in years of study.

Forget the reasons for greater wealth, the left only see the differences in wealth and virtually dismiss the actual causes of it, basically painting anyone wealthier than they are as some form of shady criminals. Including overlooking their own wealth though somehow if they are in the top whatever percent, they and the friends and family are discussing the best ways to remove said wealth from others, are both exempt from the tar brush of  suspicion, and forget somehow they will also be that much worse off. Apparently as they know they earned their money genuinely they don't count, but everyone else does. The money, as alluded to already, is just one aspect of 'we will tell you how you should live' campaign, extends now since the creation of global warming to suffering for a greater unknown future benefit, including saving the lives of people that don't yet exist. The same mental framework is required behind it, that life is not fair and it must be made fair as otherwise it's not fair, or something. Pretty much the entire philosophy of Dave Spart, who for all I know is still writing for Private Eye after 50 years or so. Have they actually imagined the consequences, not just for the poor sods called 'everyone else' who will not have constant reliable power as the coal stations had been closed down 'to save the planet', and the remainder will cost so much as it's being generated by rocking horses and special elastic bands (you really wouldn't get much difference) paid for at source from your higher taxes, higher energy bills, and subsidies to manufacturers and operators. They don't work though as the wind rarely blows at the required rate and the power can't even be stored when it's generated in excess periods, and solar panels tend to only work when you least need them and any excess isn't enough to store in sufficient quantities.

The Incas typified the ancient mindset of sacrifice, using the well publicised 'precautionary principle'. As newspapers and even courts of law did not yet exist, subtlety was not a consideration, so the virgins regularly had their throats slit and hearts removed to sacrifice to the gods of weather for the greater good. Making 3,000 extra people die of cold a year in Britain alone from not being able to afford their heating bills is doing the same thing indirectly, enough so that they can't actually (yet) be connected under the law, but are still 3,000 people who would probably all still be alive had the prices not been ramped up with green taxes. Then when the energy is rationed when each year more power stations are closed under the EU laws everyone will lose their power at times as Lord Stern already stated in his report. This is not even in question. These laws were designed in the 1992 Kyoto Protocol, and clearly state that they are not designed to replace fossil fuel generation with renewables, but reduce demand for energy. Think about that in detail. How do you reduce demand for water, or air, or even food? Basically by having fewer consumers of it, ie people. You can't quite survive on too little of any of these, including heating, so reducing demand for any of the essentials which have a medical optimum level of calorie intake, air intake, water intake, and indoor temperature, once you drop below that line your health will deteriorate and you just watch the level decline as the requirements are further reduced for any of them.

I have yet to hear anyone even from Greenpeace try and claim we drink too much water, let alone could save the planet by learning ways to breathe in less oxygen (maybe to save it for our unborn grandchildren), so why do they want to reduce demand for energy which is just as essential to normal levels of life and health?

A rabbi, of all people, was reported last week lecturing a hall of presumably willing and admiring idiots, advocating bringing about the end of driving, flying and eating meat, 'to combat climate change'.

Think about it. Even if the climate was changing that much, and in a bad way, the suffering involved in any or all of these is known. Even the greenest of far out weirdos get a car occasionally even if they don't drive themselves. Maybe they have relatives abroad and would like to see them from time to time. As he didn't mention shipping (I think on their criteria that's a pretty major source of emissions so expect he probably forgot) they could maybe take a week to America and back, just as we did in Victorian times, except then the population was a fraction of today and as a result the demand that much lower. And imagine someone asking to take six months holiday off work as he wanted to go to Australia. Consequences. Not unseen or indirect, but as I saw at about the age of eight, the bleeding obvious ones.

Bottom line, making people suffer today to avoid problems tomorrow outside a direct linear relationship is a crime against humanity. These policies affect the entire populations of each country, and just like the politician who doesn't take any notice of complaints about a local train service till the day his chauffeur has the flu and he has to urgently get to a meeting and discovers it directly, and like magic within a couple of weeks the problem is fixed. It could always have been, but unless they were affected directly they didn't care. There was a wonderful survey on the BBC Radio 4 Health Matters once, where they said doctors had poor hygiene in hospital as the consequences didn't affect them but their patients. This was a serious official survey, that proved that despite rules and regulations, doctors frequently and regularly overlooked them as it didn't hurt them if they did. Of course the flip side of this is when you don't think of what would happen when a change that hurts other people will hurt you equally you really need to stop and imagine if it did. They never do though.

