Thursday, 22 December 2016

International government fraud.

Market fixing is both immoral and illegal. It involves controlling price and output artificially to gain excess profits. There are two roots to this picture. It begins in the post-war Common Market, whose Common Agricultural Policy forced food prices up by restricting its production. This wasn't all based on fallow land, where fields were subsidised not to produce to restrict supply, but on getting rid of food when the quota was reached. Once farmers produced the amount of wine, butter or wheat the policy dictated (as in the USSR planned economy), the rest would be destroyed. The wine lakes and butter mountains were the remainder of the amount beyond the quota which was thrown out. The EU destroy food to keep prices up. Is it illegal? Not under their own rules. Is it immoral? Totally.

Part two goes to Ponzi schemes, moving money around with no real product. In the 90s Enron created one based on CO2 trading. They invented future profits in CO2 reduction which were then traded as faux currency, and made them millions for a few years before they were caught out selling imaginary products which were essentially worthless. Was it illegal? Yes. Was it immoral? Yes. But a couple of years before they were busted for the greatest organised fraud in history, they sold the idea to President Clinton and his right hand man Al Gore. Clinton went on to develop carbon trading (tax on CO2 emissions) and Al Gore set up a private carbon trading company which made him a billionaire.

In order to do this Clinton had to change the law, as when Enron were convicted it was for carbon trade fraud. Clinton simply made it legal, so he was free to legislate, and Gore was free to set up his company, identical in all ways to Enron, but now legal. And the EU run carbon trading compulsorily, so we all have to be taxed on our emissions which are then traded on the markets, and in true EU fashion not only sell immoral but legal nothing, they set a minimum (floor) price, so have actually fixed the market by making a minimum price to sell, well, absolutely nothing. Immoral and previously against international law. And could they ever have got away with doing it with the voters? Only if they believed it was for a good reason. Hence the imagined threat from CO2, people saw this fake trading as one of the solutions to the fake problem, and it was coined.

And without international cooperation (globalism), led by the UN panel on climate change, it won't be possible to organise. The fraud must be universal otherwise the money will shift to the free countries. So they all sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and every treaty since (with exceptions who still apply the same rules outside it), and bingo, we have a world mafia style government.

And who comes along responding to the citizens' calls to fix it? Donald Trump. From 20th January 2017 the entire system will begin to collapse.

Friday, 14 October 2016

The left want to go against nature

Before politics and in the remainder of the animal kingdom nature rules. Darwinism, social and biological is the only law, and men and women have roles not decided by politicians but by what is practical. If you give everyone in a country £20,000 then in five years some will have made it into £100,000 and others will have wasted it all. If you keep taking the money the better off have earned and give it to the others then they will continue to waste it and suck off the successful like a parasite. Of course a basic income would solve poverty overnight, so everyone had enough to live on and then whatever else they earn could be taxed at a flat rate to provide the general income, and there is your only needed welfare state.

The roles of women are not imposed in nature, they arise naturally. Until the 70s, when British house prices started becoming too high for one income then the previous (consensual) role of the housewife was lost to the vaults of history. How many women with a family given the chance would work full time till retirement unless they had to? Then we have the artificial construct of same sex marriage. The original difference between a lifelong partnership and marriage was raising a family. What did you say? Gay couples can raise a family? No, they can't, it's impossible. They can adopt a child sired by one partner and condemn it to be brought up without a parent, but of course nature does not allow for that so in order to twist so called equality law gay couples are now allowed to deliberately bring a parentless child into the world rather than adopt one that was already unwanted. Helping an orphan is totally different from creating a child from scratch and eliminating one of the parents by choice.

The amazing decision by the psychiatric community to remove one single type of body/personality dysphoria from being a mental illness but keep the others means politics has gradually crept into science. Not content with changing century long names for syndromes such as spastic, moron, backward and mongol, which were all recognised medical terms, they had to actually succumb to the insidious force of political correctness, and claim a person who actually believes they are the opposite sex are as normal as anyone else. They are still delusional, and had they believed they were an animal or another race and had surgery to look more like it no one would believe they were sane, as they aren't, but slicing off your equipment and calling yourself Mary with a voice and chin still like Marvin is no different however many psychiatrists say they are.

Equality is a total joke as well, as alluded to with the financial example. Every life is equal, every person is different. Family members are similar, and whatever the PC brigade want to order you to believe every racial group is a larger family and will naturally get on with and understand each other better than outsiders. It's not the obvious visual differences either. Being Jewish some people do obviously look Jewish, and many more do not. And throughout my lifetime I've got on well with many people for some time long before discovering they were Jewish. I had no idea till they told me, and when I meet Jews abroad we get on like long lost family, much like when I'd spent a few days in France and finally met my first family of English tourists. It wasn't the language as I could reasonably understand French and we went there to see our French friends there, but foreign is foreign and we all know how that feels when we're somewhere very different and feel totally lost.

So claiming it's fine for the entire third world to flood into Europe, as the EU countries have unanimously decided, is not in anyone's interests. How can it be racist to disagree with it? No large groups of people from abroad spread evenly in their new countries, but simply transplant from one country to an area in another where they are with their own people, often speak their own language, and open shops to supply themselves with the food and items they are used to, as we all would in the same position. It isn't short term with the next generation start to assimilate, but normally long term to permanent. They may move up in society but when they move they move together. And the so called liberals who attack anyone disagreeing with mass immigration to Europe forget nowhere in Asia or Africa has it, and no one complains, except a few far left academics who are determined to make Japan multicultural. Why? Because they hate the fact the Japanese are the strongest national culture on the planet and sets and example to everywhere else who wants to maintain theirs.

