Science has a pattern few of the crowd are aware of. Some of the greatest inventions in the world have come from amateurs, and some of the greatest scientists in the world have been self taught as well. Beginning with the best known, Leonardo Da Vinci, is recognised as a polymath and genius, and far above the level of science in his own era and for centuries beyond. What had he studied? Leonardo Da Vinci Was a trained apprenticed artist, but once qualified used his ability to design plans for scientific instruments and buildings, and ended up a self taught scientist, engineer, anatomist, and architect. The next famous polymath, with a similar list of actual physically built inventions was Benjamin Franklin, responsible for many of our everyday items we take for granted, and were not created by a committee of scientists in a company working for years, but one man who could visualise entire experiments in his head and then build them to match.
Benjamin Franklin Now nobody doubts Franklin's ability, but how many know how he learnt what he could do, from optics to particle physics, working out the wave theory of light as being correct long before the other scientists caught up, discovered refrigeration, was a leading philosopher, and as so often accompanies such abilities was also a master musician and chess player.
Now of course it helps to avoid fundamental mistakes to have at least a grounding in Newtonian physics, but even without it is proved possible to work it out and apply them regardless, and can always check with someone who does know if required to. But the point is that no one ever questions the work of these two and many others like them, as the work speaks for itself, and by the time a product becomes manufactured or a theory confirmed, the background of who created it becomes totally irrelevant.
The second level of such natural ability means regardless of formal training, these individuals can often spot errors in anyone else's work. I know a self taught engineer who can visualise a machine from the plans and vice versa, and when he went to the Motor Show saw the new Mercedes A hatchback, which was very top heavy, and said it would fall over when cornering too fast. He was escorted off the premises, as such critics nearly always are, and soon afterwards the model was taken off the market and redesigned as of course it fell over when cornering. This also works at different levels of professionals. Non-graduate engineers who have the ability and work record are often able to pick faults in their PhD qualified colleagues, as whether or not they had the ability or money to become postgraduates, they have natural scientific ability, based partly on logic, like musical or artistic ability, where ironically no one ever has to be trained at all as they are totally judged on their output alone. But take the natural scientific ability and it overlaps so many other related areas, maths, law, economics, which use similar processes, that also people trained in similar areas are more able to look through scientific productions and question them as well as their own official peer reviews, if not better at times as they are totally objective.
Franklin and Da Vinci are not only precedents but represent many more less successful or well known non qualified scientists, where household items and drugs may be totally created from their ideas and taken up by companies who licensed and marketed them, losing the source over time but can always be tracked back if you know the connection is there. The major difference with qualified scientists are they know exactly how all the equations work and have tried and tested them in the lab, but that is more a matter of professional consistency than ability, I have come across many people who can use these on paper like machines, sailing through every course with top marks and coming out as top academics, but then you can find a simple error replicated throughout their work, and passing peer review, only for the child to speak out the emperor's naked. They are so close to their work they cannot see the big picture, or can't see it as they work in closed, narrow areas, while the polymath or genius is so because they see how everything fits in, and there is no black dividing line between science and maths, philosophy, law, economic, art or politics, but they all merge together into the greater reality of total being. Those minds are always going to be able to handle such a range of topics, maybe specialising or qualifying in one, but able to follow many others and perform as well or better than those who have spent their lifetimes in them but couldn't do the simplest task of the others as they are journeymen, one trick ponies who have become very good at one thing but fairly unaware of where it fits in to everything else. And that is why it is not appropriate to exclude non-scientists from scientific observations. If they get it right then that speaks for itself. Just as it's the sole voice within the scientific community who discovers the reality, when the rest cling to a consensus covering their actual lack of true knowledge. Both are intimately connected, and exploited to exclude all genuine opposition to qualified bad science.
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Big oil does not exist in reality
The two memes of Big Oil and the Fossil Fuel Industry are raised many times each day, but they do not exist. They are actually either energy companies, who sell power to the public and companies, or conglomerates who invest in many areas depending on what is currently the best deal.
The energy companies (Shell, BP, Exxon, Texac...o etc) are habitually referred to as the above by people who know nothing about business, spread to millions of other people who know nothing about business, and then replace the reality with the received wisdom of myth. In fact these companies sell energy regardless of its method of generation.
Therefore if renewables become more profitable they simply include them as part of their portfolio, and as renewables provide guaranteed returns through subsidies, then they prefer them to the volatile fossil fuel supply, and then by artificially restricting fossil fuel the governments create a shortage which makes their fossil fuel worth more as well. Therefore they can't lose either way and all bet on both horses and couldn't care less how they make their money, and have the biggest stakes in both renewables and climate research in the world.
The energy companies (Shell, BP, Exxon, Texac...o etc) are habitually referred to as the above by people who know nothing about business, spread to millions of other people who know nothing about business, and then replace the reality with the received wisdom of myth. In fact these companies sell energy regardless of its method of generation.
Therefore if renewables become more profitable they simply include them as part of their portfolio, and as renewables provide guaranteed returns through subsidies, then they prefer them to the volatile fossil fuel supply, and then by artificially restricting fossil fuel the governments create a shortage which makes their fossil fuel worth more as well. Therefore they can't lose either way and all bet on both horses and couldn't care less how they make their money, and have the biggest stakes in both renewables and climate research in the world.
Unlike the complex and uncertain climate figures these are simply stating the facts available to everyone to check for themselves. For example this quote from 1997 shows Shell putting $500 million into renewables, despite them admitting they are nowhere near as effective as fossil fuel. Since then you will find the proportions switching are increasing and renewables make a growing part of all these company's profits despite them not delivering at the point of use. Businesses do not have minds, morals or principles, they invest their money in what will bring them the best returns, if it's renewables then they promote and sell renewables. They have no interest in convincing people against them as they would be wrecking their own streams of income if they do.