Jealousy, envy, all the lower of the deadly sins in Christianity and motivations in Buddhism, along with ignorance and stupidity are the drivers of such views. Imaginary formulas where if you remove money from the rich it makes the poor better off, or by not realising making more money the rich actually increase the total in the economy are the foundations of these policies despite many of their greatest advocates being professors and other academics who lead willing wealthy and educated students to join the revolution. Noam Chomsky, George Galloway and many others before and since have advocated with exactly the same results when put in place, suffering and disaster. They are so overwhelmed with misguided compassion for the underdogs, the poor, minorities, slaves (albeit 200 years ago), women, gays, transgendered, and any other group not doing as well as average that regardless of the policies advocated which were alleged to improve their lots they appear to support them regardless. Their initially well meaning motive for fairness and equality became so strong, and was exploited by less scrupulous and sane individuals, they ended up becoming programmed pawns with little capacity to think for themselves or process information from any other source, who they had been trained to see as a dangerous enemy- capitalists, big oil (which doesn't exist, they're energy companies), climate change deniers (including the great majority who accept it's happening but not nearly as much as they expect it to), racists, Islamophobes, homophobes and misogynists. I've discussed the labelling elsewhere, but suffice to say they take any comment relating to said topics and if it isn't 100% positive or on message then the meme is operated.

In the end as a result they are an almost homogenous army, only varying in degree and range of pet issues, and it appears the only way they would see the reality would be when they were put in a similar position to the politician and have to suffer the consequences of their own policies. Sadly on the margins some may actually not recognise, or even claim was an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence if one of their relatives died of cold or was hospitalised (as many thousands are per year in Britain as a direct result of higher bills), so really they must be affected personally before sooner or later the true pain of the policies some have camped outside parliament for months to advocate actually become reality. The trouble is by the time things get that bad it won't just affect them but everyone else, and the damage will have been done already.

Mankind still has a long way to go since the stone age, mentally at least. Little has changed at the lower end.

Thursday, 12 February 2015

Conspiracy theories- a guide to the genuine and false

Using three levels of proof from law, there are different types of conspiracy story presented as all being equal, and most people can't tell the difference between them despite nearly all having completed their education to a level where such evidence would speak for itself. But as it clearly doesn't, then here are some rules followed by examples, so you can sort your stories into each category.

The first level is not a conspiracy theory, as it is a conspiracy, ie an agreement to commit an offence between two or more people. Where it is known, through a combination of first hand direct evidence and confessions, then we know for example Libor fixing, manipulating the gold and foreign exchange prices, and covering up the Hillsborough evidence were conspiracies, as they have been admitted and confirmed by the authorities. Therefore, without any doubt, we know they occurred, as did the plans for Operation Northwoods in 1963 where the CIA planned to kill American citizens and blame it on Cuba so they could start a war. Kennedy nixed them, and coincidentally leads us to our second level, the smoking gun. We can't prove Kennedy was killed for that or any other reason, but there is more than enough secondary evidence that he was assassinated for political reasons rather than none at all by a random lunatic. There is smoking gun evidence for geoengineering, as it has already been funded, researched and promoted, and the skies are covered with wide bands of lines crossing each other not seen before the 21st century, and the usual vapour trails which are half the length as they wear off after a minute or two instead of lasting for long enough to persist and widen. No one has either admitted it or caught someone doing it yet, so it is a smoking gun with more than half the evidence required to suggest there is a reason, like smelling a rotten fish will normally lead you to one eventually.

The final level is the conspiracy theory proper, such as Putin's latest joke he's going to release pictures proving the US carried out 9/11 itself. They haven't of course, but these nuts treat an announcement  he may do it at some possible later stage if he really really has to (in Russian and translated by people we don't know have even done it correctly) exactly the same as if they'd been released. All similar claims which have few or no sources, including every single one that hasn't actually happened yet but someone says someone will, are as good as nothing at all, and as such unless they have a large amount of reliable circumstantial evidence, such as aluminium and barium being collected on the ground where they normally couldn't exist, along with planes turning and following each other on clearly unscheduled routes leaving these trails behind them lead to a conclusion something unusual is happening. The same goes for the incredible number of evidential failures surrounding Princess Diana's car crash, which have been reported in such detail by all major TV stations any lawyer will see virtually every rule of evidence and investigation was broken by the French police, making any conclusions the courts came to void as based on faulty material, tampering with archives, losing witnesses and witness statements, and inconsistent vehicle identifications to name but the most pressing ones, including the mystery blood test on an apparently sober and healthy man who apparently had so much carbon monoxide in his system he shouldn't have been alive, let alone conscious. But 9/11 is less convincing, we saw it in real time (apparently) on TV and there was little left to the imagination. The falling towers are only possible to understand as an engineer, and they disagree, while the only real clue anything is amiss was the fall of the third tower I personally saw announced by the BBC only to find it hadn't fallen for at least 20 more minutes after they announced it. This is on Youtube and no explanation has ever been provided for it. But as for who was behind it if it really wasn't the accepted band of Al Qaeda trained terrorists then we'll never know as such international mercenary forces cover their tracks as they always have.