Nature is bigger than you and me and politics. The left hate it and want everyone to get the same benefits whoever they are, and claim given a few years of exposure to western values they will always rub off. Well of course the evidence shows the opposite. Career criminals who move abroad simply export it there, and the knife and gun culture of the West Indies (ask a Jamaican, it's not a racist claim) is now a regular occurrence in London, as are the Romanian robbery gangs. You can't turn anyone into something they are not, and the claim I first heard at school was that intelligence is down to your environment awakened me to the sheer denial of reality inherent in leftism. Siblings have very similar upbringings but are all totally different in their academic ability, and when they do well often take different subjects as they are all different people. Thank goodness with genetic profiling they have finally started to prove more and more qualities are decided at birth. Mensa made it fairly clear, you can always reduce intelligence with the wrong conditions but can never increase it. Just look at the extremes. If you have Down Syndrome then you are locked at that level. I can't see anyone arguing with that is it's so obvious. Just because it isn't so obvious with anyone else doesn't mean the subtler variations are any different.

Accusations of hate when anyone tries to use nature as the ultimate rule in life is because the left hate the fact we aren't all equal as individuals and totally different as groups. That can and will never change, and just as dogs are bred to have different qualities deliberately, so have human beings naturally, and trying to force that out of existence is a crime against humanity for motives of sheer and utter stupidity and immaturity. Understand reality and accept it. Nature isn't fair, it just is as it is, if you don't like it then find another reality to inhabit, don't try and spoil this one.

Tuesday, 16 August 2016

Working through the mud

There are many ideas accepted by society as a whole which only a minority of people stop and think to work out for themselves, and once they do they follow the logical thread through the mud to the conclusion. Has the establishment made a plausible claim, like high house prices are good for you? Use my formula and you will be able to work these out for yourself and be armed with every reason to stand up to claims to the opposite by the sheep and perpetrators of the lies and illusions they peddle for vested interests.

I have a few examples but the same process can be applied to every single example of societal groupthink, times when normality is turned on its head and people are expected to follow others regardless of their own views, and insulted if they openly disagree. But when they stop becoming opinions (which are all equally valid) and become facts then they are finished as claims and become open lies being exposed by logic. Even the cases that fall in between and can be seen as opinions (which the proponents present falsely as facts) can be treated the same way. Even if they can't clearly be discerned you can still work through the facts to get to what I'd see as the inevitable result for each.

The flavours of the month for the current two examples are transgender and gay marriage. On the surface both are blindly accepted by what I can only call the masses. However if you actually dig through the layers of both you start seeing through the smoke and mirrors illusion and reach the probably sole conclusion lying at the end for all people.

This is how I personally worked through each and can see many others around who have found exactly the same conclusions.

Transgenders are probably the clearest example. Nature offers two standard alternatives, male XY and female XX plus a few errors which provide rare variations. But transgenders are people who want to be the other of the two usual genders, which is fine if they want to dress and act as it, but cannot by definition actually become one. Firstly we are all made of two things, primarily our awareness and secondarily the bodies which carry that awareness. Anyone in a primitive society unable to think beyond what is there is unlikely to feel their body is any more than a body, much like an animal would. It is only in our more sophisticated society where people question and challenge everything the notion of wanting to be someone or something else comes into being. Does anyone really think stone age men were equally afflicted by the idea they wanted a woman's body and couldn't be themselves till they had one, especially as till the 1960s the operations and drugs required weren't available so besides changing their clothing were stopped at the second hurdle.

Using no more than direct experience, ask a man what it feels like to be a woman and vice versa. They can't know, it's not possible to experience anyone else let alone the opposite sex. Yes, someone can have dysphoria and imagine they'd rather have a different body, a thinner one,  one with a missing limb or the opposite sex, but this is a mental not a physical aberration. Able or disabled, your body is the only one you've got, and besides the usual physical improvements you can make through exercise and diet is doing a good job and unless you look at it in a mirror or directly does not actually come into your awareness much during the day as you are looking outside it at everything else.

Looking at the cosmetic and medical treatments once someone has been determined to change, one actually inflames the issue as if a man feels female surely the best hormone treatment would be male, to see if the feeling could be corrected. But the medical profession instead will medically emasculate the man and reverse the effects (or in the case of a child neutralise them) of puberty. The oestrogen will then force their male bodies to grow breasts, although many can never change their voices once they have broken, so whatever the outer view the voice will always give the truth away. Nature must force itself over nurture every time however hard people work to try and override it. Then they whip off healthy organs (surely against the Hippocratic oath?) to make a hash of pretending to make their male or female organs look like the other, and cut out the gonads altogether like you would a cat. But if they were burnt to death in a fire the DNA test would always show male if they were born male. Every single cell.

So just because you force the existing organs to try and look like others, including hideous scars where women have had their breasts removed, it is no different to pinning pointy ears on a dog, flattening its muzzle and saying it's a cat. However convincing it may be now or in the future you are not fooling anyone, it is a wrapping and under the wrapping is exactly what was there before.

