As a lifelong libertarian, I have always wondered why we accept and even call for so much regulation in our normal lives, especially when (as far as we are aware at least) we only get the one chance so would want as much freedom as possible. I won't go into the heavy philosophy which has been covered in that field for millennia, but the specifics today which you can personally relate to and are based in practical terms rather than theory.
The two criminal law rules are either for protection of the person and property, and morals. In criminal law week one we went through this, and I and the lecturer could not see the role for any government in choosing a set of morals for anyone else, as they are totally based on culture and opinion and never stay the same in time or place. So I can personally sweep those aside in one go, and continue to say I would vote for the government who would repeal the most laws rather than make them. Of course, the Hegelian dialectic, problem-reaction-solution has also been used since the dawn of government to create false fears in order for them to legislate to remove the imaginary causes of them. This is not really true government at all, it is simply organised deception and not part of what I am talking about.
Regulations are needed the most where there is either the chance of physical danger and the means required to prevent harm from it, and the chance of exploitation. As I accepted the protection principle for criminal law, against physical assault, theft and criminal damage they are covered, as no one would want a totally lawless society where anyone so minded could enter your property and lay waste to it and your family members. But as that law was in place for hundreds of years in most cases why do we need governments today to keep altering or adding to it when preventing an assault was and will always be the same? We don't. In fact, to make a slight diversion, it turned out after the exposure of various banking scandals, our government actually removed a swathe of serious fraud from the criminal law, as they claim the organised fixing of bank and foreign exchange rates (with more coming out each month) is not a crime under the Theft Act (obtaining a financial advantage by false pretences). They can both repeal and rewrite law, but not always in a positive way. Plus this is a huge clue that when governments make or repeal some laws they are not protecting you or me but their friends and themselves. Not such a responsible government after all.
So let's look at some direct examples. Driving can be deadly when carried out untrained or drunk, so needs specific rules and regulations to both reduce the danger and catch those responsible with use of registration and compensate victims through insurance. When in doubt take personal examples and imagine the alternatives, then you'll nearly always get the right decision. Employment obviously opens the door to exploitation of the weaker workers, so toilets, meal breaks and safe working conditions are essential, as basic human rights (even they have their roles in libertarianism, it's not anarchism). Then the manufacturing has to be safe and not polluting, and the products need to be as described. Agreements (contracts) must be fair and binding, and using my own example everyone wants products to do as they claim, be consistent and safe to use. As human nature tends to want as much as possible for as little work and trouble as possible, this tendency needs to be curbed and no group or individual should have an unfair advantage over any other.
I do not believe financing the weak and poor to be a regulatory issue, as it is simply providing a safety net in a civilised society which can afford it. In fact there is enough in many countries to provide a basic income for everyone regardless, freeing up resources from the state for means tests and medical examinations, and simply providing the basics for all. If you're paying tax isn't the best destination paying it back to the people directly, rather than seeing it vanish into a black hole or bailing out the banks? This applies to free health care as well (whatever the Americans think, they are both a historic oddity and so wealthy compared to most they can afford the average costs, but not the major illnesses which can cause a person to lose everything from no fault of their own). The writings of Buckminster Fuller explain this theory in full if you want to learn more.
Few if any of these theories are not tried and tested, like my examples in an earlier piece about having a boss or parents who regulate your every move, causing suffering and rebellion and no pleasure from your experience, where all you need are reactive nudges to get things right rather than an active schedule forcing you to do everything their way when they want, and a constant series of checks. The government are working for us, doing things we cannot do ourselves and need national or locally organising. They are needed to administer the activities described above, rather than rule us. I described the logical criminal and civil laws created at the start of the legal system itself, and only altered in response to changing circumstances rather than changing opinions of voters and governments, while the acts do not change at all. You must all have experienced times in your life when your freedom was restricted for no other reason than it could be. That is the true meaning of equality, rather than the twisted version used by the left. We are all equal as individuals so must be treated as so, and have an equal opportunity to succeed. But as people our lives are equal but our personalities are unique, so we can never be equal in any other way, be it intelligence, strength, wealth, you name it. There is a long list of personal qualities, good and bad, and we are all assigned a set of our own, some which we can change and improve, or waste, and others we are stuck with. That is why the left wing version of equality is false as it tries to force us all into the same individual, assuming or believing women, men, intelligent, whatever can all be pushed to be like everyone else. There is no basis of truth behind that otherwise there would only be one sex and we would reproduce as clones. That is why people who are born with mental retardation will never get a degree however much they are educated, and as I assume even those on the furthest left wing accept that, why do they not accept the same intelligence differences exist across the spectrum, the spurious idea that if someone can pass one exam they could pass them all with the right training, is a utopian nightmare as it assumes no one is really different, and as such if they don't do well it's the fault of society rather than the qualities of the individual. You can make the best of your qualities or repress them, but you can never create them from nowhere. Science is finding more and more genetic bases of each inborn quality, and separated twins are virtually the same in all qualities even when they have never met each other.
It is unfortunately the fault of those on the loony left (loony as they deny studies demonstrating everyone is different however much they wish they weren't, which is delusional) that we are subjected to so much regulation in the 21st century. If you have a government party who believe a delusion, like the Soviets or North Koreans, least of all the religious fanatics in Iran, you will have state totalitarianism. If your government's views are based on false views of life, you will have your life forced to fit the false view, whatever it is. So there is no technical difference between outlawing homosexuality, which is no different to being born black, and stopping bright people from getting into the best universities as their parents have more money than the others who get your place despite having lower grades. If you do not accept people are equal as individuals but born different your government will reflect that error, and spend much of its time and resources trying to change a natural society into an engineered, twisted and repressed one. There is not a single doubt about this. Science began with objective testing of individuals and ended with scientific testing of their genes, and the more they look the more they find to be genetic. You must accept some people are shorter or weaker than others, those are givens, so why not, just because you can't see it directly, more intelligent or aggressive or creative? Children who start drawing or playing the piano like professionals at the age of seven are hardly doing so from encouragement, and some not even from teaching as you can simply pick up a pencil and draw with absolutely no training. Individual genius is impossible to claim as universal, otherwise why isn't every child at that age doing the same thing as the one in a million like Mozart?