Then we have David Kelly's apparent suicide, despite the forensic evidence meaning he died of slitting his wrists to a level not capable of killing anyone and there wasn't any actual blood at the scene. Here is a classic smoking gun by possible hired assassins trained to hide their tracks and protected by the authorities so no police investigation can be carried out to ever test such evidence. But there's little point trying to find out any more with any of these unusual deaths simply because the best stuff has been burnt, buried and hidden under pain of death well enough to never surface at least in our lifetimes so we may as well move on and work on the known conspiracies, as they alone would be enough to bring down the system that created them but people seem happier to pursue the empty or impossible second and third level claims and put the directly known conspiracies aside. But only this month at least two newspapers published the climate adjustments which contribute to at least half the total global warming, years after the internet learnt about them, and it is impossible to keep repeating such material without eventually the people losing confidence in the system and obliging the government to sacrifice a few token individuals and shut down their operations.

Once people learn to discriminate the three levels, discard the lowest, understand the second and put them in cold storage and publicise the highest then the interest in nonsense claims and predictions will fall off and people will no longer bother to take any notice of them.

Saturday, 7 February 2015

21st century neologisms: Bigotry

The big brother of its violent relation 'racism', the accusations of bigotry from the extremely unliberal left have been used in concert to shut down any opposition as if by insulting alone you can force not only expressing certain views out of existence but according to them the views themselves. But bigotry had and ought to still have a dictionary definition, one close to but more specific than prejudice:

"A person blindly and obstinately devoted to a set of ideas, creed or political party, and dismissive towards others" Old French, Chambers Dictionary.

Now of course anyone outside the political left knows this already, and can quite accurately use it to describe them perfectly. Yet they instead use it to demean anyone opposed to their indivdual bigotry of multiculturalism, diversity and LGBT culture, to name the front line of their cultural (and in my view possibly decadent) revolution. A single word not actively positive about race, Islam (all other religions, and God especially are fair game), homosexuality, transgender, equality, wealth redistribution, global warming, and anything else which diverts from traditional society and its values including the EU are then followed with accusations of crime, and calls to make disagreement a capital offence at the extreme end. In fact Britain alone drew up a bill to make offensive speech a crime, and very nearly succeeded, and are currently trying again with a watered down version. This will mean totally harmless words (harmful ones are already covered by incitement to crime) will subjectively become illegal and they will get their wish of making speech against anything they hold dear a crime to even criticise. Just like the Soviet Union or China.

Specifically, if you think:

It's fine for gay people to form civil partnerships, but marriage is between a man and a woman.
The amount of global warming has been trivial.
It is unfair for gay couples to have children as they will be brought up missing a parent in most cases.
There should be restictions on immigration (even if said by immigrants).
Your religion disagrees with homosexual practices (unless apparently it's Islam?).
Different races have their own characteristics.
There aren't many British people where you live (although it's OK to say not many black people as they often do).

You are, according to them, a bigot. Plans are under way to stop all these views, as each has been raised from the level of observation or opinion to fact, even raising these issues nowadays sets you up as a bigot. Despite most of these views were actually mainstream and many were actually law (and some still are elsewhere) till the late 20th century. It is nothing to do with discrimination, as that is already and quite correctly banned, so clearly not covered by that law (paying less, not allowing certain people in your property etc), but still attempting to make such views outlawed.

If you then divide opinion from fact, and merge the areas where we have facts (eg the number of immigrants, which is known), and opinions (it divides society, they form tight pockets within other communities etc), and returning to facts to form queues for services, roads, schools and cause problems where teachers and customers alike have to work with people with little or no English. That was why we always restricted immigration and most countries still do, and is not about bigotry but space and resource management.