I could go on, but besides having addressed this specifically here already, you can see how I worked round the initial article in the Observer Magazine back in the 60s where they said a man has had a sex change, and as a child I assumed they meant he had become a woman. I worked from that childish assumption as an adult, realised the reality, and came to the only possible conclusion that a man is a man, a woman is a woman, and a dog is a dog whatever they want to be or can be disguised (and mutilated) to look like. Unlike opinions, there is no other view, a man can't become a woman until they can swap their DNA and change form naturally as a result.

Moving on to more artificial and opinion based views, marriage is an entirely human based idea, although it follows many animals who pair for life with a human version carrying a legal status.

That status was always extremely simple. A man and woman marry (fit) together for life where they can (not 'must') raise a family. Gay people, once it became legal, wanted similar lifetime contracts so were given civil partnership, because only opposite sexes could marry. Until David Cameron (a Conservative in name only) decided (without consulting a single voter as it was not in the manifesto) the same sexes could also marry, and now half the world has followed.

Of course marriage can be among groups, animals or anyone else as a marriage itself is simply a lifetime status of partnership. But the first requirement is consummation of the marriage, absence of which is not a ground for divorce (meaning the marriage is dissolved) but annulment, ie you were never married. As marriage means fitting together, like a plug or joint, two men or women simply can't (besides anal sex for men, which is unhealthy and potentially dangerous), so as it's highly unlikely legal marriage can be extended to rule out consummation as a primary requirement, in which case they may as well just be long term friendships between any two people, it fails at the first hurdle, and is recognised in the law that in same sex marriage consummation is not a cause for annulment as it is physically impossible to do so. That should point you to the status of same sex marriage in relation to marriage in general.

But the thought process which takes you from an apparent given, accepted by all on the surface, to digging through the layers and answers till you reach the conclusion, like any maths problem, will take the claim to either the yes or no pile, and should then be impossible for anyone to win an argument against you once you have gone through the process of working out whether a claim is valid or not properly. Keep doing it, watch my examples, and learn how to apply it to anything else like low interest rates, high house prices and socialism which all seem good to children but are toxic to all but the few percent who profit from them.

Friday, 27 May 2016

Common sense and body dysphoria

I have been investigating all the aspects of the current trend for transgenderism, something which till recently was considered one of a family of many similar mental illnesses exhibiting the delusion you believe you are something you are not. These had been treated in the usual ways using therapy and exceptionally surgery, but despite offering sex change surgery it was still the result of trying to settle the mind of the sufferer, using in my view excessive force by excising healthy functioning organs and administering toxic hormone treatment which causes sterility.

Now although body dysmorhpia itself has not changed the transgender aspect has been removed from the spectrum, claiming men really can be women and vice versa. One study even claims this is because the sufferers (as they really suffer) have different brains. I don't think anyone really accepts this much as a brain is a brain and doesn't vary enough from men to women in ways we can yet detect. I will post the links at the end. Before this ground breaking decision there was a long and potentially unlimited list of alternative beliefs about ones identity. Transgender was clearly the commonest and others are very unusual but equally real to the individuals concerned. This can include identity (Jesus and Napoleon were favourites), fatness (anorexia), amputeeism (your limb is not yours and you want it removed, some surgeons actually will), species, race, and anything else you can think of.

I challenged one of these activists recently. I said I am a genius, and they said you're a liar, you're not a genius. I said using their logic if I decide I am a genius then you must accept it, it is no different from deciding I am a woman. Apparently subjective identifying only works for them on some areas so far and not others. Which of course using their logic is discriminating against other types of identity delusions. Of course I don't lie as I had a test in 1971 which put my IQ at genius level, otherwise I'd lose all my credibility in a single statement. But the side issue it raised very usefully was these people only accept delusions when they fit their own political agendas, and not any others equally genuine to the individual.

Of course gender is a political phenomenon. You have 99% of people XX female and XY male. If they are burned in a fire the DNA will always tell you that, whatever operations the person had had to make the surface appear something else. There are no sliding scales, and the in between are XXY, XYY is super-male with no obvious symptoms besides aggression, and a few other intersex disorders irrelevant to transgenderism as they have no obvious gender at all. A man or woman is free in a free society to dress and name themselves however they want, and nowadays few will not get a job as such, especially as it would be illegal not to let them go to work dressed as the opposite sex. But insisting a man who may or may not have had cosmetic surgery to create the rough (and it is very rough) impression they have a woman's body is a woman is a pernicious lie and one even the least discriminating people are beginning to wake up to.

Using psychology, something I am qualified in so beyond the level of a mere blog, your identity has various aspects. If for example you apply for a job or take an exam you do not normally decide the results yourself, but hand it over to others. The same applies to what sex you are. Some of the hulking body builders with a wig and a dress who call themselves Susan or Jackie and appear on television presenting themselves as women will not swing the credibility of a single person, they are just too polite to say so in public. A few, like Paris Lees, happen to have the sort of features which can fool you from a reasonable distance, but penetrate far enough (literally) and the reality will be apparent.

Using the logical argument, does a twin brother know what their twin feels like? Or a parent? Or a male friend? Not really, we only know for certain how we feel. If we are blind we feel a body but we don't know what it looks like, and what men or women look like, so purely take our information from others. A blind man would probably be less likely to be transgender as he isn't able to see a difference in the first place to feel like the other person. But besides the physical awareness, when we are not looking at our bodies to remind ourselves we see everything in front of us instead, our bodies usually disappear. Look in front of you and it's vanished. A child who grows up on a small island or isolated community who was never told wouldn't even realise it had a gender. It is a taught area, with your sex being biological. Transgender activists want to tell you the biology has also changed along with the disturbed mind, as if belief can change every strand of your DNA to XX. And sprout breasts and a clitoris etc naturally in response.