I hope using the extreme examples people can see just because the rest aren't so clear and are more subtle they are only variations on the same scale, just because they are more subtle it is easier to deny and ignore them, but if you even claim some people could reach great heights but come from the wrong background despite having few signs of it, or women could all become managing directors, despite needing years for childcare and not being nearly as competitive or interested in such positions as men (they have checked), the maniacal forcing of society to keep those at the top down and try and raise those at the bottom, by 'positive' discrimination, racism against white people (discrimination and racism is the same if directed against anyone, whatever they tell you), and fix exam results by dropping the pass marks so everyone does better all you are doing is creating false hopes and wrecking a free society. Even outlawing words I described in a separate piece, taking medical terms like mongol, spastic and idiot, which all had exact meanings, for 'differently abled', 'mentally challenged' etc, and changing the word for black people every decade and demonising anyone still using an earlier one, is creating trouble for the sake of it. Going back to the moral principle, using any word for anything may be insulting, but insults are part of language, and if some are outlawed people just find new ones. And if you make insulting someone illegal every single person on earth would have a criminal record. If you're not sure about an idea then take it to the extreme and you will be able to see it clearly. And just because the other examples are not extreme and so easy to see does not make them any less true and real, they are just on a different scale. But the principle never changes and never can.
Monday, 28 July 2014
Sunday, 27 July 2014
Exposing the true man made global warming
NB I will be refining this as I go along, as it has been pointed out there are variations in the presentations as well as the data in some of these graphs, and due to the volume and quality available means some are not always completely compatible with others. But the ones comparing the same period by the IPCC, and the three superimposed alone are sufficient to make my point, and the others are only variations on that theme. I will remove this message when I have refined the available material.
In my travels I have found at least three holocene temperature records. Bearing in mind we only started using land based thermometers in 1850 or so the previous proxy data could be uncertain, but the actual result of three graphs showing what look like different universes not just different versions of the same material shows how truly tenuous climate history and science is. Of course at best only one of these graphs is correct, but how on earth are we meant to know which one, and why? And if the others are wrong why are they there and relied upon by those using them? Bear in mind some of these cover longer or shorter periods, but when you compare the standard 12,000 period with the same one on the others there is still little agreement.
Anomaly
temperature
Furthermore, the one here which Michael Mann used and was selected to drive the entire UN agenda since (despite other less dramatic ones were also offered), before he created it the UN actually used the earlier one showing present temperatures at about half way, with three earlier warm periods described as 'optimums', expressing the fact (due to many written and measured records) life overall was far better with a higher average temperature. It corresponds with the same period for the first one. Now his graph only goes back a couple of thousand years, but easily long enough to see the absence of either the MWP or basically any temperature variations at all. Luckily someone extended Mann's graph (using the anomaly) back to the earlier point, and although it included the part we all know as it had to, the greater context, even though the MWP was still flattened to nothing the other warm periods put today's little spike (even using Mann's erect maximum version) it shows besides the very latest point there was nothing unusual about the current temperature. Enthusiasts will tell you it's also the rate of warming that's as significant, but then, firstly all the diagrams don't have it, and secondly how do they explain the cause earlier warming periods?
Note, these are not even similar. Imagine an engineer or a doctor providing three such different graphs for a bridge weight load or patient's vital signs? Firstly you'd assume they weren't actually qualified, secondly you certainly wouldn't employ them, and thirdly they may well quite rightly be stripped of their qualifications. So why aren't the climatologists as well? They have caused as much pain and suffering as any other providing utter drivel to the governments of the world who then use it to punish the useless eaters, the emitters who clearly are viewed as nothing more than cattle farting and belching en masse and needing severe regulation to protect the world from this herd of stinking humanity. And when you see the basis of their rules and taxes you have to realise they are built on shifting sands of a combination of major uncertainty and probable fabrication. If one of these graphs is right, how would anyone actually know which one, and why have all the governments chosen the one which suits their existing plans?
Now this one is interesting, although I have also seen another one showing the past not being lower than the present for its peaks (which follows the pattern for the holocene), as we are only looking at the last 12,000 years for this presentation, firstly of course it has no hockey stick, and the long plateau we are supposedly now right in the mid range of is part of one which began about 8000 years ago, and was clearly driven by everything except man made CO2. The sharp rise previously, from a long period of far colder temperatures, was clearly natural, and even if you add the recent uptick to this one it isn't the sort of sharp rise we've had many times in the past, and all clearly part of totally normal and natural variations. The large numbers of temperature graphs which show both the medieval warm period as higher than today, which you could say was the 'consensus' before the 21st century, and recent enough to know unlike the imagined climate refugees the world was overall a far better place, and most show the two earlier periods as even higher, and again no problems reported. Then Mann comes along and irons the whole thing out,
In my travels I have found at least three holocene temperature records. Bearing in mind we only started using land based thermometers in 1850 or so the previous proxy data could be uncertain, but the actual result of three graphs showing what look like different universes not just different versions of the same material shows how truly tenuous climate history and science is. Of course at best only one of these graphs is correct, but how on earth are we meant to know which one, and why? And if the others are wrong why are they there and relied upon by those using them? Bear in mind some of these cover longer or shorter periods, but when you compare the standard 12,000 period with the same one on the others there is still little agreement.
Temperature
Anomaly
Temperature
Marcott anomaly/change
Taking the first two, ignore the earlier part on the top one as it's for an extra 8000 years, and look at the remaining 12000. On the surface they do look similar, but firstly the top one has also used a log scale for the x (horizontal) axis, meaning it is compressed on the left. Allowing for that we still see the recent part to the present has risen above the entire range of the past, while the one below using a normal linear spread shows the temperature falling since the medieval warm peropd almost 8000 years ago. It does however show us only reaching it in around the late 20th century, while others usually do not. But they are strikingly different, as the lower one (despite having no Y axis to compare temperatures) clearly shows were are still well below the Minoan warm period and definitely at an extremely ordinary temperature level regardless. The third echoes the second but has been turned around as many do with the present on the left. You can see the crucial present point, that which world policy depends on totally, is either completely normal or fairly high (2C would be high, 4C very high, according to the IPCC).
Now going forward to the fourth, note that it pretty well echoes the second, both in using the same period, and the same shape, all until the end. Now why would one show a marked extreme spike at the end, while the other stops exactly where it was? Don't ask me, I'm only an observer who has trawled the internet and found a set of conflicting information. The lower graph shows the same period in detail, but then when you look at the ones below that, you have three for the same period superimposed and then another two compared, both showing totally different readings. How can that happen and which are we supposed to rely on, considering they are used to make world climate policy, which would never even exist had they used the ones without the spike, as there would be absolutely no requirement for any.