For marriage, you can only have a male and female parent. You can have a couple that isn't, but they must borrow one of the second sex, and unless they live as a trio or quadruple of two couples then the poor child will grow up with no parent around and no knowledge or influence of that sex. Also it is established a lot of crime is caused by boys in particular growing up with no father at home, and knowing this then making it happen deliberately from day one simply enters dangerous territory. I will no doubt be called bigoted for even quoting scientific fact, but then they used to execute people who said the sun is the centre of the solar system.

Racial characteristics, like its related intelligence debate, has torn science in two ever since the words mongoloid, cripple, spastic and moron became relegated to the dustbin of bigotry even though they were the terms used by doctors to describe mongoloids, cripples, spastics and morons. Did you know what I meant when I used them all? Yes? Then that proves they are effective words in communicating their meaning. Unlike differently abled or educationally challenged. The disabilites remain and will never change as that is how they are, but people will need a course to work out what's wrong with someone as no doctor or social worker will be allowed to tell you directly even though they know exactly. But even the furthest left loon can't get a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and won't expect their child to get a double first from Cambridge if they were born with Down's Syndrome, no matter how much they hothoused them with private tuition. They are forced to recognise the extreme obvious ends of the scale, but refuse to acknowledge the less certain ones on the surface even when shown by both scientific experiments and more recently DNA testing showing certain characteristics are innate.

I have already spoken about the Utopian view where everyone is equal, no one is cleverer, stronger or better at anything than anyone else, and if this was the case we wouldn't need anyone else as we could do it all ourselves. And if they accept even one quality is inborn they have to accept many others have to be as that is nature. Dogs are selectively bred for their personalities and abilities and it's pretty hard to dismiss a pedigree dog or cat who always behave in similar ways and claim it's all due to their environment, so why not people as well? Of course they are but why waste time, effort and worst of all bitter argument trying to deny it is the case?

Science actually states you can make the best of any quality or squash it but you can't create it from nothing. Einstein would have been as intelligent wherever he was born and whoever brought him up, it would just have had less chance to be known had there been little or no formal education. Separated twin experiments show every time that most qualities are shared, and it makes no difference who adopted them for them to show. Science also shows that CO2 has only made the planet rise by 0.8C, which includes at least 0.2C of natural recovery from the last small ice age, and without water vapour increasing it can do no more per doubling.That's not bigotry, ignorance or attempted murder, it is simply direct observation. How can you be bigoted for quoting exact figures.

It is a poisonous symptom of 21st century politics and social activism which has selected a specific range of personal issues and made them sacrosanct, to the point of violence and the threats of violence and worse. What right does anyone have to dictate our views, just because they claim to have right on their side, as every tyrannical rule has since the start of history, including Isis. Their version of right is actually more bigoted than anyone they target, as there is no room for movement. Their way or no way. To undo badness is to see it first. Then once you are aware of it you can know it is bad dressed up as good. Totalitarian dressed in a liberal overcoat, equality but only for who they choose to be equal. And by misusing both the terms bigot and racist they divert attention from the real ones by including most things which aren't. That gives them a free run and also diverts attention from the current worst bigotry of all, their own.

Friday, 6 February 2015

A lesson in discrimination- how to read the news accurately

If you are happy with everything in life and understand everything you need to then I have no role to provide. I am guessing what tends to happen is those normally satisfied with life, the lucky ones possibly, sooner or later come up against an issue that affects them directly or bothers them enough to lose that blanket satisfaction and wonder what the hell they can do. Maybe I can prepare them for when it happens as well and fill in that gap in the audience.

The general principles, those behind the information, are knowing the big picture, the three dimensional spiders web where everything fits together, and you can see where each new issue goes when it comes up, and discriminating what's important and what's irrelevant or meaningless, something not as easy as you think as the media and activists tend to take the least important or invented issues and make them dominate your attention and that blocks the real one. Examples include totally avoidable problems, like the lack of clean water in the third world, and nonexistent issues such as calling anyone you disagree with a racist while not actually understanding by doing that you give the real racists a free ride as people are so busy aiming their bile at those making jokes and slightly crass comments about other races or even nationalities (who are exactly the same race as they are), any genuine discrimination or actual violence against different people, such as between Shias and Sunnis, Muslims and Kurdish Muslims, any two African tribes fighting over territory, and golf clubs who still don't allow Jews (I suspect that is still the case somewhere, the club at the bottom of my road didn't in the 70s despite being in the most Jewish area of Britain), someone who objects to too much immigration is lumped in with murderers and crooks as if they are exactly the same.

I hope this gives some kind of view of diversionary tactics, and how even when many people think their life's going smoothly they may for example be earning 20% less than they should be or paying 20% more, so are happy only within their ignorance how their lives could actually be a lot better without any economic growth or change, just a change of policy.