In 1997 Shell moved $500 million into renewables despite admitting they are 5-10% as effective as fossil fuel. Shell admit the truth
BP plough a fortune into renewables
Texaco switch to renewable in Jamaica
The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was not just funded by green activist groups like Greenpeace but most of the major energy companies. Why would they do this if they were signing their own death warrants? This is a simple concept, do not allow ignorance to prevail.
In 1997 Shell moved $500 million into renewables despite admitting they are 5-10% as effective as fossil fuel. Shell admit the truth
BP plough a fortune into renewables
Texaco switch to renewable in Jamaica
The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was not just funded by green activist groups like Greenpeace but most of the major energy companies. Why would they do this if they were signing their own death warrants? This is a simple concept, do not allow ignorance to prevail.
Saturday, 18 October 2014
What is really important?
One of the elements of information collection is filtering, and knowing what in the news and life really matters and what can be passed over or is just one group's preference over another. I learnt this as a gradual process until the formula became clear. Much is fact based, so if for example a nuclear reactor melts down the results are generally incurable and untreatable, and using no more than logic the question then arises is the risk of a guaranteed disaster if it goes wrong worth the risk?
If you start with some really clear examples you can then take them to other issues which aren't as clear but can be fathomed out in the same way. A good way to start is to listen to the news and see which stories jump out at you and then why they did. I find most people tend to treat all stories equally besides a few hobby horses which are important to them. Few seem to notice just one that stands out as representing something vital, a major change or problem which changes the way things are. In fact that makes it a lot easier, as my default position is most news is space filling gossip, rather than reduce the length of the news when nothing much has happened they always fill the time with something, even when the quality is virtually zero. Like the local papers with a certain number of pages which have to be filled each week, and resort to the resident who spent a year counting the dropped crisp packets in his street, the same sort of irrelevant trivia actually dominates the news. Tiny changes and events, opinion pieces, and possibly worst of all random surveys, how many women think of past lovers when climaxing with their husbands or does your dog understand Welsh. You know the sort of thing. But to me most news is of a similar level even when they're talking about riots abroad or the endless reports of heinous crimes which have happened at least as long as when Cain killed Abel.
So in a way my radar was set up by pinging into action when something stood out as not being ordinary or meaningless and as well as the news applied this to political and philosophical questions, until a complete picture was created to show the important areas and ideally convey this to as many people as possible so they would also know the difference. Risking radiation poisoning when we have many safer methods of power generation is one example, nuclear weapons its elder brother who will come and beat you up if you mess with it. If you think about the concept of deliberately poisoning the environment with centuries or more of radiation, as it spreads in the air and water, to win a war is true inhuman madness of the worst sort, the same mindset that created chemical and biological weapons. Why would anyone actually want to do that to anyone?
Black and white issues are another biggie. Female genital mutilation, not removing the useless and inconvenient foreskin of the man but simply slicing whichever parts they feel like and sewing up the rest so it's never going to work again. There are no reasons for such pure savagery yet millions of people do it around the world quite legally or unenforced if not, otherwise it wouldn't have carried on for so long. When the British colonised India they killed widows on the husband's funeral pyre and we managed to stop that, for the same reasons, and unfortunately humans do have blind spots where they act like savages even when in relatively modern societies, like the current ISIS beheadings, and must be stopped at all costs by those who know it is wrong. Moral relativism, excusing serious crimes 'because everyone there does it' does not work, and is actually aiding and abetting the transgressors. It is rather different allowing a Sikh to wear a turban instead of a crash helmet or campaigning to allow Rastafarians to smoke dope legally and allowing Africans to mutilate their babies.
I hope with more and more examples a larger formula emerges. Right and wrong, good and bad, important and everyday, all need discretion and discrimination to learn and once learned will be set for life, and able to then go and teach others. Another example is the exposure of fraud or crime, where if someone in power has openly committed an act which comes within this area it must then surely represent their entire operation. So when I learned 60-70% of people are net savers, so low interest rates are against the majority so clearly supporting their banker friends and relations, and that governments learn at over 50% income tax the total amount collected falls, as people go abroad, work less and cheat their returns, and if like France they still do it you know they are doing something purely to punish their perceived enemies. And it means they aren't looking after you or me but other people who are in the minority.
Once you master sorting out the important from the trivial or irrelevant you can then start to put it all together in a big picture. One theme is utilitarianism, if a rule helps a few at the expense of many, like low interest rates or high taxes, it must be wrong. If people are hurt it is wrong, something you'd think was obvious but tell it to the doctors slicing bits off little girls all around the world, breaking every natural and professional rule in the universe. They don't know or care what is right or wrong so it's up for those who do to stop them. Each new item can be put through the same process- is it an opinion or choice, like how many foreigners would you like living in your area, something with no correct answer, or how many people would you like in your area, which has a correct answer as like rats, people will start suffering when too crowded together. So the nature of your neighbours can't be used as an absolute as it's an individual preference, but no one should be forced to live in high density, with people arriving too fast for the services to catch up. Foreigners not speaking your language is a problem, especially when they are working for people who do or in school, so is clearly an issue the Israelis for one will not allow, making everyone learn Hebrew before given residence. There are endless issues that can be put through the system, for practice just take as many as you can find and run them yourselves, and will start to find the process becoming easier and easier. Is it important and is it wrong. Those are the two major questions and we all have the capacity to answer.
If you start with some really clear examples you can then take them to other issues which aren't as clear but can be fathomed out in the same way. A good way to start is to listen to the news and see which stories jump out at you and then why they did. I find most people tend to treat all stories equally besides a few hobby horses which are important to them. Few seem to notice just one that stands out as representing something vital, a major change or problem which changes the way things are. In fact that makes it a lot easier, as my default position is most news is space filling gossip, rather than reduce the length of the news when nothing much has happened they always fill the time with something, even when the quality is virtually zero. Like the local papers with a certain number of pages which have to be filled each week, and resort to the resident who spent a year counting the dropped crisp packets in his street, the same sort of irrelevant trivia actually dominates the news. Tiny changes and events, opinion pieces, and possibly worst of all random surveys, how many women think of past lovers when climaxing with their husbands or does your dog understand Welsh. You know the sort of thing. But to me most news is of a similar level even when they're talking about riots abroad or the endless reports of heinous crimes which have happened at least as long as when Cain killed Abel.