In
the end a science which is capable of producing data so varied
supposedly covering the identical period is clearly unable to perform
and deliver at a level required for reliability and trust, and as such is no more a science than betting tipsters.
Sunday, 29 June 2014
Feelings can not be bigoted
Inspired by Beckie on twitter, she stated an absolutely definitive point. You cannot be a bigot based on your feelings. This is because you are not responsible for your feelings. For example, you can feel angry, and even like killing someone, but if you are sane and civilised you will never act on it. The same goes for dislike. If you dislike gay marriage or watching gay people getting it on with each other in public, or do not like a town full of immigrants, how exactly does that make you a bigot?
A bigot is basically someone who is prejudiced, ie believes things about certain groups in general with little or no evidence, or is against certain groups based on such beliefs. You cannot then extend what is essentially a deliberate condition of misinformation into an automatic reaction, distaste, dislike, disgust or whatever, without the slightest logic or reason. None of the examples are connected with my own opinions either way, just three which have raised some of the most accusations of bigotry in the last few years. Are you a food bigot for never wanting to touch raw onions or garlic? Are you prejudiced if you haven't even eaten any to be certain? We are all designed with built in safety and defence mechanisms, and they kick off in both dangerous and unfamiliar circumstances, and also draw on our intuition which again is based on accurate feeling with little or no direct evidence, but when later followed by such evidence almost always turns out to be right.
Most people it seems do not want to live in a community of random races and cultures all forming small tight pockets and speaking foreign languages. This is not logical, it is based on our ancient family makeup and the foundation of tribes in primitive cultures in the past and present. Again, there is no justification to act on those dislikes and drive the foreigners away or attack them in any ways, but it is inbuilt in everyone to be drawn to people more like themselves than anything else. If you want to use political beliefs to attempt to reverse built in human nature it will always end in tears, as it simply is and always was the same. If someone is heterosexual then it is more likely they will wince when seeing two men or women kissing and touching each other without any notice in public, not because they are either bigoted or homophobic, but it is not their own nature and no different to seeing someone eat oysters or witchetty grubs if you don't like them. You're not prejudiced against them, it is just a natural reaction to seeing something you could never do yourself.
By deliberately accusing normal people who have never hurt and never would hurt anyone of being bigots and worse for simply voicing their feelings and reactions which are different to the norm is a totalitarian and intolerant form of control, as you are literally going a level above thought control, which again is not within our powers to stop, but feeling control and taste control. Kim Il Jun (or whatever combination is in power at the moment) made his citizens copy his haircut, just as Chairman Mao made everyone wear overalls. These are Maoist overalls for our thoughts and feelings, and like overalls may hide what is beneath but can never and should never change it. That is no one else's business or right to impose on anyone. If your feelings and thoughts can be challenged, and potentially criminalised as a result what state has the world come to?
A bigot is basically someone who is prejudiced, ie believes things about certain groups in general with little or no evidence, or is against certain groups based on such beliefs. You cannot then extend what is essentially a deliberate condition of misinformation into an automatic reaction, distaste, dislike, disgust or whatever, without the slightest logic or reason. None of the examples are connected with my own opinions either way, just three which have raised some of the most accusations of bigotry in the last few years. Are you a food bigot for never wanting to touch raw onions or garlic? Are you prejudiced if you haven't even eaten any to be certain? We are all designed with built in safety and defence mechanisms, and they kick off in both dangerous and unfamiliar circumstances, and also draw on our intuition which again is based on accurate feeling with little or no direct evidence, but when later followed by such evidence almost always turns out to be right.
Most people it seems do not want to live in a community of random races and cultures all forming small tight pockets and speaking foreign languages. This is not logical, it is based on our ancient family makeup and the foundation of tribes in primitive cultures in the past and present. Again, there is no justification to act on those dislikes and drive the foreigners away or attack them in any ways, but it is inbuilt in everyone to be drawn to people more like themselves than anything else. If you want to use political beliefs to attempt to reverse built in human nature it will always end in tears, as it simply is and always was the same. If someone is heterosexual then it is more likely they will wince when seeing two men or women kissing and touching each other without any notice in public, not because they are either bigoted or homophobic, but it is not their own nature and no different to seeing someone eat oysters or witchetty grubs if you don't like them. You're not prejudiced against them, it is just a natural reaction to seeing something you could never do yourself.
By deliberately accusing normal people who have never hurt and never would hurt anyone of being bigots and worse for simply voicing their feelings and reactions which are different to the norm is a totalitarian and intolerant form of control, as you are literally going a level above thought control, which again is not within our powers to stop, but feeling control and taste control. Kim Il Jun (or whatever combination is in power at the moment) made his citizens copy his haircut, just as Chairman Mao made everyone wear overalls. These are Maoist overalls for our thoughts and feelings, and like overalls may hide what is beneath but can never and should never change it. That is no one else's business or right to impose on anyone. If your feelings and thoughts can be challenged, and potentially criminalised as a result what state has the world come to?
Friday, 27 June 2014
Accounting tricks
Believe it or not, one of the main things you learn studying accounting (as I spent a year doing it) is how to present the figures in different ways. This is based on the principle they know better than everyone else so can use their knowledge not just to make a fucking fortune (they really do, and most of the work's incredibly easy, unlike other professions) but to hide things and make things look better than they are, or worse depending what is required. Basically what they do is to arrange the identical accounts in different ways, either hiding losses and dragging future profits ahead to impress shareholders and potential customers, or hide profits and create apparent losses for tax purposes. They have been doing this since the first scribes and tax collectors one way or another, each generation passes the new versions of the same tools to the next, legally (as it is quite possible to avoid breaking the law doing it) presenting the identical accounts to different people and managing to show different results, which nearly all accept and believe implicitly, and would often need at least another accountant or team of accountants to figure them out as the methods could fox a team of Times crossword finalists. In fact the only difficult part of accounting, besides tax accounting, is how to carry out these presentations, learning the law to know which tricks are actually beyond the pale and then keeping up with the latest methods to offshore profits and pay your own company for loans to itself.