Yes, that is what they want us to accept. However, feminists, for possibly the first time ever (artistic license), have provided a useful input (sorry feminists). They quite rightly point out unless you've always been female, had a female body both outside and in, been treated as a woman, had periods and maybe children, you can't come in half way through the party, zip up your winkle, lop off your bollocks and join the sisterhood as if you were there at day one. And returning to my initial point, if you can't feel how a friend or family member, or pet, feels, how can you know what a woman feels like to be if you're not a man? Not feeling comfortable as a man (the main official symptom) means like every other complex, you are not comfortable as yourself, and as a result, wish you were someone else. Superman, Jesus, a horse, or even a woman. Currently the Superman, Jesus and horse beliefs are still mental illnesses (unless they've wiped them as well since I checked), but strangely not women, even though all are equally provably wrong.

All forms of dysphoria are ultimately dissatisfaction with who you are, for a combination of biological and environmental reasons. In the past these were generally successfully treated with therapy, and as anorexia kills sufferers if a doctor agrees with a patient they are fat and they need to diet, they won't be lopping off their tits, but helping them to die, which in law is manslaughter. I would given the power ban sex change surgery as grievous bodily harm as well, as they are removing healthy organs causing lifelong potential problems and massive scarring. That aside, colluding with a deluded patient is normally considered malpractice, so persuading one to accept who they are is the universal therapeutic goal, and any other is dangerous and encouraging the patient to believe their delusion and ingrain it for life. Adding dangerous disfiguring surgery on top is to me a serious crime, but either way it is impossible for a man to know what it feels like to be a woman and vice versa, and singling that delusion out as OK from the long list of others is both irresponsible and will lead to further legalised errors in society, including the soon to come mixed changing rooms. Many men of course will be counting the days till they have free rein to enter female changing rooms and may even be the end of the porn industry as they will be able to see it in reality for nothing, but nothing comes without consequences and we know exactly the ones which have flowed from this already. Most people have common sense when they ask themselves and read with their heart, but often won't dare to share it with others as not many have such thick skins to cope with the venom shot at them from the establishment zombies. But you can push the line too far and this is where they have crossed it and will be pushed back. Sooner or later for all the reasons above and more it is inevitable.

Monday, 11 April 2016

The parasite formula

I have described various political mechanisms as parasites already, but Max Keiser just added the last piece to the formula to make it fully understandable, the parasite which fools its host into believing it needs it, similar to the sympathy for your oppressor found in Stockholm Syndrome. This now explains why so many people hold on to their parasites even after exposure, being fooled into feeling it somehow isn't really a parasite and is actually symbiotic, benefiting both sides, which of course when relieved of its shell reveals a typical tapeworm underneath no one on earth would want to be holding while sucking their blood.

Fear of uncertainty was the closest I got, centred in Britain over the fear of change and the unknown, meaning whatever hell they have got used to they'd rather keep it than face the mystery alternative, like leaving the EU or Scottish independence. It's also similar to the viruses which hide from the immune system and live in the host till they both expire such as herpes. It also covers the entire realm of delusional mental illness, transgenderism, dysphoria, anorexia, and all forms of obsession and addiction. It provides a formula (once one is created) to unlock the delusion wherever it is lodged, and free both the sufferer and their unintended victims, the people they attack around them because they are believed to be their enemy. Global warming fear and belief is the current flavour, with the emotional override of common sense being operated by the enemies in authority who know it to be untrue. But such a fear can easily be manufactured using Goebbels propaganda methods and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. They, like the wolf in sheep's clothing, false prophets and Antichrist/Satan work by getting your trust, creating a problem and then allowing themselves as bloodsuckers as the solution using the Hegelian dialectic just described, problem, reaction, solution, one no one would never have accepted without the false fear, which then locks on as a parasite they believe they need carbon taxes, which suck them and everyone else dry, as they believe they need their parasites for both themselves and their families to survive.

So in practice smokers think they enjoy slowly killing themselves, alcohol and drug addicts believe they need their poison to feel OK, and generally the enemy appears to them as the friend, while all others around them can see the truth. This is the general formula for all, and the next stage with no clear or obvious answers besides gradual and extended exposure to the truth will release them from this hold. But at least we know the diagnosis and cause, and it's entirely imaginary. And if it's not real it should be easier to cure.

Tuesday, 5 April 2016

Stage two, work with the energy of evil.

I have now reached a point where the great majority of information has been provided. It is now time to begin stage two. With the foundation built of a knowledge base, breaking the illusions of false consent through fraud, the next stage is to shift the negative energy exploiting it. This is the mechanism.

Everybody has a weakness. Negative energy/ies exploit this, and overshadow an individual and take over their personal ability to think in that weak area, whatever it is. The most familiar till now has been the paranoid schizophrenic, something I have worked with throughout my career, and found how many have almost identical delusions and voices telling them bad things about themselves and other people. Then I noticed it in other areas, extreme murderous Islam, Nazis, global warming promoters and followers, all affected by an apparent uniform groupthink, with a small group of genuinely evil leaders and millions of gullible weak followers who have de facto lost that portion of their conscious mind, like Star Trek's Borg, and speak as one. I regularly have conversations with those who consider themselves on the liberal left, and when inevitably they bring their friends in as mass bullying sessions against the bigot (me in this case) it's almost impossible to tell the difference between one and the other as they use the same routines and phrases with clearly little or no individual thinking.