So in a way my radar was set up by pinging into action when something stood out as not being ordinary or meaningless and as well as the news applied this to political and philosophical questions, until a complete picture was created to show the important areas and ideally convey this to as many people as possible so they would also know the difference. Risking radiation poisoning when we have many safer methods of power generation is one example, nuclear weapons its elder brother who will come and beat you up if you mess with it. If you think about the concept of deliberately poisoning the environment with centuries or more of radiation, as it spreads in the air and water, to win a war is true inhuman madness of the worst sort, the same mindset that created chemical and biological weapons. Why would anyone actually want to do that to anyone?
Black and white issues are another biggie. Female genital mutilation, not removing the useless and inconvenient foreskin of the man but simply slicing whichever parts they feel like and sewing up the rest so it's never going to work again. There are no reasons for such pure savagery yet millions of people do it around the world quite legally or unenforced if not, otherwise it wouldn't have carried on for so long. When the British colonised India they killed widows on the husband's funeral pyre and we managed to stop that, for the same reasons, and unfortunately humans do have blind spots where they act like savages even when in relatively modern societies, like the current ISIS beheadings, and must be stopped at all costs by those who know it is wrong. Moral relativism, excusing serious crimes 'because everyone there does it' does not work, and is actually aiding and abetting the transgressors. It is rather different allowing a Sikh to wear a turban instead of a crash helmet or campaigning to allow Rastafarians to smoke dope legally and allowing Africans to mutilate their babies.
I hope with more and more examples a larger formula emerges. Right and wrong, good and bad, important and everyday, all need discretion and discrimination to learn and once learned will be set for life, and able to then go and teach others. Another example is the exposure of fraud or crime, where if someone in power has openly committed an act which comes within this area it must then surely represent their entire operation. So when I learned 60-70% of people are net savers, so low interest rates are against the majority so clearly supporting their banker friends and relations, and that governments learn at over 50% income tax the total amount collected falls, as people go abroad, work less and cheat their returns, and if like France they still do it you know they are doing something purely to punish their perceived enemies. And it means they aren't looking after you or me but other people who are in the minority.
Once you master sorting out the important from the trivial or irrelevant you can then start to put it all together in a big picture. One theme is utilitarianism, if a rule helps a few at the expense of many, like low interest rates or high taxes, it must be wrong. If people are hurt it is wrong, something you'd think was obvious but tell it to the doctors slicing bits off little girls all around the world, breaking every natural and professional rule in the universe. They don't know or care what is right or wrong so it's up for those who do to stop them. Each new item can be put through the same process- is it an opinion or choice, like how many foreigners would you like living in your area, something with no correct answer, or how many people would you like in your area, which has a correct answer as like rats, people will start suffering when too crowded together. So the nature of your neighbours can't be used as an absolute as it's an individual preference, but no one should be forced to live in high density, with people arriving too fast for the services to catch up. Foreigners not speaking your language is a problem, especially when they are working for people who do or in school, so is clearly an issue the Israelis for one will not allow, making everyone learn Hebrew before given residence. There are endless issues that can be put through the system, for practice just take as many as you can find and run them yourselves, and will start to find the process becoming easier and easier. Is it important and is it wrong. Those are the two major questions and we all have the capacity to answer.
Tuesday, 14 October 2014
These are liberal, really?
The 21st century liberalism movement, on closer inspection, shows itself as actually playing one of the oldest tricks in the book, taking the name of a true movement and using it as a label to do the exact opposite. They have a list of such strongly held views and policies they often have their activists calling it to make it a crime to speak out against them, and if it's a crime already bring in the extremely liberal policy of the death sentence.
A liberal advocating the death sentence, as various groups have done for deniers of global warming? If they want to kill their enemies who have not even committed a crime does that really mean they are liberal, and what then does it tell you about their other motives?
Today's far left share a slew of common policies which may be presented to protect the weak and downtrodden, and stop the planet from being ruined, but look at the results and claims behind them to see the nastiest, most socially divisive plans since Mao's cultural revolution, one which meant killing the intellectuals to make society more equal. He actually did this, to prove what is possible, now they are using subtler versions to reduce free speech and keep their plans going in the face of all opposition. Here is a list of their main plans:
Multiculturalism
Inclusivity
Gay rights
Environmentalism
Equality
Social justice
On the surface most of these look fairly harmless. But when protecting the rights of others there comes a point, like when the unions went from protecting the workers against the owners of the businesses who previously had no regulations, to holding the country to ransom as they had too much power, where the balance is overtaken and the downtrodden become the new oppressors. If for instance you already have all the discrimination laws you need then why keep fighting for more rights you already have? And how, exactly, can't anyone be racist against white people?
But in practice we have seen the actual results of such policies. Multiculturalism, as Andrew Neather boasted, was designed to water down bourgeois society as the most severe method of social engineering, only one step below freeing criminals around the world and inviting them in formally, except in fact many did end up here and then were not allowed to be deported as they had a wife, child or cat here and 'it infringed their family rights'. Such rights always have two sides, theirs and society's, and if society loses when theirs are protected something must have been done wrongly.
Equality is not about each life being equal, but an economic and social policy designed to stop anyone getting too far ahead of others. It is actually based on the totally false view no personal qualities are inherited, so it's only society's fault some people do better than others academically and economically, despite genetics proving beyond any doubt as well as twin studies that most people's intelligence and personality is mainly genetic, with social conditions able to make them worse if repressed. But you can't for instance raise anyone's IQ, only allow it to be made the best of, otherwise people with learning difficulties could all be trained out of it, which they clearly aren't.