So basically it's a dirty business, one which could be perfectly pure and clean but owing to legal breadth has its largest field in saving the clients more money than they pay and reducing or increasing the bottom lines to do so. In accounts they can only work the profit/loss trick for a year or two as they are only suppressing the figures which are all public as that is the law, so can't keep it up for ever. The tax dodges are the exception simply as the government make them permanent by approving them, so once invented can simply run till the law changes. Therefore when the Bank of England shows growth, or low inflation, it is because the government wants them to, but if you get the raw figures (also available in the main) and know what to do, then you can see they are quite able to take some really poor performances and use the same tricks we learnt at college to make borrowing look like assets, while in fact they are huge liabilities, as every penny of profit shown from a loan is a loss as you must pay back more than you borrowed, but if not this year the law says you can include that loan as income. Go figure. So growth can be from increased capital (which technically it only is from) or borrowed capital, much like borrowing expensive furniture when selling a house to make it look better, or hiring a Ferrari for a first date, but despite creating a good impression for a short time they were never yours and you have had to lose money hiring them so actually worse off as they don't even belong to you after you give them back.
So once you know these are used to present pretty much all statistics, so much so when top civil servants are appointed the statistical department asks them what figures do they want (this is a fact not an anecdote), it really means whatever the government tell you is happening you have to check for yourself. It also means something far, far worse, the government are inherently dishonest. They spend millions a year employing top level accountants and statisticians to take whatever real figures exist and make them look as close to how they need them to to make the public believe whatever they need them to believe. Global warming is similar to business, you can't borrow future profits forward forever unless you are actually going to make a real profit eventually to back it up. So although they can divert people's attention with predictions outside their lifetimes as the people are mainly as thick as pigshit, they can't drag heat from the future, hide cold from the past and adjust existing temperatures up forever as the main temperature measurements are public knowledge and the longer they remain flat (or even fall, which is quite possible) the harder it will be to convince enough people they are really rising, and if you believe Barack Obama (billions do worldwide, shame on them) it is going up faster than ever then they don't even need to spend five years studying complex tricks to make bad figures go away, they will simply lie openly as enough people trust their authorities few actually bother to check. So in the end these tricks can only work as long as enough people fall for them.
So to summarise, we have inflation figures, unemployment, growth, profits, and temperature rises which governments have the ability to take the identical set of figures and present showing a wide range of different bottom lines, using legal and sometimes less than legal methods to offset genuine losses and bad news to delay them till the next election, or whichever other point they can maintain the illusion. But the real figures are always there which the experts can use to undo the illusions, subtracting borrowings from growth and immigrants from employed people and you see the starving bodies beneath them, the skinny, scrawny economy padded by fake muscle suits and scurvy rashes covered up by thick makeup. Don't look at the surface, and don't even expect the surface to represent anything any longer, as beneath it you will see what is really there. In some cases it could even be the same, but when interest rates are 0.5% and house prices are rising 20% a year don't imagine it means the economy could ever be healthy as those real figures are the sign of a rampant disease. If rates were around 5%, the median in a healthy economy, and house prices were fairly stable, then you're onto something. Look at price to earning ratios. How much is petrol, gas bills, car prices compared to average earnings? They can never be tweaked so they are the constants, the roots you need to really know how an economy's doing. How many of the people coming off the unemployment figures are sick, leaving the country, retiring or working part time rather than actually getting full time jobs? Again, the data is all there if you want to know, and can do your own sums to see the truth. One area where the data cannot all be found is the climate data, as much of it is protected by commercial law. That tells you more than enough on that front.
So basically it's a dirty business, one which could be perfectly pure and clean but owing to legal breadth has its largest field in saving the clients more money than they pay and reducing or increasing the bottom lines to do so. In accounts they can only work the profit/loss trick for a year or two as they are only suppressing the figures which are all public as that is the law, so can't keep it up for ever. The tax dodges are the exception simply as the government make them permanent by approving them, so once invented can simply run till the law changes. Therefore when the Bank of England shows growth, or low inflation, it is because the government wants them to, but if you get the raw figures (also available in the main) and know what to do, then you can see they are quite able to take some really poor performances and use the same tricks we learnt at college to make borrowing look like assets, while in fact they are huge liabilities, as every penny of profit shown from a loan is a loss as you must pay back more than you borrowed, but if not this year the law says you can include that loan as income. Go figure. So growth can be from increased capital (which technically it only is from) or borrowed capital, much like borrowing expensive furniture when selling a house to make it look better, or hiring a Ferrari for a first date, but despite creating a good impression for a short time they were never yours and you have had to lose money hiring them so actually worse off as they don't even belong to you after you give them back.
So once you know these are used to present pretty much all statistics, so much so when top civil servants are appointed the statistical department asks them what figures do they want (this is a fact not an anecdote), it really means whatever the government tell you is happening you have to check for yourself. It also means something far, far worse, the government are inherently dishonest. They spend millions a year employing top level accountants and statisticians to take whatever real figures exist and make them look as close to how they need them to to make the public believe whatever they need them to believe. Global warming is similar to business, you can't borrow future profits forward forever unless you are actually going to make a real profit eventually to back it up. So although they can divert people's attention with predictions outside their lifetimes as the people are mainly as thick as pigshit, they can't drag heat from the future, hide cold from the past and adjust existing temperatures up forever as the main temperature measurements are public knowledge and the longer they remain flat (or even fall, which is quite possible) the harder it will be to convince enough people they are really rising, and if you believe Barack Obama (billions do worldwide, shame on them) it is going up faster than ever then they don't even need to spend five years studying complex tricks to make bad figures go away, they will simply lie openly as enough people trust their authorities few actually bother to check. So in the end these tricks can only work as long as enough people fall for them.
So to summarise, we have inflation figures, unemployment, growth, profits, and temperature rises which governments have the ability to take the identical set of figures and present showing a wide range of different bottom lines, using legal and sometimes less than legal methods to offset genuine losses and bad news to delay them till the next election, or whichever other point they can maintain the illusion. But the real figures are always there which the experts can use to undo the illusions, subtracting borrowings from growth and immigrants from employed people and you see the starving bodies beneath them, the skinny, scrawny economy padded by fake muscle suits and scurvy rashes covered up by thick makeup. Don't look at the surface, and don't even expect the surface to represent anything any longer, as beneath it you will see what is really there. In some cases it could even be the same, but when interest rates are 0.5% and house prices are rising 20% a year don't imagine it means the economy could ever be healthy as those real figures are the sign of a rampant disease. If rates were around 5%, the median in a healthy economy, and house prices were fairly stable, then you're onto something. Look at price to earning ratios. How much is petrol, gas bills, car prices compared to average earnings? They can never be tweaked so they are the constants, the roots you need to really know how an economy's doing. How many of the people coming off the unemployment figures are sick, leaving the country, retiring or working part time rather than actually getting full time jobs? Again, the data is all there if you want to know, and can do your own sums to see the truth. One area where the data cannot all be found is the climate data, as much of it is protected by commercial law. That tells you more than enough on that front.
