Thursday, 31 October 2013

True democracy

How long did it take in Britain at least for people to accept a system where politicians were voted in every what will now be every five years, meaning technically if they introduce any policy most people considered against the interests of the country

 there was absolutely nothing they could do about it?

Think about it, what official channels exist, most of all in a country with no constitution shackling government excesses, to do a single thing besides civil disobedience to stop any old junk becoming law till at least the next election, that is, if all three parties don't all agree with it as well?

The answer unfortunately is nothing at all. The French burn sheep, the Italians have a system where they can call an election every week and get the same people back every time, and the Cypriots have just handed Angela Merkel their balls on a plate and asked if she wants one of their children with it. Their systems vary fairly little from ours in that respect, although as I just pointed out for other reasons when they did get the chance (and they have PR so can actually change things) they didn't want change. But in Britain if we do we can't get it. The poll tax riots simply being the exception which proves ( or 'tests' in modern English) the rule, despite being the fairest local tax we'd ever had, so as more people became worse off than better as they were no longer bailed out by the homeowners they objected seriously. But they won't do that again, so can be dismissed, and now petrol blockades have been outlawed so there's no other way of fighting that side now officially.

Having had that pointed out, the only solution is the Californian and Swiss methods of regular votes on policy. After all, we vote the buggers in to do what we want, and pay them out of our taxes, so they bloody well should do exactly what we want when we want, not promise some vague crumbs which rarely materialise and then rob us blind and clip our wings once they get in yet again.

Nothing can control these potential lunatics unless they introduce the policy voting system universally in the democratic world, as otherwise the only choice we have is who is going to shaft us painfully. Let them in for five years and then do exactly what they like? Who on earth would actually vote for that?

How could it be any worse?

Lateral thinking is taking a situation and seeing it from the other side. So start with the result and look to how it happened, rather than create a situation and see how it plays out. Looking back allows you to follow exactly how something looks inevitable once it's already happened, while many people would at best get a slight twinge something may go wrong while the few who can are always dismissed as Jonahs. Like when Vince Cable said if the country kept on borrowing and allowing people to buy houses they couldn't afford the economy would break down. Which it did, and they didn't stop.

I will just use a single example here to illustrate the situation, which can be used to identify all others. After using massaged figures Greece and others like them joined the Euro despite technically not qualifying, borrowed billions and then discovered one by one of course (see my post on borrowing)  as they were never rich enough to have all the things they'd just finagled, they couldn't afford to pay them back. Europe being a bottomless pit of money (they print their own now you know, like America) meant it didn't really bother them too much financially, but although it put a slight dent in the lender's finances (read 'Germany'), they were happy to do what normal lenders won't, extend the debt so far it would never really be paid back but made it look better. They may even write some of it off next to make it look smaller as well (like printing money, but in reverse).

In fact there is a genuine solution to stop the lame ducks being in debt for the decades or even longer, and are all in deep lasting recessions as a result, and that is to pool the debts across the Eurozone, thus making every country equally responsible (a bit like communism). Naturally had the Germans wanted that all along (like the last two times when they lost) what would have been the best way to bring it all about? Allow some piss poor countries in deliberately guaranteed to abuse the system and then avoid mass defaults by taking on their debts through a total political union  required in order to pool the debts. It has been proposed and expected sooner or later, which couldn't have happened without such a huge debt problem in the first place.

Having illustrated an additional example of problem-reaction-solution, I will now introduce the next situation, turkeys voting for Christmas. Normally when a national policy (in this case joining the Euro) wrecks the economy, and is now expected to cause decades of further recession, they would drop it. Technically could Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, Spain, Italy and Portugal ever have been worse off outside the EU itself or the Euro? OK, I'm no expert, but using the degree level (minor) politics and economics I do know, the answer is a definitive 'no'. Think about it, could it have been physically possible for at least seven countries to have been plunged into an indefinite depression as bad or worse than present had they not joined the EU or Euro? Look at the countries nearby who are not for at least a general clue and comparison.

Taking it as a given (humour me if you can't), if your own country were in this position, would the logical reaction, accurate or not, be to want a change? I'd say it should be, but in reality, not one single party on the continent thus affected has been elected as even an influential partner who wants to even leave the Euro.

That is mind control at its widest level, what else could explain it?

Divide and rule

One of the oldest forms of political tyranny has been to create a false division between communities- friends, family, races, religions, young and old they do it. It's a feature of the worst cults, and even some husbands and wives have forced the spouse to cut all connections with their side of the family.