Inclusivity is fine as far as it goes, but once you have laws stopping discrimination against women, gays and religions etc then that should be it. But like the unions people even speaking against gay marriage or making childish jokes about women are demonised, called bigots, and calls made for such views and speech to be illegal. David Cameron attempted a bill to do just this, to make causing offence a crime, and it nearly got through and may well in the future. Imagine the power of such a subjective clause in the criminal law and how easy it would be to enforce it anywhere and everywhere despite no harm being caused?
The environment already has some of the most stringent laws in the world, and since manufacturing has left the west for the unregulated slave labour of the third world maybe spending the effort trying to get them to adopt the same laws we've had for decades than send our work there, leave them to it, and try and shut down power generation here is not the best allocation of resources, unless the plan was always to return the west to the pre industrial wasteland it once was?
Social justice is a catch all which basically means whatever they want to 'fix' in society will come under that umbrella. Therefore, despite being the only means to educate bright but poor children, David Cameron, the Conservative, dismissed a return to grammar schools, as 'elitist'. So what that actually does is only allow rich families to send their children to selective schools and as a result maintain the elite. Human rights are another good one under this umbrella. Like liberalism, it sounds good, except the unavoidable problem one person's rights affect everyone else and may conflict with them. Keeping convicted foreign criminals here, who entered illegally as criminals, committed more crime, served their sentences at our expense, and were ruled allowed to stay here on release as their rights were being protected is the best example, but that is only one of many similar. Again, where the balance switches to one side from the other the rule has gone too far, and in this case and others where people attacking dangerous criminals were convicted of assault for protecting themselves and their families in their own homes something is very wrong in the system.
The worst actual result of modern liberalism is the protection of opinion. What they have done is to actually protect their chosen groups and any criticism of them is deemed wrong. Therefore if Muslims treat their women like slaves or commit crimes against white girls if you even mention they are Muslims doing it you are racist and Islamophobic (they make up words as well), yet if anyone else did the same thing they would be condemned by them even more than a footballer who used a racist term against another player. Gay marriage is technically a neologism which has attempted to claim it is exactly the same (yes, identical) for a same sex couple to be married as the opposite sex. Forget the fact they cannot only reproduce, but not even consummate the marriage (imagine a lesbian couple finding a way) and the comparison has already gone out of the window. There's no reason not to allow anyone to create a legal union, as they had already in civil partnerships, but you can't make something totally different exactly the same as they now have. So if you simply point this out you're a homophobic bigot, as stated by one of the movement's leading figures, Will Self. If you notice there aren't any people speaking English in your local shopping centre, or no white faces, simply pointing it out, before adding an element of disapproval has been deemed racist, as they don't want any opposition at all, and have set their opinions in stone as something which has no alternative, and if you challenge you should be criminalised. Very liberal indeed. Shut down even one opinion by law and you can potentially add them all.
I hope you have seen demonstrated what is actually an extreme leftist movement of social, economic and philosophical intent. They have their very clear and fixed views of what is right, and like any other cult have raised them above other levels to gospel, any challenge to which should be protected by law, if not already. So by advocating opinions to be made illegal is clearly, even if you agree with their motives, not liberal but some of the most totalitarian ideas known to history. Maybe if the movement either renamed themselves to social fascists, or were named by others, at least everyone would know where they were coming from and be prepared. But like the wolf in sheep's clothing, if the wolf wandered around the flock as itself it would have been dealt with straight away, as normal people would have done with these socially fascistic 'liberals' who have quietly and successfully destroyed British and European national values slowly and gradually until Muslims can happily condemn western values and be protected to do so, and politicians can speak out against the open border policy while doing nothing about it as those new values of nihilistic misanthropism have taken over in almost every area of all main parties, ruling and opposition alike. This atmosphere of oppression is now the bad air of politics in the west altogether, with talking heads being interchangeable from Labour to Liberal to Tory alike as the current fashion to go with the flow of uniformity has taken them all over, and explains totally the rise of the Ukip antidote which is the only current party to undo the new liberalism and replace it with the real sort. Not that I'm promoting a party at all, just explaining how, as Marx pointed out, when society becomes extreme on one side the opposite must form and ultimately water it down. We can only hope, and the same across the world elsewhere as well.
A liberal advocating the death sentence, as various groups have done for deniers of global warming? If they want to kill their enemies who have not even committed a crime does that really mean they are liberal, and what then does it tell you about their other motives?
Today's far left share a slew of common policies which may be presented to protect the weak and downtrodden, and stop the planet from being ruined, but look at the results and claims behind them to see the nastiest, most socially divisive plans since Mao's cultural revolution, one which meant killing the intellectuals to make society more equal. He actually did this, to prove what is possible, now they are using subtler versions to reduce free speech and keep their plans going in the face of all opposition. Here is a list of their main plans:
Multiculturalism
Inclusivity
Gay rights
Environmentalism
Equality
Social justice
On the surface most of these look fairly harmless. But when protecting the rights of others there comes a point, like when the unions went from protecting the workers against the owners of the businesses who previously had no regulations, to holding the country to ransom as they had too much power, where the balance is overtaken and the downtrodden become the new oppressors. If for instance you already have all the discrimination laws you need then why keep fighting for more rights you already have? And how, exactly, can't anyone be racist against white people?
But in practice we have seen the actual results of such policies. Multiculturalism, as Andrew Neather boasted, was designed to water down bourgeois society as the most severe method of social engineering, only one step below freeing criminals around the world and inviting them in formally, except in fact many did end up here and then were not allowed to be deported as they had a wife, child or cat here and 'it infringed their family rights'. Such rights always have two sides, theirs and society's, and if society loses when theirs are protected something must have been done wrongly.
Equality is not about each life being equal, but an economic and social policy designed to stop anyone getting too far ahead of others. It is actually based on the totally false view no personal qualities are inherited, so it's only society's fault some people do better than others academically and economically, despite genetics proving beyond any doubt as well as twin studies that most people's intelligence and personality is mainly genetic, with social conditions able to make them worse if repressed. But you can't for instance raise anyone's IQ, only allow it to be made the best of, otherwise people with learning difficulties could all be trained out of it, which they clearly aren't.