Thursday, 19 June 2014
These are the foundations of 21st century science and politics
In law (my own field) a confession followed by a guilty plea removes all need for a trial. That isn't confined to law, they simply use a universal method themselves as it is a simple way of reaching the truth with little need for additional research. In rare occasions there will be false confessions, nearly all weeded out by detectives who have evidence they can't be genuine, but a guilty plea is usually just that, and a corroborated confession, where other members of a conspiracy cough independently from the rest and say exactly the same thing then they are almost certainly telling the truth, as do all corroborated secondary evidence. So when presented with pages of confessions from 40 years ago to the present day, how can it be possible to even imagine they have not told the truth despite the 99% of their co-conspirators continuing to lie? The Mafia and other organised crime gangs like the IRA relied on this for centuries, but the climate community have so far only sacked and ostracised their own members who squealed on them, while the others tend to rub them out and some of their family to put people off in the future. But the difference here is crime gangs do not confess, they stay together for so long for that very reason, but our current gang extorting trillions from the world economy, the poorest paying the most proportionally, have what are actually their own leaders openly telling anyone who cares to listen it is all a racket, and much like the murderers who leave a few extra clues as they get bored when the police can't work out who they are, seem to laugh at the world having been given such a clear head start yet they still haven't been caught up in 40 years. So all I can do is collect each similar confession yet again, and wonder in total mystery how 90% of people I show them to say they don't mean anything. But that seed has been planted, if and when one of these guys gets busted in the public eye, then they'll remember someone actually told them what they were up to already and they ignored it. Why would someone actually ignore their own leaders admit they are shtupping them? I only pass the information on, I can't answer the thoughts behind it. Apologies for repeating old material here, but this is the skeleton key to the door of fraud.
So yet again, hopefully in its purest form yet, here are as many confessions from those at the very top, whose combination of ideology ("The earth has a cancer, the cancer is mankind"- Club of Rome) works together with those who can make the rules politically in exchange for trillions in subsidies they then invest in, yet a single visit to a website will bust their entire mission apart. If you still don't accept it, imagine if someone on the CBS news read this out in a report and the following reactions.
----------------------I CONFESS ---------------------------------------------
Margaret Mead in 1974:
-----------------
“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many… who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. So we call our process something else such as “comprehensive planning,” „growth management‟ or „smart growth.‟”
USE WARM FUZZY WORDS:
Environment * Economy * Equity * Consensus * Affordable Housing * Friends of… * Action * Protect * Preserve * Quality of Life * Benefit of all * Sanctuary * Social/Environmental Justice * Best Management Practices * Watershed * Facilitator * Traffic Calming * Outcome Base Education * Endangered Species * Invasive Species * Restoration * Public/Private Partnerships * Common Good * Regional * Collaborative * Inter-disciplinary * Stakeholder * International Baccalaureate * School to work * Historic Preservation * Vision * Sustainable Medicine. Smart Meters.
J. Gary Lawrence, 1998 UNEP Conference, UK
----------------------------
At Bucharest it was affirmed that continuing, unrestricted worldwide population growth can negate any socioeconomic gains and fatally imperil the environment.... The earlier extreme views that social and economic justice alone can somehow offset population increase and that the mere provision of contraception can sufficiently reduce population—were defeated.
1975 Endangered Earth conference
-----------------------------------------------------
"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence." Followed by the Guardian journalist who added "In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage."
Mike Hulme, UN climatologist.
-------------------------------------------
“Although donors must meet their commitments, it is time to look for other ways to find resources to finance development needs and address growing global challenges, such as combating climate change…
“We are suggesting various ways to tap resources through international mechanisms, such as coordinated taxes on carbon emissions, air traffic, and financial and currency transactions.”
Rob Vos, The U.N. World Economic and Social Survey
-------------------------------------------
"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."
Ottmar Edenhoffer, UN economist
-------------------------------------------------
"Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troups entered Los angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is expecially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existance. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing everyman fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government,"
Henry Kissinger
-----------------------------------------
David Rockefeller, in his 2003 memoirs:
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
-------------------------------------
The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
----------------------------------------------------
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
---------------------------------------------
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Mikael Gorbachev, 1996:
"The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order"
----------------------------------
"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
------------------------------------------
"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
-------------------------------------------------
"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King
------------------------------------
So yet again, hopefully in its purest form yet, here are as many confessions from those at the very top, whose combination of ideology ("The earth has a cancer, the cancer is mankind"- Club of Rome) works together with those who can make the rules politically in exchange for trillions in subsidies they then invest in, yet a single visit to a website will bust their entire mission apart. If you still don't accept it, imagine if someone on the CBS news read this out in a report and the following reactions.
----------------------I CONFESS ---------------------------------------------
Margaret Mead in 1974:
"What we
need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and
plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal
disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us
to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which
will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a
larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to
impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats"
---------------------------------------
"After they break from a comfortable egg, the human maggots move in two dimensions and become second-level maggots who crash other maggots in proportionality with their own weight, who defecate all over the environment, and who eat the defecation from the other, usually larger maggots.
Some of these humans become tenth-level maggots who are big wheels. That's what the consensus environmentalist and global warming science knew about the humans and their co-existence with the environment at least since 1972."
David Suzuki
Some of these humans become tenth-level maggots who are big wheels. That's what the consensus environmentalist and global warming science knew about the humans and their co-existence with the environment at least since 1972."
David Suzuki
--------------------------
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”—H.L.Mencken (1918).-----------------
“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many… who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. So we call our process something else such as “comprehensive planning,” „growth management‟ or „smart growth.‟”
USE WARM FUZZY WORDS:
Environment * Economy * Equity * Consensus * Affordable Housing * Friends of… * Action * Protect * Preserve * Quality of Life * Benefit of all * Sanctuary * Social/Environmental Justice * Best Management Practices * Watershed * Facilitator * Traffic Calming * Outcome Base Education * Endangered Species * Invasive Species * Restoration * Public/Private Partnerships * Common Good * Regional * Collaborative * Inter-disciplinary * Stakeholder * International Baccalaureate * School to work * Historic Preservation * Vision * Sustainable Medicine. Smart Meters.