If you devise a plan which automatically divides society in any required groups to either agree or disagree with your plan and rip each other to pieces, sometimes literally if you look to the Middle East, while they are so busy doing so they can't fight the actual plan itself. The 21st century political system, one I describe on my other blogs as one designed to use every trick in the book to carry out whatever proven one world government shenanigans they wish (yes, real people do want to take over the world as well as B movie villains), has its own version of scapegoating and false claims which blame certain individuals for them, and until people know and understand the mechanism it will work perfectly.

There are still millions of people who remember the holocaust. This proved how it can be done and still is in many third world countries such as Nigeria and Sudan, when Muslims are slaughtering Christians and other Muslims not part of their own tribe such as Kurds or Sunnis. Whether the division ultimately ends in death or exclusion from society is only a matter of degree, the mechanism is put into action and what people do about it is down to them. Today's universal list, ie that which you will find in every western democracy, are as follows:

Political correctness
Multiculturalism and diversity
Global warming
Action on homophobia and racism

These are the main weapons of the elite who wish to make every group in society, whether fifty per cent as in women, a few per cent as in homosexuals, or a tiny fraction as in Jews (sorry, they say 'Zionists' now) they scapegoat the others as their enemy and thus create wars among communities by guaranteeing one group sees everyone else as against them. The most insidious since the holocaust, as so subtle as to be almost undetectable but with the worst results, is global warming.

I will explain. By teaching it as a compulsory subject in primary school, it is fully known that whatever is taught to young children is virtually universally accepted blindly. That is one of the greatest responsibilities in the world, and if abused is literally abusing both the children and their parents whose trust you have breached. Like the German soldiers who rampantly killed millions of innocent people, following orders is no defence. Yes, governments force teachers to teach it, but I know of at least one who did not and they were sacked as soon as it reached their head teacher, but they (as I note about Ken Livingstone) have wiped the blot from their character, the highest sacrifice they could make.

Therefore, by telling children to tell their parents to reduce their carbon footprints (part of the syllabus) even though they are far too young to understand it (as are most adults as well) they are managing to demonise their own parents at such an early age it may set up a subconscious lack of trust for the rest of their lives. They may tell their parents to turn the heating down, something which will be detrimental to their own health the most as their immune system will not be complete till adolescence, so suffer the most from any degree of hypothermia, and always have a nagging distrust of adults who appear to breach the rules their teachers told them about. It's an unsolvable dilemma for such young minds, and even if they sow a 1% seed of doubt in their own parents' integrity the poison has been taken on board.

That is pretty much the lowest level you can get, and follow the list besides global warming and can see the same mechanism causes the same results between the 'them' and 'us' whoever is being it at the time. Chuka Umunah was just on the radio today (the Labour MP) bemoaning how all the top black people are only in music and sport and why didn't we hear about all the others, and then went on to say how we needed black people in all the top areas. Forget the fact every top job is based on qualifications combined with ability, playing the race card simply guarantees the suspicion and paranoia continues and spreads even though probably only a tiny minority ever consider it when considering a job candidate, and inflaming whichever genuine amount there is puts all the black people who are taken in on the defensive, gives them a chip on their shoulder, and a bad attitude is the worst destroyer of any job interview.

The same goes for feminists calling all men potential rapists, conspiracy theorists seeing Zionists under the bed who of course only exist for the creation of a Jewish homeland, so cannot technically be separated as without the one the other couldn't exist. As for the blanket multiculturalism and diversity they have broken the bank. What better to rip a community to shreds than invite and encourage a random range of people from distant and different cultures and then expect them all to get on and work together? If they'd asked before they did it only the hard core nut brigade would have thought it was a good idea, with everyone else saying to piss off without the slightest worry about being considered racist. Now as we had it dumped on us over a couple of decades by Tony Blair and his successors and each area begins to notice how they rarely see or hear anyone English around them why shouldn't they be concerned? Had Tony Blair or his equivalent done the same in Nigeria, China, Japan, India or Iran for example, can you really see the Iranians or Pakistanis blithely welcoming and accepting the same influx of anyone and everyone, building small tight knit communities in previously local towns and cities, and then condemning them all for not doing so?

This is what has happened in Britain, and unless someone believes every country in the world ought to be a mix of totally different cultures who have their own values and backgrounds going back thousands of years, and then within only a decade not just expect them to all mix as one unified group, but condemn the natives for stopping them and then forcing them to employ people, to the extent of the EU banning language tests as discriminatory? If you fall for any or all of the divide and rule tricks you have been thoroughly screwed.