Inclusivity is fine as far as it goes, but once you have laws stopping discrimination against women, gays and religions etc then that should be it. But like the unions people even speaking against gay marriage or making childish jokes about women are demonised, called bigots, and calls made for such views and speech to be illegal. David Cameron attempted a bill to do just this, to make causing offence a crime, and it nearly got through and may well in the future. Imagine the power of such a subjective clause in the criminal law and how easy it would be to enforce it anywhere and everywhere despite no harm being caused?
The environment already has some of the most stringent laws in the world, and since manufacturing has left the west for the unregulated slave labour of the third world maybe spending the effort trying to get them to adopt the same laws we've had for decades than send our work there, leave them to it, and try and shut down power generation here is not the best allocation of resources, unless the plan was always to return the west to the pre industrial wasteland it once was?
Social justice is a catch all which basically means whatever they want to 'fix' in society will come under that umbrella. Therefore, despite being the only means to educate bright but poor children, David Cameron, the Conservative, dismissed a return to grammar schools, as 'elitist'. So what that actually does is only allow rich families to send their children to selective schools and as a result maintain the elite. Human rights are another good one under this umbrella. Like liberalism, it sounds good, except the unavoidable problem one person's rights affect everyone else and may conflict with them. Keeping convicted foreign criminals here, who entered illegally as criminals, committed more crime, served their sentences at our expense, and were ruled allowed to stay here on release as their rights were being protected is the best example, but that is only one of many similar. Again, where the balance switches to one side from the other the rule has gone too far, and in this case and others where people attacking dangerous criminals were convicted of assault for protecting themselves and their families in their own homes something is very wrong in the system.
The worst actual result of modern liberalism is the protection of opinion. What they have done is to actually protect their chosen groups and any criticism of them is deemed wrong. Therefore if Muslims treat their women like slaves or commit crimes against white girls if you even mention they are Muslims doing it you are racist and Islamophobic (they make up words as well), yet if anyone else did the same thing they would be condemned by them even more than a footballer who used a racist term against another player. Gay marriage is technically a neologism which has attempted to claim it is exactly the same (yes, identical) for a same sex couple to be married as the opposite sex. Forget the fact they cannot only reproduce, but not even consummate the marriage (imagine a lesbian couple finding a way) and the comparison has already gone out of the window. There's no reason not to allow anyone to create a legal union, as they had already in civil partnerships, but you can't make something totally different exactly the same as they now have. So if you simply point this out you're a homophobic bigot, as stated by one of the movement's leading figures, Will Self. If you notice there aren't any people speaking English in your local shopping centre, or no white faces, simply pointing it out, before adding an element of disapproval has been deemed racist, as they don't want any opposition at all, and have set their opinions in stone as something which has no alternative, and if you challenge you should be criminalised. Very liberal indeed. Shut down even one opinion by law and you can potentially add them all.
I hope you have seen demonstrated what is actually an extreme leftist movement of social, economic and philosophical intent. They have their very clear and fixed views of what is right, and like any other cult have raised them above other levels to gospel, any challenge to which should be protected by law, if not already. So by advocating opinions to be made illegal is clearly, even if you agree with their motives, not liberal but some of the most totalitarian ideas known to history. Maybe if the movement either renamed themselves to social fascists, or were named by others, at least everyone would know where they were coming from and be prepared. But like the wolf in sheep's clothing, if the wolf wandered around the flock as itself it would have been dealt with straight away, as normal people would have done with these socially fascistic 'liberals' who have quietly and successfully destroyed British and European national values slowly and gradually until Muslims can happily condemn western values and be protected to do so, and politicians can speak out against the open border policy while doing nothing about it as those new values of nihilistic misanthropism have taken over in almost every area of all main parties, ruling and opposition alike. This atmosphere of oppression is now the bad air of politics in the west altogether, with talking heads being interchangeable from Labour to Liberal to Tory alike as the current fashion to go with the flow of uniformity has taken them all over, and explains totally the rise of the Ukip antidote which is the only current party to undo the new liberalism and replace it with the real sort. Not that I'm promoting a party at all, just explaining how, as Marx pointed out, when society becomes extreme on one side the opposite must form and ultimately water it down. We can only hope, and the same across the world elsewhere as well.
Monday, 13 October 2014
The only true economic indicator
People have got to learn what the heirarchy of economic figures are, and which ones count to them. Growth is a non-starter, partly as it includes some inflation and tax rises and partly as it doesn't affect anyone directly. Inflation is more important, but you need to do your own investigation and factor in the commodity prices the government avoid, making them virtually meaningless. Secondly the official inflation figures publicly treat price inflation and wage inflation as the same thing, despite one being growth and the other reduction. I can't understand how they do that as some times in the past when inflation was double figures some of that was actually a result of strong unions raising average wages across the board, making workers actually better off. How could inflation present that in a negative way?
No, there is a headline figure we all need to know and use, the one we used when China took over Britain as the bigger economy. It used no more than bare growth a a parameter, using absolute rather than relative figures, treating the growth in a year of your child and an elephant as equally valid. No, in the small print the news quietly mentioned, as if it was just a minor detail (but actually the only detail anyone needed) "but China's average wage is still a seventh as much as Britain." Now that pretty much covers what you needed to know, meaning Chinese workers still have slave rates and conditions, as the people's republic based nominally on the rules of Marx and Lenin treat their labour forces as badly or worse than the factory owners in 19th century Europe that created Marxism and the successful union movement as a direct result.
Applying the figures, roughly house prices in Britain have risen on average from 3 to 10 times average income in around 40 years. In America an average worker could buy and run a detached family house, they probably still can. Now half or more first time buyers here can't buy anything. Commodity and energy prices rising, partly as hedges against record low interest rates, have meant the proportion everyone pays on food, housing and energy, the three main essentials, are growing annually, and wages have risen more slowly than prices, even using the official figures, since 2007. Using the house and energy prices as well the inflation is heading towards double figures but unless the government admit it people just wonder each month how they have less to spend than last year or the year before if inflation is hardly rising. As of course it really is.