Discrimination is something everyone can learn easily. Seeing the big picture is not required by all to sort their lives out, it's something which builds up over decades and just falls into place on its own, it's not something that's so easy to teach besides elements on it which may then point people to work it out themselves. Every day we have a flood of news and other personal events, and the media tend to treat them as most are the same except the rare major newsflashes, which in fact can often be no bigger in reality either. Does it change things? Does it set a precedent? If not then it may just be variations on a theme, or yet another disaster which is just a little bigger than previous ones for a while but is not actually technically telling you anything useful. Volcanoes, earthquakes and even most wars (which however are 100% avoidable as totally based on criminality) are interesting to know but don't mean life is different, but affirm it is exactly as it was before. Now if a year or two went by without one then that would be news as it doesn't happen in our known reality.

For example, when you hear someone in authority is potentially promoting policies which benefit their own personal business interest, alarm bells. It is unlikely to be exceptional but why they are there at all. And when they work together, make laws to increase their profits, and put other competition out of business by regulations you are being run by Mafiosi. And when not just the Mafia are the largest part of the Italian economy at 8% and running most of their 'renewable energy' and farming you know Italy has to be run by the Mafia as otherwise they would be working in the shadows. And when you then discover Aberdeen is run by the Mafia- building, council, pretty much like the bad old days in Chicago and New York then Scotland must be run by the Mafia as it's not the business of local councils to sort out their crimewave but the police. Who clearly are on the other side as they can't operate with an independent police force. And when carbon trading and credits were created by the fraudulent firm Enron, and they led to a massive fraud trial putting the board away for a long stretch, and they are now both legal and compulsory in many countries despite being proved fraudulent in court.

Do you see where I am leading you now? Everyday ordinary events, important to those involved but part of our business as usual are not actually news but information for its own sake. It has little or no practical use to know who's been murdered today or last year, but (and here's a perfect trap for race baiters) if a large percent in London were black on black it's pretty important as that really shouldn't be happening. If you think it should then please reply in the comment box. If a celebrity gets divorced or there's a flood in the far east it's simply gossip or geography, but unless you have relatives there or are either of the celebrities it can't affect your life. If your government allows an entire city to be run by the Mafia it's your big worry as they can spread, like Ebola of the society. The difference being there's no cure for Ebola, but as I remind people, the Mafia are man made and we have every tool we need to unmake them given the resources. I could suggest that besides providing clean water for the entire continent of Africa, the billions burnt on global warming projects (no benefit and no return of said cash) could have recruited an army of new police to wipe out first Aberdeen's little problem, and then with that experience recruit a few more thousand (rather than wasting lives going into Iraq and Afghanistan with almost as little benefit as climate spending) work their way through Italy.

I pick up on my own pet topical subjects but there is no limit to issues which both raise an interest as they are new, not gossip, and actually change your lives, and man made problems which man could then undo once you expose them. Such as quantitative easing and low interest rates which effectively suck that percentage of everyone's money out of the economy going back to the state and the bankers. Once you know this, and then discover Denmark charge customers 0.75% to save their money, as they are in so much financial shit they face being slung out of the EU (so they fear anyway although it's impossible) the only way they believe they can stay in and keep par with the eurozone is by fleecing the money from their depositors. That's a lovely state of business, and one surprisingly close to the previously mentioned organisation of the Mafia.

It's not always obvious though, as when policies are so dangerous and obnoxious they would cause a revolution then they are usually (in a democracy anyway) rolled out gradually in stages so slow by the time you notice or it's affected you directly it's too late as they're here already. The EU banning cars (unless electric, ha bloody ha) by 2050 in stages is one example, first the London Low Emission Zone, then the Paris restriction on older cars, followed by diesel vehicles, and London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (the same as Paris' ban on older cars) do not affect everyone, only one city, and not enough people in one go to even change the votes for the area. But when one day you're sent a letter telling you your car is now banned, and you can't buy a new one as firstly you can't sell the old one which may have 10-20 year's worth of life in it, and the new one has to be so much more expensive than yours as it's only allowed to be a few years old which most people can't afford. And why exactly do they even get away with such tyranny? Because people believe it causes global warming. Fuck me.