This has come to the extreme with the bad people taken over by these forces. They are no different to the poor girl in The Exorcist who spit fire and worse, swear, blaspheme and are clearly overshadowed by a force far worse than anything normal in the human world. Even the 'nicer' people would still either carry out the same evils or support others doing so, whether making people die of cold by raising their energy prices or taking away their personal freedom by restricting or banning the use of 'personal transport', UN talk for cars.

So stage two of the mission is neutralising the bad energy. Whether or not people have undergone the normally lengthy process of learning even the important elements of the big picture, those still totally afflicted can be freed and shifted of the nastiness hanging over them in moments when the work has been done. So rather than the smaller group of neutrals or willing pupils, this works on virtually everyone. They needn't know we're doing it, want it, and nearly all think it's us who have the problem, as the evil force occupying their minds knows we are the enemy of evil so the human so affected will also. This is their problem and not ours, and by working with the most extreme and severely afflicted we can shift some or more of the energy that the rest will lift off as a result, like lifting a shroud from a heap of treasure. The treasure was always there underneath but not visible to outside or itself, but when the shroud is removed it becomes as if it was never there on it in the first place and the true and pure good beneath it will shine through again. We only need a partial level of this for the complete power to collapse, as of course once a minority are affected there won't be enough to maintain a general belief in evil and wrong ideas and concepts. The foundation will be gone and life can and will return to normal, less the belief in global warming, Jihad, men are able to turn into women, everyone is equally talented whoever they are (rather than equally valuable but unique), and every other concept of reality which has been covered by the dark lens or cataract of wrong thinking. The lens will be removed and the light will shine again.

Monday, 25 January 2016

Taking personal responsibility

As a therapist personal responsibility is a main foundation of my work. Carl Rogers, the founder of person centred therapy, created the seven point ladder of blaming others for everything in your life to taking full responsibility. Even if there are societal prejudices against one or more aspects of your self, this is not an excuse to fail or give up and carry the weight of the blaming for the rest of your life, but to know your abilities and push yourself over and over again till you succeed. Concepts of privilege simply point out we all start from somewhere different, but that should not stop anyone in a free country which stops discrimination by law from getting wherever they are capable of getting, female, black, disabled or gay should really not be a barrier.

Politics reinforces this sense of blame by inventing concepts taken from far left sociology and Marxism, which claim each social group begins the race with a handicap which inevitable makes it very difficult, sometimes impossible, to succeed purely based on who they are. Such delusions are the main reasons people come for counselling, and the purpose of it is to stop looking outwards at others and inwards to what you have to offer. It is the same as the parents who constantly compare their children with others, despite the fact no two individuals, even twins, are the same, and although everyone should be treated equal each is uniquely different and simply cannot perform the same as anyone else. This is all backed up with science and not open for discussion except the ways society can either restrict or improve an individual from completing their potential.

If you believe anything strongly enough you will then go on to both act as if it was true, and persuade others to accept it as well. But this is only a contagious mass delusion, and just because most people believe it never makes it right. Entire political parties and movements are built on such delusions, the imaginary view that even though such laws have changed society is still against blacks, gays and women. And even if there is prejudice this is not a reason for anyone to fail where they have the talent to succeed. A story I heard was about how women painters were overlooked in the 19th century, and pointed out even if they signed the pictures with initials rather than their full names you see the painting first and judge it on its quality. But if women accept they cannot be accepted as painters and composers, despite it being physically impossible to know the creator unless you were told shows how easy it is to pick up such mental viruses and take them on board as if real. Just because there is a handful of genuinely prejudiced people in all societies is no reason to act as though they have any actual power. The only power they ever have is what you give them, they have none themselves.

Therefore all politics based on such ideas is both false and dangerous. It leads to strikes, riots, repressive laws and worse. However good it feels to maintain the childish views that everyone deserves equal benefits in life it is not a fair world. We are not entitled to anything we do not have, besides the basics for survival with a welfare state. Anything else is not the state's official responsibility, however many make it so. Collectivism may work for a society with nothing, but once there is a structure where people can have a safety net for the poor and incapable the rest is down to their own efforts. The fact some inherit money and others have very little is just reality and nothing to do with anyone else. Just because another person can live without working is not a reason you should take it off them to make your own life better. That is called theft in normal circumstances, while giving your family money is a personal choice however unfair it may seem to those who do not have it. The alternative of taking it for the state is the only one which is infinitely worse, and it doesn't go back to the poor, it goes into the treasury with no accountability for where it ends up ultimately.

To sum up, all politics based on false views of privilege cause nothing but problems. Social engineering has no place in a free society as we employ politicians and civil servants with our taxes and votes, and none have the right to tell us how to live. If people vote for a totalitarian law then it is the people's fault for not realising they will actually suffer from the consequences as much as the people they have targeted it at. Choking the economy will affect it all whichever organ you shut off, much the same as a human body. Without free movement of people, speech and money you are no longer living in a free country, even when people have voted to restrict the freedom. The answer is education and not more power to the people who do not understand life or politics, and always make up the majority. Until they become fully educated as to how society really works, rather than how they think it should they will rule by the power of the majority.