So to summarise, growth is virtually meaningless, as it is both biased and does not relate directly to individual conditions. During the great depression some people became millionaires through exploiting the markets left free by businesses failing to deliver. Everyone in a free market can make their own growth by adding value through study, work and creation, so using a rising economy to relax and a falling one to suffer are false conditions. You do your best regardless, and if more people exploit falling markets (as the experts always do as they learnt how) then by all pulling together they will raise the economy through their own collected individual actions. There are no vacuums in a free market, someone will and do always fill them, and those who follow sound business procedure, called customer service and providing what people need at a fair price, they will do well, often with little or no subesequent advertising if providing a product widely available in shops. The best tradesmen don't advertise as they have too much work from personal recommendation, and a good shop or product will sell the same way and keep its prices down as a result- Coca Cola's portion of advertising in their price is almost as much as the product itself, almost doubling the price to the consumer as a result.
What counts more than anything else is wages outstripping prices. The larger the price the more it takes from the economy. Houses are by far the greatest component of everyone's spending, as rent or mortgage payments are always very similar per month for a property as you are paying for the same thing, the interest going either to the lender or the landlord. As everyone has to live somewhere, keep it warm and lit, eat and travel then they spend on these first and the economy cannot grow more from the remainder when there is less available to do so. That is not related directly to growth itself but price inflation, as the amount of money circulating after essentials is what allows expansion in the actual physical economy as people can't support new businesses as customers or investors as much if they haven't got it. It's only looking at the same thing from another angle, as this form of inflation slows down everything except hard work. You can sell products but not as fast, except essentials such as funerals and accounting as they are not affected in a recession and where the smart money always goes. But individual enterprise is not the way out for the economy long term or those in it, only the people who are able to do so and succeed, which not everyone is capable of doing if not at that skill level. The low skilled as Marx correctly stated can only work their way to success, and that cannot be rewarded adequately, causing them the growth they need to keep up with inflation, as they are wage slaves. Those paying the wages are restricted by government policies such as interest rates, as every business owner not in property is also paying more for their accommodation as well, and everything else, so they have less left to pay wages. It is a circular issue, like being strangled by an anaconda, as the inflation created by government policies of low interest rates and everything Keynesian, debasing the currency like watering the beer, will make everyone poorer so their efforts will be slower and harder than when allowed free by a market rate for all.
As the interest rate (in Libor at least) and now gold and the foreign exchange market are discovered to have been fixed for years you can see what added to such a shrinkage in the economy, in its genuine form of universally reduced spending power, on top of governments doing the same things to fuel the commodity price rises (like houses, gold rose four times in price over a far shorter period) the money is being siphoned from the system pretty well deliberately and people have no idea about it, unless you learn how. So all you need to know is a) how much do you need to earn to buy a house and b) how much has that changed in the last few decades? Either way we've done very badly, and are falling as the third world economies look set to overtake. Theirs is partly through slave labour and poor regulations, but that's how Britain did it in the 19th century before we became civilised. Now we are dropping back the other way, until enough people realise and sort it out, by information and the ballot box. When enough people know the media will take over as they have no moral compass, they always back the winners whatever their motives.
No, there is a headline figure we all need to know and use, the one we used when China took over Britain as the bigger economy. It used no more than bare growth a a parameter, using absolute rather than relative figures, treating the growth in a year of your child and an elephant as equally valid. No, in the small print the news quietly mentioned, as if it was just a minor detail (but actually the only detail anyone needed) "but China's average wage is still a seventh as much as Britain." Now that pretty much covers what you needed to know, meaning Chinese workers still have slave rates and conditions, as the people's republic based nominally on the rules of Marx and Lenin treat their labour forces as badly or worse than the factory owners in 19th century Europe that created Marxism and the successful union movement as a direct result.
Applying the figures, roughly house prices in Britain have risen on average from 3 to 10 times average income in around 40 years. In America an average worker could buy and run a detached family house, they probably still can. Now half or more first time buyers here can't buy anything. Commodity and energy prices rising, partly as hedges against record low interest rates, have meant the proportion everyone pays on food, housing and energy, the three main essentials, are growing annually, and wages have risen more slowly than prices, even using the official figures, since 2007. Using the house and energy prices as well the inflation is heading towards double figures but unless the government admit it people just wonder each month how they have less to spend than last year or the year before if inflation is hardly rising. As of course it really is.
So to summarise, growth is virtually meaningless, as it is both biased and does not relate directly to individual conditions. During the great depression some people became millionaires through exploiting the markets left free by businesses failing to deliver. Everyone in a free market can make their own growth by adding value through study, work and creation, so using a rising economy to relax and a falling one to suffer are false conditions. You do your best regardless, and if more people exploit falling markets (as the experts always do as they learnt how) then by all pulling together they will raise the economy through their own collected individual actions. There are no vacuums in a free market, someone will and do always fill them, and those who follow sound business procedure, called customer service and providing what people need at a fair price, they will do well, often with little or no subesequent advertising if providing a product widely available in shops. The best tradesmen don't advertise as they have too much work from personal recommendation, and a good shop or product will sell the same way and keep its prices down as a result- Coca Cola's portion of advertising in their price is almost as much as the product itself, almost doubling the price to the consumer as a result.