There are stages in this process, you hear the news and then if it relates to a man made criminal situation you both spread the word and find ways to force the authorities to deal with it. Now here's another problem you'll come across, it's their actions you are reporting. Oops. Then who do you call? There's only one solution, information. Yes, the Information Revolution. Only by informing the masses, with the hijacking of the media as the current creeps are nearly all silenced by the same system, will the system be changed not from above but from below. Imagine files being published which proved scientists had worked hard to create graphs showing man made warming based on none at all? In banana republics or communist regimes then you have to have military coups to kick out the filthy corrupt governments when exposed as what they are, and in a way similar measures would occur as a result as unless the clean part of each government acted themselves (as is their official function) to clean their own houses it's then also up to us to do it instead.

It's certainly not just about politics, that's just the most obvious area where issues arise, it's about every single aspect of life. People gossip (including me) endlessly, and when faced with a constant stream of similar information it's easy to switch off and miss the rare good bits. It's all based on the same principles though. Does the latest breakup or rudeness mean anything or is it part of normal life? Unless it's not it's just a soap opera and has as little effect on you as a fictional world on TV. Just think of events in the past and sort them out. Which really meant something and what else was just normal variations on an endless theme? Once you get through enough you'll have raised your own ability enough to know which issues matter and which are just waffle.

Ultimately then for each person who learns these techniques whenever they need to they will be able to spot when something important has happened, and know what may need to be done with that new information which means something in their world has changed. You will be able to filter out the news into everyday repetition and the rare other material, good or bad will then stand out. For example as long as I can remember there have been claims of free energy generators. I have followed every single one, and since the internet every single claim has failed. I can't say why as I wasn't personally involved, but I do suspect at least some of them are genuine. However for the first time a company have set an exact date they will be selling one online. It's actually not that far off, and should it happen then we will have shifted from a world requiring physical combustion or outside movement to generate power to one that does not. That would create a level of Utopia as we will no longer need any fuel whatsoever, literally overnight. These potential events (or actual, should any actually happen) are the highest level of importance. But in my experience many people seem to flatten most news items to the middle, squashing the major ones and raising the trivial ones up, partly as presented that way by the media, making it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. The same goes for UFO reports. I have been investigating these directly for just as long, and there are a few levels of evidence below the solid, and there is enough to make me keep looking.

But I suppose one of the few stories we'd all agree were the most major in the history of the planet would be if one day you turned on the TV and an alien was being interviewed. It doesn't matter if you believe it could happen, but imagine if it did. That reaches the ultimate level where no one would miss the importance as 95% of people appear to dismiss it's possible. But if you spread the scenario across the other levels of important news then you will then start to realise what else it applies to the rare times it happens. That in a way is how little gets done about the criminal side of things, besides the absence of a heirarchy above the government agencies carrying much of said crimes out, most people simply don't think it matters, even though it makes them substantially poorer but as they only know how much they do have and not what they are supposed to they don't register it. There are methods around that, the main one simply being mass media, publicity is all it needs by collecting the relevant material and dumping it on the public in one go. Unfortunately the source means more to what we may call the masses than the material, so unless it's delivered by official means and seen by around a million people minimum at once then the impact will wear off if it even hits for the identical material. Otherwise a few souls will be collected from time to time but at a rate taking generations to build enough to make a difference which is clearly not realistic. But on the personal level the more people can at least pick the real stories and dismiss the rest, which soon becomes automatic, the first step towards viewing the world as it really is, and then towards the second of doing something about it will begin.

Tuesday, 3 February 2015

The mindset of the left- guest post

By Stefan Metzeler

One of the most shocking and absurd things about people with a left-wing mindset is how they systematically side with the most evil ideologies on the planet.
Without necessarily being fully socialist or communist, such people do support anyone who seems to challenge western culture, capitalism and judeo-christian values.
In the past, a vast number of left-wing people supported communist regimes, the Vietcong, the Khmer Rouges, the USSR, Maoism, Cuba and the "Palestinians".
For a number of years now, they started supporting Islam just as strongly as they opposed Christianity.

The utter schizophrenia is hard to imagine: they claimed to stand for women's rights, gay rights, human rights and were generally atheist, yet they ally with Islam, which totally oppresses women, even supports beating and stoning them, and which demands that gay people be murdered.
And every time an Islamic movement comes to power, they do it over and over:
- in Iran since Khomeini, who was strongly supported by the left
- in Afghanistan
- in Egypt under the Brotherhood
- and now under the Islamic State
Are these people totally learning-disabled?
Or will at least gay people FINALLY start opposing the spread of Islam in Europe and the USA?
And what will it take for women to see that their future under such a culture would be far worse than a salary gap?