J. Gary Lawrence, 1998 UNEP Conference, UK
----------------------------
At Bucharest it was affirmed that continuing, unrestricted worldwide population growth can negate any socioeconomic gains and fatally imperil the environment.... The earlier extreme views that social and economic justice alone can somehow offset population increase and that the mere provision of contraception can sufficiently reduce population—were defeated.
1975 Endangered Earth conference
-----------------------------------------------------
"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence." Followed by the Guardian journalist who added "In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage."
Mike Hulme, UN climatologist.
-------------------------------------------
“Although donors must meet their commitments, it is time to look for other ways to find resources to finance development needs and address growing global challenges, such as combating climate change…
“We are suggesting various ways to tap resources through international mechanisms, such as coordinated taxes on carbon emissions, air traffic, and financial and currency transactions.”
Rob Vos, The U.N. World Economic and Social Survey
-------------------------------------------
"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."
Ottmar Edenhoffer, UN economist
-------------------------------------------------
"Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troups entered Los angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is expecially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existance. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing everyman fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government,"
Henry Kissinger
-----------------------------------------
David Rockefeller, in his 2003 memoirs:
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
-------------------------------------
The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame, Climate modeller, Oxford University-----------------------------------
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
------------------------------------------------
"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
------------------------------------------
"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
-------------------------------------------------
"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King
------------------------------------
Thursday, 12 June 2014
Delayed reactions
Watching well known atrocities to some people carry on apparently indefinitely, despite trying to spread the world, and then eventually one story appears in the media and everyone's on it seems to be the standard delayed reaction process within society. Even though I first heard about female genital mutilation about 30 years ago it carried on unfettered from western disapproval ever since, until suddenly only this year in 2014 there was an article about it in great detail and the celebrity scene picked it up and now something is being done about it, with Britain's first ever court case even though many thousands are carried out here alone (illegally) every year. Similarly the eating, often after being skinned alive, cats and dogs in Asia has always been well known in the west and all the big and small charities turned their backs and did nothing, possibly because China and Korea were too dangerous to get involved with so beyond their scope. But now a group in China itself has begun fighting this primitive and backward practice, as there is absolutely no attention paid to their welfare and are simply packed into cages as if they weren't alive at all.
The same phenomenon happens in the political world. We can be ripped off for years and then someone with the ear of the media works it out, although many people had already done so and knew between themselves, and once pointed out to the masses becomes common knowledge. It doesn't always work because only two experts I know of warned our government to reduce private and public borrowing before the crash, Vince Cable, who wasn't in government and totally ignored, and a stockbroker who was sacked for interfering with morale. I saw junk mail every day offering me gold cards and thousands of credit, people borrowing ten times their income or not even needing to declare their income for mortgages and borrowing up to 125% of the value of a house, and wondered why every single politician allowed this as you can't borrow or lend more than you have, which ended up with our taxes bailing out the banks, who lost our money as the government removed the regulations stopping it.
Biofuel was clearly a criminal invention, clearing land across the third world to grow corn and palms to replace food crops and burn them in engines not even designed for the purpose and producing far less power per gallon. Twenty or so years later after causing starvation in many villages where farms were sequestered for biofuel crops and people lost their livelihoods and couldn't afford the remaining food as because they had created an artificial shortage the price and availability were affected, the UN just said biofuel was not good for the environment, while the EU are about to enact a law forcing it into our fuel despite the admission it is evil. Of course the EU are not there to do good but rule with an iron hand, so they are not interested what anyone already said to expose the true nature of biofuel, but at least we can say we know they are doing wrong now and going against official advice. Many food additives were stated to be toxic but always took 10-20 years to get the material beyond the industry system of closure. They have ways to suppress all stories which expose industrial poisoning on a grand scale, so currently aspartame, statins and other conventional chemicals are being forced on millions of people, despite the evidence having already condemned them to the same dustbin as margarine (it is not that different from floor polish) and hydrogenated fats, which again are not a foodstuff but more like the foam chips used to pack fragile goods.
Eventually the truth has to come out, like a leaking nappy, as the urine is always there and however good the seal if you keep pissing eventually the seals will be stressed too much and the pee or truth will first dribble, and then burst out in a flood of material which will usually overwhelm any attempts to hold it back. So now after 30 years of scare stories of global warming the trend has reduced so much it is almost impossible for the temperature to exceed 2C, so all 'action' to pretend to try and stop it is off really as it's already stopped on its own and with CO2 rising unabated is clearly unable to make the temperature rise very much by 150 years of direct observation. A few scientists are beginning to realise if they continue to prop up what is now almost impossible to maintain as an illusion as there is nigh on nothing left to maintain, their long term credibility is going to end up the same place as the economists who ignored the warnings to change before a major crash, and would rather be the ones who admitted it was beginning to look increasingly unlikely and at least leave with some remaining honour rather than the other end who lie and say it's warming even faster when every single diagram says it's not at all.
Therefore in all areas where the small private minority discover things are badly wrong but they carry on regardless, they nearly always come to an end, but there's a built in delay mechanism for various reasons- laziness, intertia, apathy, dishonesty, but when someone who can do something about whatever it is catches on and does something, that atrocity ends pretty quickly. If the first prosecution on FGM is successful the CPS will no doubt wave through hundreds, as we do know the figures as every doctor in the country can consult their notes and pretty much name most of the victims simply from being examined. Had they been required, as is perfectly feasible, to report such crimes by law, then the thousands of victims would have become hundreds, tens and eventually hardly any at all, but the apathy and in the case of doctors protection of their own, as it's the doctors who get the worst punishment for carrying out the assault (technically causing grievous bodily harm with intent carries up to a life sentence), while inciting it would as well the court would be slightly less harsh on ignorant foreigners who quite honestly don't know any better, while breaching the Hippocratic oath would get a doctor struck off at the very least, regardless of any criminal punishment. In fact although they said FGM has a law making it illegal, GBH alone would always have covered it as simply breaking the skin not fir the purpose of medical or cosmetic purposes is a serious form of assault with no need to specify every single variation. There's no specific law for poking someone's eye out either but if a child's parents paid a doctor to do that as that's their culture they'd go down for a long stretch regardless, assuming the court weren't prevented from acting like they would in the third world.
So in the end I think nothing that bad can carry on forever. Suttee and thuggee in India were wiped out by the British in India (who said the colonists never did any good) although sadly the caste system is still going strong in many areas despite decades of effort to wipe it out entirely. But in the end once someone important decides to do something it seems to be very quickly when it is, and all the energy could have been building up to be released all in one go when they do. I see global warming following at some point, as the truth is now diverging further and further from the claims, and one by one the scientists have realised they can't maintain an illusion much longer when their original calculations had been about 80% too high compared to reality. One can only hope anyway.