What counts more than anything else is wages outstripping prices. The larger the price the more it takes from the economy. Houses are by far the greatest component of everyone's spending, as rent or mortgage payments are always very similar per month for a property as you are paying for the same thing, the interest going either to the lender or the landlord. As everyone has to live somewhere, keep it warm and lit, eat and travel then they spend on these first and the economy cannot grow more from the remainder when there is less available to do so. That is not related directly to growth itself but price inflation, as the amount of money circulating after essentials is what allows expansion in the actual physical economy as people can't support new businesses as customers or investors as much if they haven't got it. It's only looking at the same thing from another angle, as this form of inflation slows down everything except hard work. You can sell products but not as fast, except essentials such as funerals and accounting as they are not affected in a recession and where the smart money always goes. But individual enterprise is not the way out for the economy long term or those in it, only the people who are able to do so and succeed, which not everyone is capable of doing if not at that skill level. The low skilled as Marx correctly stated can only work their way to success, and that cannot be rewarded adequately, causing them the growth they need to keep up with inflation, as they are wage slaves. Those paying the wages are restricted by government policies such as interest rates, as every business owner not in property is also paying more for their accommodation as well, and everything else, so they have less left to pay wages. It is a circular issue, like being strangled by an anaconda, as the inflation created by government policies of low interest rates and everything Keynesian, debasing the currency like watering the beer, will make everyone poorer so their efforts will be slower and harder than when allowed free by a market rate for all.
As the interest rate (in Libor at least) and now gold and the foreign exchange market are discovered to have been fixed for years you can see what added to such a shrinkage in the economy, in its genuine form of universally reduced spending power, on top of governments doing the same things to fuel the commodity price rises (like houses, gold rose four times in price over a far shorter period) the money is being siphoned from the system pretty well deliberately and people have no idea about it, unless you learn how. So all you need to know is a) how much do you need to earn to buy a house and b) how much has that changed in the last few decades? Either way we've done very badly, and are falling as the third world economies look set to overtake. Theirs is partly through slave labour and poor regulations, but that's how Britain did it in the 19th century before we became civilised. Now we are dropping back the other way, until enough people realise and sort it out, by information and the ballot box. When enough people know the media will take over as they have no moral compass, they always back the winners whatever their motives.
Thursday, 9 October 2014
What exactly is capitalism?
Capitalism
is defined as 'free market capitalism', so people who are against it in any form, and see no distinction between the modern corporate states, where business runs the government, otherwise known as fascism or mafia business, and legal regulated capitalism. As they are so misanthropic and cynical they prefer a soviet style
planned economy where everyone's equally poor, commodities are not
distributed and there is no reward for creation or enterprise. Sadly
millions of people around the world agree and instead of allowing legally regulated freedom for all, would prefer not to trust anyone besides the government to run business for them.
It is not a perfect system, as it can lead to monopolies, and also cannot operate where there is no competition, therefore public services like energy supplies and railways cannot be subject to the free market as there is only one product and nothing to offer that is different. But outside the exceptions, which the hard core monopolists, the corporate fascistic proponents, would say otherwise, there is no better way of distributing resources than the free market. You need an equal playing field, so you create fair trade law enforced by the authorities, as cheating is theft and theft is crime, which are not capitalism but fraud. There is no connection between capitalism and exploitation, the criminal and civil law is written to allow the consumers to get the best possible guarantee the producers will supply what they say they will and not be cheated out of their money for dangerous or useless products. Would you want them to do anything else?
So, having created the natural boundaries of the free market, other means such as protectionism, central planning or state capitalism, where the profits are still made but kept within state funds and totally unaccountable to how they are spent, are all comparably unable to share the resources and offer individuals the chance to set up a business doing so, as they do not trust the citizens to do so (even with enormous regulations) but would prefer the state to take over their functions. People who criticise capitalism tend to actually be criticising the crooks within it, and exploiters of loopholes who give it a bad name. The free market itself is even operated now in one of the most repressive extreme left wing countries in the world, China, who have realised it is the key to economic prosperity, while they still offer very little personal freedom. But if a business is honest, then by supplying what people want or need at a market, ie fair price, everyone benefits equally. Consumers of one product are often producers of others, as whatever you are selling you still need to buy everything else from elsewhere, and would want the same service as you would want to provide from those who supply you. Bad businesses will lose customers and not be recommended and go broke by their own failings, and people who take risks with dubious products are no different from anyone else taking a chance in life. It's their money and decision and up to them if they want to try it. And if it goes wrong it won't all have been wasted as they will have learnt valuable lessons if they want to try it another time.
Basically freedom includes every aspect of life that doesn't hurt others. You can't simply pick and choose elements you like and exclude others, otherwise you'd simply be serving other people in a restaurant what you want on the menu rather than what they want. You can't select which parts of freedom you like and not others, it is a totally inclusive principle, and if you want some to go, effectively you want none of it, as you are scared of other people, scared of life, and want everything to be regulated to make yourself feel safer. But that is a psychological failing, not a realistic way to run a country, let alone the world, and imposing your own psychological problems on others is why so many people are having therapy now.
It is not a perfect system, as it can lead to monopolies, and also cannot operate where there is no competition, therefore public services like energy supplies and railways cannot be subject to the free market as there is only one product and nothing to offer that is different. But outside the exceptions, which the hard core monopolists, the corporate fascistic proponents, would say otherwise, there is no better way of distributing resources than the free market. You need an equal playing field, so you create fair trade law enforced by the authorities, as cheating is theft and theft is crime, which are not capitalism but fraud. There is no connection between capitalism and exploitation, the criminal and civil law is written to allow the consumers to get the best possible guarantee the producers will supply what they say they will and not be cheated out of their money for dangerous or useless products. Would you want them to do anything else?
So, having created the natural boundaries of the free market, other means such as protectionism, central planning or state capitalism, where the profits are still made but kept within state funds and totally unaccountable to how they are spent, are all comparably unable to share the resources and offer individuals the chance to set up a business doing so, as they do not trust the citizens to do so (even with enormous regulations) but would prefer the state to take over their functions. People who criticise capitalism tend to actually be criticising the crooks within it, and exploiters of loopholes who give it a bad name. The free market itself is even operated now in one of the most repressive extreme left wing countries in the world, China, who have realised it is the key to economic prosperity, while they still offer very little personal freedom. But if a business is honest, then by supplying what people want or need at a market, ie fair price, everyone benefits equally. Consumers of one product are often producers of others, as whatever you are selling you still need to buy everything else from elsewhere, and would want the same service as you would want to provide from those who supply you. Bad businesses will lose customers and not be recommended and go broke by their own failings, and people who take risks with dubious products are no different from anyone else taking a chance in life. It's their money and decision and up to them if they want to try it. And if it goes wrong it won't all have been wasted as they will have learnt valuable lessons if they want to try it another time.