Gay marriage is an ideal trick to both highlight and use homosexuals as a means to an end. Before the last election no party had it on their manifesto or even mentioned it. Suddenly a couple of years after, David Cameron announced he was making it law, all the politicians happily voted it in, and now call everyone who disagrees with it homophobic. But before the election they weren't even asking for it! There had been no Stonewall or Peter Tatchell campaign running loudly for years for equality, in fact they'd been campaigning for a civil union which they got with very little opposition from anyone. By inventing gay marriage David Cameron found yet another way to get a small group of society, made even smaller by the proportion who even wanted to marry each other, to make the entire heterosexual majority wrong if they didn't treat it as the best news since it turned out Bobby Ewing was alive, or something.

But the biggest and best trick of all, which even makes Hitler's scapegoating of the Jews and other minority groups look like a practice run, is global warming. The official movement behind the environmental groups is one who was run by leaders such as Stephen Schneider and David Suzuki, along with the good and the great such as James Lovelock and George Monbiot, who to some or all a degree believe in Gaia theory, that the planet is a living thing and mankind is a cancer. And what do you do with cancer? Not just the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals or disabled emit CO2, everyone on the planet does. Mankind has been tried and sentenced, and we are all equally guilty as we are all part of mankind. And if you have been convicted of destroying the planet, by God you will be punished for it. Mankind has literally been divided against every single other one of them in existence. You can never beat that again.

The evil of debt

The dominant feature of 21st century world politics, both nationally and personally, is debt. It didn't have to be that way, only a decade earlier some countries were in surplus, and as social needs do not vary drastically over that period, one can only assume the politicians and individuals changed their behaviour and while the politicians are known to borrow huge amounts as a form of wealth redistribution, from the tax payers to bankers and business, personal borrowing is totally avoidable, and besides buying a house which needs too long to save for and is something you can't wait to use till you can, everything else is totally unnecessary.

There are two types of personal borrowing, luxuries which is simply greedy and pointless, while for essentials demonstrates a total inability to budget. There is a very simple example to illustrate this. Bankers hardly ever use credit cards. They are insiders and they know they are a con. Why anyone needs to pay extra just to have something a month, year or even decade sooner when they really don't need it is sheer greed, and either you can save and afford something when you have enough or you simply can't have it now. That's a training children need to stop them getting into debt in future, and there is no guarantee you will continue the regular income you need to buy a new car or holiday when you can buy an old one or go away when you are rich enough to do so.

People borrowing for essentials in countries with a welfare state must be doing something wrong. There are many debt experts on the radio, and when one after another these poor saps call in, often owing four to five figure amounts, and are kind enough to explain how they got there the answers are nearly always similar. They have wasted the little money they had on addictions or luxuries. Smoking, gambling, you know the usual vices, and when they nearly all had a regular albeit paltry income, it was always enough for essentials but they spent it on junk first and then borrowed. Of course poor people borrowing has only one consequence unless they become rich, they can't afford it. How it is possible for people with almost nothing to create a massive multi billion pound business for wise individuals, bearing in mind not only do these people have no money to start with, so are barely able to repay the amount itself, let alone the thousands of percent interest on top, is a mystery to me.  Somehow they often do, by sacrificing food and heating, often for their entire families, to often pay far more in interest than the loan itself. Had it been impossible to borrow at all then after a week or so in total penury it may have sorted their attitude out, and if anyone gets to that position it should be the state that helps them for no extra charge, not a predatory business.

The bottom line is besides a house there is no genuine reason for personal borrowing, whether short term on a credit card, as you can never guarantee the income that month as anything can and usually does happen sooner or later, or long term as you can't be arsed to wait. If you have enough to repay three years for a new car you can keep the old one and save up for it. They both go the same speed in heavy traffic anyway so who needs the added expense? By definition anyone able to borrow are not children, so should not act like children and want it now before they can pay for it. It is habitual and once someone has set a precedent for a £1000 three piece suite at zero interest and managed to pay for it, like a gambler who wins on their first bet, they then get a £2000 holiday at 15%, a £5000 car at 7% and after a year or two suddenly find they can't manage a payment. Then the interest rises and we all know the end result. If you hadn't ever done it in the first place it wouldn't have happened, and you'd still have got a three piece suite, car and waited till you had enough spare for the holiday which is a privilege and not a right.