The same phenomenon happens in the political world. We can be ripped off for years and then someone with the ear of the media works it out, although many people had already done so and knew between themselves, and once pointed out to the masses becomes common knowledge. It doesn't always work because only two experts I know of warned our government to reduce private and public borrowing before the crash, Vince Cable, who wasn't in government and totally ignored, and a stockbroker who was sacked for interfering with morale. I saw junk mail every day offering me gold cards and thousands of credit, people borrowing ten times their income or not even needing to declare their income for mortgages and borrowing up to 125% of the value of a house, and wondered why every single politician allowed this as you can't borrow or lend more than you have, which ended up with our taxes bailing out the banks, who lost our money as the government removed the regulations stopping it.
Biofuel was clearly a criminal invention, clearing land across the third world to grow corn and palms to replace food crops and burn them in engines not even designed for the purpose and producing far less power per gallon. Twenty or so years later after causing starvation in many villages where farms were sequestered for biofuel crops and people lost their livelihoods and couldn't afford the remaining food as because they had created an artificial shortage the price and availability were affected, the UN just said biofuel was not good for the environment, while the EU are about to enact a law forcing it into our fuel despite the admission it is evil. Of course the EU are not there to do good but rule with an iron hand, so they are not interested what anyone already said to expose the true nature of biofuel, but at least we can say we know they are doing wrong now and going against official advice. Many food additives were stated to be toxic but always took 10-20 years to get the material beyond the industry system of closure. They have ways to suppress all stories which expose industrial poisoning on a grand scale, so currently aspartame, statins and other conventional chemicals are being forced on millions of people, despite the evidence having already condemned them to the same dustbin as margarine (it is not that different from floor polish) and hydrogenated fats, which again are not a foodstuff but more like the foam chips used to pack fragile goods.
Eventually the truth has to come out, like a leaking nappy, as the urine is always there and however good the seal if you keep pissing eventually the seals will be stressed too much and the pee or truth will first dribble, and then burst out in a flood of material which will usually overwhelm any attempts to hold it back. So now after 30 years of scare stories of global warming the trend has reduced so much it is almost impossible for the temperature to exceed 2C, so all 'action' to pretend to try and stop it is off really as it's already stopped on its own and with CO2 rising unabated is clearly unable to make the temperature rise very much by 150 years of direct observation. A few scientists are beginning to realise if they continue to prop up what is now almost impossible to maintain as an illusion as there is nigh on nothing left to maintain, their long term credibility is going to end up the same place as the economists who ignored the warnings to change before a major crash, and would rather be the ones who admitted it was beginning to look increasingly unlikely and at least leave with some remaining honour rather than the other end who lie and say it's warming even faster when every single diagram says it's not at all.
Therefore in all areas where the small private minority discover things are badly wrong but they carry on regardless, they nearly always come to an end, but there's a built in delay mechanism for various reasons- laziness, intertia, apathy, dishonesty, but when someone who can do something about whatever it is catches on and does something, that atrocity ends pretty quickly. If the first prosecution on FGM is successful the CPS will no doubt wave through hundreds, as we do know the figures as every doctor in the country can consult their notes and pretty much name most of the victims simply from being examined. Had they been required, as is perfectly feasible, to report such crimes by law, then the thousands of victims would have become hundreds, tens and eventually hardly any at all, but the apathy and in the case of doctors protection of their own, as it's the doctors who get the worst punishment for carrying out the assault (technically causing grievous bodily harm with intent carries up to a life sentence), while inciting it would as well the court would be slightly less harsh on ignorant foreigners who quite honestly don't know any better, while breaching the Hippocratic oath would get a doctor struck off at the very least, regardless of any criminal punishment. In fact although they said FGM has a law making it illegal, GBH alone would always have covered it as simply breaking the skin not fir the purpose of medical or cosmetic purposes is a serious form of assault with no need to specify every single variation. There's no specific law for poking someone's eye out either but if a child's parents paid a doctor to do that as that's their culture they'd go down for a long stretch regardless, assuming the court weren't prevented from acting like they would in the third world.
So in the end I think nothing that bad can carry on forever. Suttee and thuggee in India were wiped out by the British in India (who said the colonists never did any good) although sadly the caste system is still going strong in many areas despite decades of effort to wipe it out entirely. But in the end once someone important decides to do something it seems to be very quickly when it is, and all the energy could have been building up to be released all in one go when they do. I see global warming following at some point, as the truth is now diverging further and further from the claims, and one by one the scientists have realised they can't maintain an illusion much longer when their original calculations had been about 80% too high compared to reality. One can only hope anyway.
Friday, 6 June 2014
The great EU parliament illusion
I wasn't sure whether to put this under information or fraud as it's really both, but everyone needs to know what those phenomenally well-paid members of the EU parliament can actually do. Now here is the official 2014 definition, bearing in mind it includes the phrase these powers are far greater than they were originally- imagine how little they could do before:
"The European Parliament has been steadily gaining power over recent decades and now acts as a co-legislator for nearly all EU law. Together with the Council, the Parliament adopts or amends proposals from the Commission. Parliament also supervises the work of the Commission and adopts the European Union's budget. See how it all works here.
Beyond these official powers the Parliament also works closely with national parliaments of EU countries. Regular joint parliamentary assemblies allow for a better inclusion of national perspectives into the Parliament's deliberations."
Can they make law? No. Can they initiate law to be made? No. Are the actual lawmakers elected as well? No.
Therefore calling such an expensive and large scale group a parliament (bearing in mind its common meaning of a legislative body) is a lie, a major scam and fraud, and means the EU process has to both hide behind a fake body of power which just discusses, makes minor suggestions and rubber stamps the real laws made above, mainly in secret, by the unelected civil servants of the Commission. It has less power than the House of Lords and probably a little more than the royal family, although that would be debatable as information of their actual influence is protected by the law. They can administer the budget, but that is an accounting procedure few if any voters would know how to follow let alone decide on so only a technical rather than parliamentary power, given (although it is planned) as yet they do not actually have a tax budget as countries would. They choose the commission members but cannot participate directly in their process.