Sunday, 17 January 2016

A summary of global warming

I have just been asked for a full summary of global warming for new arrivals who need to know everything from A-Z and realised I didn't have one. Diagrams and links to follow

Most of the main criteria are taken from the UN IPCC reports.

The main proposition: Added CO2, from the long term average of 260ppm (parts per million) upwards, could cause an amount of associated temperature rise which may cause more problems than benefits.

The exact amounts are the existing greenhouse effect of the atmosphere (official UN figures) which say from the added 33C from the effect, the majority comes from water vapour, and 1C comes from 260ppm of CO2. If you double CO2 is should add 1C, ie 520ppm would cause 1C extra and 1040 would add 2C. The UN claim the problems (mainly from rising sea level from melting land ice, and heatwaves) would start to outweigh the known benefits (increased food production, fewer wars, fewer deaths from cold and less energy usage) at around 2C.

Of course, CO2 would need to reach 1000ppm for this to happen, which is probably impossible, as with all the fossil fuel we are currently producing we have added 140ppm since 1850. Also CO2 does not last that long in the atmosphere, dropping out after a century or less. So when the media go crazy about possible warming, they fail to point out that the temperature has risen less than 1C since 1850. The temperature never remains the same, as it rises and falls between ice ages and smaller cycles, so as we have been coming out of once since the 18th century the temperature was already rising. Doing the simple equation, the rough existing amount is around a quarter to half the actual rise of 0.8C, therefore the amount from CO2 was 0.4-0.6C. Double that and you get a mean of 1C, exactly as predicted. Not anywhere close enough to cause problems.

So in that case why did the UN think it would be such a problem? Two words, positive feedback. This is mainly from the warming evaporating more of the ocean adding more water vapour to the atmosphere which is a serious greenhouse gas. The satellites measuring it confirm that it has not increased, and corroborates the lack of positive feedback. As no delay was expected it is reasonable to say there was no positive feedback and the water vapour could just as easily increase cloud cover, which blocks the sun and reduces the temperature, which has happened to a slight degree.

The UN state you cannot attribute individual weather events to warming, and there is no agreement overall that warmer weather causes more of them, only possibly more intense events. Also until 2001 the past records showed a number of warmer average world temperatures in history, which Michael Mann single handedly wiped out with his hockey stick diagram. The UN then revised it again where the two graphs were merged and averaged out. People can still use all three as it is not possible to prove which is correct, although the fact crops were grown all over the sub-Arctic regions which require a far higher temperature proves the northern hemisphere at least was warmer. The fact they can't prove whether the entire planet was warmer shows how rough proxy methods are, even the current temperatures have recently been revised in America.

The sea level is the most direct response to temperature. In the 20th century it rose 8 inches. After an ice age it can rise hundreds of feet. The current trend for the 21st century is a few more inches than the 20th. That directly relates to a stable and minimal temperature change and is far easier to measure than the world average temperature. That was measured by proxies (indirect indicators like ice cores and tree rings) before 1850 for the world, and thermometers until 1979 when they were supplemented by satellites. These vary in every time and location and the large areas with none need to be estimated. Currently there are four main temperature collections, which are not all in agreement. They measure land, sea and atmospheric temperatures and the difference between them and a previous point (anomaly). The oldest temperature record taken directly is the 17th century Central England record which shows very little warming and is the most reliable local record. In fact it is very hard to record average temperature, which is why they prefer to use anomalies, but the inherent measurement problems never go away. Other events such as weather and jet streams etc are also caused by far too many conditions to attribute to warming or any other single area. However the one linear correlation between temperature is with sea level. There is a known (generally, not exactly as the depth is questionable) amount of land ice on the planet. This requires a specific level of warming to melt, and that in turn flows into the sea causing a specific amount of sea level rise, which again is far easier to measure than temperature, although not exact. Therefore you can draw a linear graph between temperature rise, ice melt and sea level rise. As the rate of sea level rise has barely changed since the 19th century then maybe everything else they claim is irrelevant.

To summarise, there is a finite amount of fossil fuel on the planet. As we burn it it collects in the atmosphere, causes a small amount of warming and is replaced by more currently at a faster rate than it drops out. But overall we have seen CO2 rise by 50% and the associated temperature rise is both below the crucial 2C trend and shows a total absence of feedback. The incredible range of UN temperature projections for 2100, which we will not live to see, go between 1.5 and 6C. The chance of them missing with such a huge goalmouth is low, but totally irrelevant, as even if it falls none of us can ever know. It is not scientific to produce an experiment which cannot be completed, or the range is larger than the error margin, so it fails on all counts, and the 2015 temperature has fallen below the range they made altogether. CO2 continues to increase and the temperature has barely risen for 18 years. The media and politicians don't like you knowing that or their entire claims will fall apart.

Friday, 1 January 2016

Beating the system

I have already described every possible type of fraud carried out by the media and politicians, and the way to see through it if you want to look is very simple. It's basically scratching the surface and doing your own research, easy now you can look on the internet, and always trace the source and double check.

Never trust a single person on face value. They may be telling the truth but if they are not how would you know if you don't check anything you're not quite sure about. For example, you read a headline that tells you man made CO2 will make the temperature rise up to 6C. Most people (I have seen the responses) accept it and read no further. If they do you usually find nothing more than the basics have been mentioned, although the essential detail here is the range of warming was 1.5 to 6C but not until 2100.