I cannot stop governments borrowing to oblivion but you can vote against it knowing they are spending our money on the repayments, but don't need to spend that much in the first place as they are there to look after us, not spend our money on personal projects and worse. There is no precedent for running at more than a minimal loss unless in a deep depression, yet the entire western world has debts running up to over 100% of GDP now and rising. Obama alone has added trillions, where exactly has it all gone?

Wednesday, 30 October 2013

Omerta, the code of silence

Continuing from my observation about how a majority of good politicians always become whittled down to a minority at the level of decision making, the same thing happens in all organisations where deliberate harm is done. Omerta is the Mafia code of silence, which is effective through the net of protection afforded to all versions of Mafia around the world, where they kill both you and your family if you turn them in. Of course such extremes are not required or offered elsewhere, but are all possible by the authorities being an unofficial part of the local Mafia otherwise the law would apply. In fact in large organisations most such threats carry now physical threats at all, some people do get sacked for squealing on bad practices, but most are happy to keep their jobs and not risk the consequences of what I call my 'Ken Livingstone principle', doing the right thing because you should, but do nothing and by doing so collude with the perpetrator as with your voice they will probably be forced to stop.

I will repeat the Ken Livingstone principle. If you are not forced to do the right thing by law you won't, even though assuming you actually even have a conscience you know it is wrong by doing so. He exploited this apparent freedom (as his character will be marked forever) by breaking many overt promises and then explaining he did it as he was allowed to. Thus allowing himself to be used as an example for being a total arsehole.

Therefore the mechanism is when the majority of fellow employees become aware a crime is being committed within their company they have a choice to expose it, but fear of their own potential loss is nearly always greater than the benefits to every one of the victims. Until people learn their own character will be so much greater and personal record in life for helping so many people, they will allow crimes to go on indefinitely, even though unlike the Mafia most police are not blinded to murder or anything else and will protect you from the evil employers. But by not even risking it every single observer who drops the heroics for selfish reasons becomes a co-conspirator, and under English law as guilty as the principal. Then if someone else blows the whistle in theory at least they can also be convicted if any crime is proven. That ought to act as some level of deterrent in itself but they don't think of that unless it's too late.

Ponzi and pyramid schemes

Some people starting their own business decide it's a lot easier to get money with no actual products than actually working for them.

The simplest, the one Bernie Madoff is now doing life for, simply takes a portion of the money people think they are investing with you, give them back the rest with interest, as long as new people keep putting it in to pay the interest. His carried on so long it lasted until a chance discovery got him raided, but does prove they needn't be short term once new funds dry up. A pyramid scheme is also illegal, and is pretty much the same but shifts the money around in the same form as a chain letter, with everyone at the bottom paying up to the top who get the money, again till the new arrivals dry up. The major difference is pyramid schemes usually offer products, but make their money from recruiting new arrivals and use the products to give the impression all the money comes from selling them. The product only needs to attract the attention, and even if useful normally costs far more than in the shops as it is an instrument to pay the top level so needs an extra markup. There are also pure pyramid schemes where the first wave get paid a fortune and the last lose the lot, which is just a way of arranging a pure Ponzi scheme simply because, unlike the Ponzi schemes which pretend they are investing your money, Hearts or Women Empowering Women don't pretend to do anything, they just rely on the hope and greed of the punters who come on board in hard sell meetings.

In the current world we have perfect examples of both. I have already described Enron's Ponzi scheme, offering future profits for current investments, which never existed at any time. This now runs legally as carbon trading and whatever the false excuses given for it it simply steals money. Solar panels however are a perfect pyramid scheme. The performance is fairly predictable, unlike wind. They are currently around half the potential conversion factor from sunlight, although unlike the satellites which run on solar outside the atmosphere, the sunlight on the surface is 25 times reduced by the atmosphere. A typical year's performance provides the most in the long days of the summer when the sun is high, and energy use is the least. This gradually reverses over six months, to the shortest and coldest days of winter have the weakest sun and the shortest days. The storage only stores surplus and can't make more than is produced, so doesn't do more than a partial coverage of the day when they stop working directly, every day. Existing estimates by sales staff claim anything from a hot bath to an hour's TV per £6-8,000 panel seems about right, although for some strange reason if you look on their websites hardly anything on this is in writing. But if you call a representative as a potential customer they will usually put you straight.

That's odd in itself. Why would a sales person openly admit diabolical performance figures? Well if the purpose of a solar panel is to make money taken from other people, then like all pyramid schemes, the actual product doesn't matter. Therefore what they are quite honestly selling you is a means to get guaranteed payments for a number of years everyone else is paying you for. The official and fully online breakdown for annual accounts show the profit per year being around 80% from those payments and the rest from additional power saved off your bill. The only difference is the payments are guaranteed while the savings are an added bonus and not. There's a small problem though, they wear out over anything from 5-20 years, and need cleaning every year or so. Being on the roof you can't do it yourself, so each year's power saving usually goes on cleaning. Proving you really can't make money from nothing.