Basically freedom includes every aspect of life that doesn't hurt others. You can't simply pick and choose elements you like and exclude others, otherwise you'd simply be serving other people in a restaurant what you want on the menu rather than what they want. You can't select which parts of freedom you like and not others, it is a totally inclusive principle, and if you want some to go, effectively you want none of it, as you are scared of other people, scared of life, and want everything to be regulated to make yourself feel safer. But that is a psychological failing, not a realistic way to run a country, let alone the world, and imposing your own psychological problems on others is why so many people are having therapy now.
Tuesday, 7 October 2014
Global warming. You cannot be certain.
It's bloody simple really. When
you are constantly assailed by equal status papers contradicting each
other, whether on the missing heat, extreme weather or glacier melting,
it would be ridiculous for anyone to believe there was any sort of
certainty or continuity in the underlying material. Instead you see a
chaos of competing items, each trying harder than the last to insist it
is the only true picture, but of course in science there is no room for
alternative views like social sciences, but they either hit the target
or miss it.
And besides the areas impossible to handle, like modelling clouds and aerosols, explaining dark matter or measuring gravity, most scientists will kill themselves rather than simply admit they don't really know something the public think they should. So they turn out anything they can to hope (quite realistically) the morsels of data will satisfy the ravenous public and politicians, while those of us with independent minds see straight through it, but intelligence by its nature is restricted to the tiny minority and those below will not accept a word from anyone outside the small community who make the rules and no one else.
Because most people are only exposed to the real 97%, ie that media material disposed to promoting the idea of man made warming, that is assumed to be 97% certain as some liars (it has been proved, so I am speaking the truth) claim. Had that been the case then we'd need many millions of scientists, as over 30,000 have signed a petition disagreeing, and hundreds specifically qualified in the climate areas do so as well. That won't happen where an area really is certain. Had the public had the same material found on many internet sites, and been given all the contradicting evidence on everything from the temperature to the narrower areas below, they would almost all think like me, it's all a bunch of chaotic speculation, where an idea originally a possible theory connecting a known lab experiment in a closed system with a recent correspondence of rising CO2 levels with rising temperatures got totally out of hand. The logical gaps, apparent to all who have studied the material and can think logically, are the same as any other cobbled together story, whether the alibi of a gang of thieves or rewritten Soviet history to make them and any other communist regime the winners, despite many people starving and being murdered. Only if you are unable to access the true material will anyone believe what they are told, otherwise a Soviet Russian visiting the west for the first time would be expecting to see some kind of third world wilderness, as under communism their lives were said to be the best possible by their leaders, knowing few would have the chance to find out otherwise, as their travel and information abilities were severely controlled and curtailed, much as present day North Korea.
Looking at the most extreme totalitarian regimes explains what happens elsewhere at a subtler scale. The same mechanisms are put in place, most people believe what they are told, and the media are somehow persuaded to keep an almost united front. But it's rubbish, and like building a house on mineworks or quicksand it'll come down sooner or later, as the claims are based on nothing at all.
If even one qualified scientist can explain why a theory is wrong then it's wrong. Hundreds have here, they couldn't do it if it wasn't. Or provide contradictive articles and data for every single parameter within the climate. That's not possible in science, only propaganda and lies.
And besides the areas impossible to handle, like modelling clouds and aerosols, explaining dark matter or measuring gravity, most scientists will kill themselves rather than simply admit they don't really know something the public think they should. So they turn out anything they can to hope (quite realistically) the morsels of data will satisfy the ravenous public and politicians, while those of us with independent minds see straight through it, but intelligence by its nature is restricted to the tiny minority and those below will not accept a word from anyone outside the small community who make the rules and no one else.
Because most people are only exposed to the real 97%, ie that media material disposed to promoting the idea of man made warming, that is assumed to be 97% certain as some liars (it has been proved, so I am speaking the truth) claim. Had that been the case then we'd need many millions of scientists, as over 30,000 have signed a petition disagreeing, and hundreds specifically qualified in the climate areas do so as well. That won't happen where an area really is certain. Had the public had the same material found on many internet sites, and been given all the contradicting evidence on everything from the temperature to the narrower areas below, they would almost all think like me, it's all a bunch of chaotic speculation, where an idea originally a possible theory connecting a known lab experiment in a closed system with a recent correspondence of rising CO2 levels with rising temperatures got totally out of hand. The logical gaps, apparent to all who have studied the material and can think logically, are the same as any other cobbled together story, whether the alibi of a gang of thieves or rewritten Soviet history to make them and any other communist regime the winners, despite many people starving and being murdered. Only if you are unable to access the true material will anyone believe what they are told, otherwise a Soviet Russian visiting the west for the first time would be expecting to see some kind of third world wilderness, as under communism their lives were said to be the best possible by their leaders, knowing few would have the chance to find out otherwise, as their travel and information abilities were severely controlled and curtailed, much as present day North Korea.
Looking at the most extreme totalitarian regimes explains what happens elsewhere at a subtler scale. The same mechanisms are put in place, most people believe what they are told, and the media are somehow persuaded to keep an almost united front. But it's rubbish, and like building a house on mineworks or quicksand it'll come down sooner or later, as the claims are based on nothing at all.
If even one qualified scientist can explain why a theory is wrong then it's wrong. Hundreds have here, they couldn't do it if it wasn't. Or provide contradictive articles and data for every single parameter within the climate. That's not possible in science, only propaganda and lies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)