That is a typical empty formula, empty in the sense the closer you look, like at a molecule through an electron microscope, the less is there to see. Get right up and there's actually nothing there at all. The actual fact was the UN claim that due to as yet absent positive feedback conditions, a doubling or more of CO2 which can't happen till 2100 could at the very highest extreme add 6C to the existing average world temperature, but the trend is closer to 2C which is probably harmless.

Before the internet checking these simple facts was very hard so they could get away with it every time, but now everyone simply needs to look it up. The same goes for every global warming claim which are all exactly the same in that they all disappear on closer inspection, as it's a tiny change which has been whipped up to a bodiless froth that looks huge and real till you touch it.

So the same principle applies to all claims made by those without actual evidence. They may well add some examples to apparently qualify their statements, but compared to what you need to pass an exam or win a case they are nothing. Like using local weather to demonstrate global warming. It only works as most people treat nearly all claims made by those in authority as equal without any questioning. Once you start scratching the surface it becomes a habit and the system's lost you. If even 20% of people did this the knowledge would spread among enough others to overthrow the system entirely.

Using old examples, people still believe the value of their own house rising is good, even when their own children can't afford to buy, or they now need two incomes to buy a house themselves when their parents only ever needed one till the 90s. Of course when they want to move to a better area and despite their own house going up £300,000 discover the ones they wanted went up by £500,000 and they are now £200,000 short or so as a few years ago the difference was only £100,000 less which they could now have afforded, as however much their house goes up the better ones go up even more, so get further and further away as prices rise in unison. And of course first time buyers are reduced by every 1% the prices go up as that excludes another income band ad infinitum. Only people with spare houses can sell them for a profit and keep the money, the rest are like gold teeth, sell  them and you need another to replace them, there is no profit as it's not a liquid asset, but the idiots fuelling all three party's policies drive the same one as the electorate are too uninformed to realise every single homeowner who doesn't have a business in property loses out from rising prices no less than car or food buyers do.

People can only con you until you get the trick and then it's never possible again as everyone knows it's a con. And they can't replace it with another as they all work the same way, so once you know how a few are done all the rest are variations. Smoke and mirrors all do the same thing and can't do more than that.  Assume unless it's clear and obvious nothing they tell you can be taken at face value. Soon you develop a sense to tell you what's worth checking or not, and if money is involved look to see who benefits ultimately. Banks borrow at 0.5%, people borrow at roughly the same rates regardless of base rate except for mortgage holders. Other loans are barely related to base rate so forget it, and means banks can bet on 1-100 odds where they are almost guaranteed to win, and are only worth taking when they borrow for less than the 1% profit they make on tiny wins. Then they borrow huge amounts to finance such quick deals and if the rate goes up then all their backlog of billions is paid off with far more as 0.5% of billions is extremely significant, so they keep the rate at bare minimum indefinitely now as otherwise they will be stuck with massive repayments most banks can't afford now, even if it just hits 1% as they overborrowed.

Bad laws also apply. Who is hurt by banning something? If criticising Islam or gay marriage only causes bad feeling then how can it be made illegal? Criticising something you don't like, even without a reason, isn't causing any direct harm (as in damage to person or property), and will only be illegal now if it damages your personal reputation by lying, but not by either personal opinion or telling the truth. Inciting violence causes harm and is also illegal, but saying you don't agree with something or don't like something is something protected by law in America by their constitution but not in Britain which can ban whatever they want. Never let anyone tell you what opinions are right or wrong as they are both based on preference or choice, and none can ever be better or worse, as they may be a great majority but if you don't think gay marriage is real marriage or want lots of immigration there are plenty of other countries who do agree with you.

Think for yourself and don't let anyone tell you it's wrong. Don't go with the crowd for a peaceful life, as if they are wrong and you know it you are as bad as them in doing so. If for example Britain had been asked if they wanted gay marriage before the parties were elected who brought it in (as many others were), then no one could complain whatever the decision, as both choices were equal, otherwise there couldn't be a vote as one would clearly be wrong. So if voting in or out of the EU, for gay marriage or a basic income is a yes/no preference, in a democracy we must accept the majority decision but cannot be forced to agree with it. But in Britain, without even being asked, the government brought in gay marriage, and anyone (which for all they know may also be the majority) who disagrees with it (not objecting to a legal gay partnership, only to using the sacred word marriage to describe it) is not only universally vilified but calls are made to make expressing such a view illegal. That means it would still be legal to have the view, they won't be erasing it, just to speak it in public. Of course, if they could make the view itself illegal as well they would, but until they can prove what your thoughts are it won't be possible. But allow one and the other could happen were it possible.

These skills can be applied in all areas of life as well. Discernment, trust, prioritising, deciding what's important or not, tracing rules down to why they are made and do they fulfil that function, all become second nature and the more who learn it the harder it will become to oppress the people as the audience will know the tricks the illusionists are using. As James Randi says, he is an illusionist as he says what he's doing looks real but isn't, but the government are cheats as they are creating an illusion but pretending it is real. But unlike magicians they do it so badly every single member of the audience can easily work out how they do it as unlike mgicians they aren't professionals and don't have the complex training (besides the weakly effective PR) and fancy equipment magicians do. PR is old hat and just uses old fashioned methods to manipulate those most susceptible (who are the majority) and make them immune to the appeals by their peers as they are taught to not trust anyone unqualified despite the only qualification required is knowledge.