Summary
Again, "However there are some differences from national legislatures; for example, neither the Parliament nor the Council have the power of legislative initiative (except for the fact that the Council has the power in some intergovernmental matters). In Community matters, this is a power uniquely reserved for the European Commission (the executive). Therefore, while Parliament can amend and reject legislation, to make a proposal for legislation, it needs the Commission to draft a bill before anything can become law"
This further implies the separation of powers, designed to avoid tyranny, has never been present in the EU administration as technically the executive must also share the powers of the legislature rather than have a genuine function and balanced scrutiny. So they are passive, and sit and wait for the random jottings and mental wanderings of the cabal to arrive before they spend as long as they feel like turning it over, possibly suggest a few changes (if it's within their power), and according to this actually reject some. Really? I will see. Meanwhile the true function is described far more accurately here by an outsider, something not referred to in their own site's definition at the start:
"The Parliament also has a great deal of indirect influence, through non-binding resolutions and committee hearings, as a "pan-European soapbox" with the ear of thousands of Brussels-based journalists."
Condensed down, it means they are a PR front to spread the word of what a great job they're doing and do their best to hide any serious policies being introduced to replace yet another national function, eg European income taxes which are their latest project. Journalists. That is the fluorescent highlighted word in the sentence. It is there to feed journalists to spread how good and really helpful the EU really is, ie they are protecting themselves and their jobs, ultimately at our loss and expense (see Greece and worse still Cyprus), especially if like Britain you are a net contributor (read 'loser').
"There is also an indirect effect on foreign policy; the Parliament must approve all development grants, including those overseas. For example, the support for post-war Iraq reconstruction, or incentives for the cessation of Iranian nuclear development, must be supported by the Parliament. Parliamentary support was also required for the transatlantic passenger data-sharing deal with the United States.[47] Finally, Parliament holds a non-binding vote on new EU treaties but cannot veto it."
A few more details on what they can spend those billions they collect from us on, which really are taxes as the £55 million a day the country pays to be in at all is taken from our taxes instead of paying doctors to work a few more hours in the evening a day. But when you ultimately take the things they can do and remove them from the main cake there's still most of that cake remaining, all those really major regulations like the green taxes and open door border policies, and rather than spend an unpaid hour or more looking I'll leave you the small task of finding any actual proposed legislation they have rejected. It shouldn't be too hard. But in the end calling something a 'parliament' which is essentially an archetypal second chamber while the actual parliamentary work your national parliament carries out is nearly all carried out by civil servants, appointed vicariously for 12 years, debate mainly in secret, and therefore carry all the requirements of a totalitarian system as the parliament is just the front for the dictators behind, like in Iran where the president changes but the Ayatollah remains regardless and runs the show.
"The European Parliament has been steadily gaining power over recent decades and now acts as a co-legislator for nearly all EU law. Together with the Council, the Parliament adopts or amends proposals from the Commission. Parliament also supervises the work of the Commission and adopts the European Union's budget. See how it all works here.
Beyond these official powers the Parliament also works closely with national parliaments of EU countries. Regular joint parliamentary assemblies allow for a better inclusion of national perspectives into the Parliament's deliberations."
Can they make law? No. Can they initiate law to be made? No. Are the actual lawmakers elected as well? No.
Therefore calling such an expensive and large scale group a parliament (bearing in mind its common meaning of a legislative body) is a lie, a major scam and fraud, and means the EU process has to both hide behind a fake body of power which just discusses, makes minor suggestions and rubber stamps the real laws made above, mainly in secret, by the unelected civil servants of the Commission. It has less power than the House of Lords and probably a little more than the royal family, although that would be debatable as information of their actual influence is protected by the law. They can administer the budget, but that is an accounting procedure few if any voters would know how to follow let alone decide on so only a technical rather than parliamentary power, given (although it is planned) as yet they do not actually have a tax budget as countries would. They choose the commission members but cannot participate directly in their process.
Summary
Again, "However there are some differences from national legislatures; for example, neither the Parliament nor the Council have the power of legislative initiative (except for the fact that the Council has the power in some intergovernmental matters). In Community matters, this is a power uniquely reserved for the European Commission (the executive). Therefore, while Parliament can amend and reject legislation, to make a proposal for legislation, it needs the Commission to draft a bill before anything can become law"
This further implies the separation of powers, designed to avoid tyranny, has never been present in the EU administration as technically the executive must also share the powers of the legislature rather than have a genuine function and balanced scrutiny. So they are passive, and sit and wait for the random jottings and mental wanderings of the cabal to arrive before they spend as long as they feel like turning it over, possibly suggest a few changes (if it's within their power), and according to this actually reject some. Really? I will see. Meanwhile the true function is described far more accurately here by an outsider, something not referred to in their own site's definition at the start:
"The Parliament also has a great deal of indirect influence, through non-binding resolutions and committee hearings, as a "pan-European soapbox" with the ear of thousands of Brussels-based journalists."
Condensed down, it means they are a PR front to spread the word of what a great job they're doing and do their best to hide any serious policies being introduced to replace yet another national function, eg European income taxes which are their latest project. Journalists. That is the fluorescent highlighted word in the sentence. It is there to feed journalists to spread how good and really helpful the EU really is, ie they are protecting themselves and their jobs, ultimately at our loss and expense (see Greece and worse still Cyprus), especially if like Britain you are a net contributor (read 'loser').
"There is also an indirect effect on foreign policy; the Parliament must approve all development grants, including those overseas. For example, the support for post-war Iraq reconstruction, or incentives for the cessation of Iranian nuclear development, must be supported by the Parliament. Parliamentary support was also required for the transatlantic passenger data-sharing deal with the United States.[47] Finally, Parliament holds a non-binding vote on new EU treaties but cannot veto it."
A few more details on what they can spend those billions they collect from us on, which really are taxes as the £55 million a day the country pays to be in at all is taken from our taxes instead of paying doctors to work a few more hours in the evening a day. But when you ultimately take the things they can do and remove them from the main cake there's still most of that cake remaining, all those really major regulations like the green taxes and open door border policies, and rather than spend an unpaid hour or more looking I'll leave you the small task of finding any actual proposed legislation they have rejected. It shouldn't be too hard. But in the end calling something a 'parliament' which is essentially an archetypal second chamber while the actual parliamentary work your national parliament carries out is nearly all carried out by civil servants, appointed vicariously for 12 years, debate mainly in secret, and therefore carry all the requirements of a totalitarian system as the parliament is just the front for the dictators behind, like in Iran where the president changes but the Ayatollah remains regardless and runs the show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)