Once you get it you get it, and it becomes so natural and obvious you wonder however you were fooled in the first place. That doesn't matter, as we all need to be conned once to see how it works and how to follow it back to its origins to stop it happening again. I gave many examples of the illusions in my last interview, and now you are learning the tools to spot every single one of them from those examples, and the formulas I am now applying which you can learn and use to undo the locks made by those who wish to exploit you rather than becoming a success honestly. Which is not only easier but leaves you with a better character and makes a better society. If you don't have the talent to do a job and have to fake it then do a job you are good at rather than take on a higher one where you have to lie and cheat to maintain it. It may work for you and the community of politicians or estate agents will normally protect each other from all but the worst accusations, but is that a way to live, like a parasite living off your hosts? Surely it's better for every person to win properly, as if you need to suck the life from someone else to do well you're actually just stealing it, whether or not you're caught? And if you're clever enough to make a career of stealing and not get caught you're clever enough to have a proper career.

I hope you have learnt principles for both the victims, who are nearly everyone, and advice to potential perpetrators, who may not have done as well in life as they wanted to, so for that extra push drop their ethics and take the bribe from the higher level of staff above you in parliament, or the police, or civil service, or education etc,  to do as they say and you will be promoted. We know it both happens and is actually how most run. The higher you get the more people you have to figuratively allow to enter you from behind. We are not prostitutes, and giving up your mind is no better than giving up your body in return for rewards. The abandonment of personal morals for promotion is no better than the casting couch and worse as you are hurting others as well as demeaning yourself. It stains your character and is the same as cheating in a race or an exam. You have the medal in your possession, everyone else thinks you earned it, but you feel bad as you know you didn't, you stole it. Every scientist earning a single dollar from lying about global warming is dirty, and hurts people through inciting false taxes and travel restrictions. Zac Goldsmith, who joined the Conservative Party, wants to charge everyone extra to drive in London, something impossible to be accepted without the imaginary fear of causing global warming. The people are being conned into voting to wreck their own lives based on the fear of something even worse that can't happen as it's not even projected to possibly till at least 2100.

These are such crude cons it makes me weep inside to know most people are dumb enough to both accept them all as real (the sea level is rising at almost the same rate for 200 years of inches a century, although after ice ages it rises hundreds of feet) and fight people who try and explain they are wrong. This is the inverse of free speech, as these are not opinions, global warming and other memes like it are presented as facts, and dismissed with facts which prove they are incorrect on nearly every point. They begin with a few facts, ie CO2 has risen and it's warming, and the rest is bullshit, as I explained in my first interviews. I can disprove every single claim, not because I'm a scientist but a trained legal investigator. We always win as you don't need to be trained in anything to pick other professions' work apart with expert advice for the technical questions, which is now freely available by friendly experts online. In the end it's a jury trial, and the jury are always lay people with expert witnesses. The process is hundreds of years old and has very few exceptions to what can be tried.

You don't need to be qualified though, just aware, either through your own ability or being shown how, politics is not science and they are all amateurs as they are not required to be qualified in anything, and have access to every expert without paying for their services. So when Putin sends his scientists to investigate global warming, as he is not part of the global system, and does not pay for their services as they work for him already, what they find is not biased and have enough resources and qualifications to run the whole lot through the system from start to finish and whatever they find ought to fit with the truth. And if it doesn't then you assume they were bought off as they can't support their claims. And surprise surprise they agreed with me, it's not a problem and barely genuine. It makes no difference to Putin either way, he has the whole of Russia at his disposal, a few more carbon taxes make no odds either way, he has oil, gas and can support his citizens for centuries on the reserves, and if creating an artificial shortage to eke them out for longer and an artificial price from extra taxes is neither here nor there on the scale of things in Russia. After all, ultimately they would only be taxing themselves so wouldn't gain a penny as it wouldn't increase GDP as was just moving the same money around within the economy.

I hope you are like me, beginning to see the big picture here, especially if you have seen all my earlier interviews. Think for yourself, learn how to investigate, and no one can ever take you for a ride once enough people join you. Till then you can see through the tricks, and not be swayed by peer or state pressure to agree with global warming, stop expressing your unpopular views, or vote for low interest rates (were it on the table to vote for). And learn the difference between facts and opinions. Global warming is 100% factual and not connected to your politics or religion as it is all data based and that is neutral. Opinions are personal preference and all equal, just like each life is equal (but not the same). Therefore if 97% of people vote for gay marriage they still have no right to ban the 3% from saying they don't think it can be called marriage. You don't even have the right to make them explain why, they don't ask you so why should they be forced to justify their opinion as currently happens the whole time?

Put any other issue into the formula and it comes out the same. Interest rates and house prices are facts, economic arithmetic. Multiculturalism, EU membership and immigration are preferences, if you want to be run as a federal state, or even a world government, then if you actually understand what it will be like (which does need a degree level of knowledge to know), then fine if the majority learn enough to be informed and prefer it, we must go with the majority. But if people complain who maybe don't like being the minority where they were born, or having laws made by unelected EU commissioners then don't call them mental or bigoted as had each vote gone the other way then you would be on what is currently their side and wouldn't want to be treated like a pariah for your choice either. I think that covers every possible eventuality, and by keeping it as simple and concise as possible with a few representative accurate examples it will be enough for everyone to apply.