Communication of the messages

Having come up against every possible barrier in my mission to undo the illusions created in the masses by the powerful, I read psychological studies showing it boiled down to the two optimum methods, individual dialogue and constant repetition of key terms. As the first takes forever it is restricted to individual interventions, like cult retrieval, when the opportunity arises as it is still well worth taking. The second involves taking a few key elements pared down to their most basic, and repeating them subtlely over and over again until like banging in a nail each word drives it home.

There is nothing more effective than a person who then realises they have been cheated. Each saved soul is a miracle, and by repeating such proven truths as 'low interest rates hurt the majority as do high house prices' and wind turbines are incapable of producing usable energy at any scale, because it is totally possible to check these up and find they are correct eventually we will be able to unwind enough twisted minds to free the majority from the mental shackles of illusion.

Science isn't politics

Despite the clear coincidences between the hard left and the policies designed to deal with global warming, the gradual destruction of industry and development in the name of restricting CO2 just happened to be the same ideas the Green Party had long before global warming and when they still expected a new ice age. So now the (coincidental?) results of believing CO2 is dangerous is indeed redistributing wealth to the third world and making businesses pay vast new amounts of tax they now have exactly what they wanted by sheer (apparent) chance.

Now whether or not these policies were wanted and global warming was the excuse they found for doing so (see my other two blogs for the full stories on that), whether CO2 is causing global warming is a scientific matter and like every single other is nothing to do with politics.

Of course as the left have adopted global warming as their means to an end means those who do not believe it can do any harm in 2100 when the UN say it may begin to tend not to be of the left, so once any debate begins it divides roughly to left and right and very quickly turns to a political argument and almost ignores anything to do with the science.

So every time you see anyone bring politics into the global warming argument remind them the two are not connected regardless of the actual policies brought in as a direct result. They are the actions man has taken independently of the science which could just as easily been the opposite had they found our emissions had been cooling, and whatever people choose to do or not as a response to the threat it does not alter the nature of the threat at all as science does what it does on its own and does not change by thinking about it.

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

The growth of a political conspiracy

Like cancer, a successful conspiracy requires a combination of stages to complete before mature, and then is maintained with the blood supply of threats and bribes to maintain it indefinitely.

People ask "How can the majority of politicians be crooked?" to which I will answer. There are many stages to go from an idealistic youth to being on the list to being selected as a British MP, and then from new entrant to cabinet minister. Each level filters out the individuals not required, and those left are put on the lists, the best ones in safe seats. As most people are neutral at worst and positive at best, there isn't a built in majority of total bastards, they are cultivated like a mould culture. Many decent idealistic new arrivals are voted in, and then within days so I have read, 'briefed' by the whips about how to ditch their personal beliefs to succeed in the party. I can't see many new MPs who do not have ministerial ambitions, especially as a back bencher has very little actual power under the system's rules, so if you really believe you can do something you must aim to become a minister otherwise you will have very little chance of changing anything.

The first filter divides the sheep and the goats, with the sheep instantly falling in line and doing as they're told for favours, they usually have mortgages and families and need to pay the bills first and put their principles second. Then when a crucial vote comes along and they need everyone to join or they may lose the pressure is put on. Just because you have joined a party it's impossible to agree with everything they support, especially if it changes from year to year while you don't. And if it's really important to you then do you spend the rest of your life with a blot on your soul (you will know even if others don't care) or give in? The second filter comes in, so many otherwise decent goats become the sheep as well. These processes continue endlessly until the majority of voting politicians, ie the ones creating the policies, support anything their party wants to become law, even though not enough agreed with them initially to win. This regardless of personal character, the mechanism of parliament forces the majority of politicians to vote for their own needs first and that allows every evil policy from the top, where the majority are always bad, to always hold the upper hand. It's simple, follows the Mafia structure, and works perfectly, especially where there is no proportional representation to moderate the majority altogether.

Electric cars

If you buy an electric car you can guarantee all these things:

1) You do not know exactly when you are going to run out of power.
2) When the needle is low you cannot fill the car. You need a charging point.
3) You are not guaranteed to get to the charging point, and if you don't you can't carry the fuel to the car like you can normally.
4) It is impossible to permanently avoid running out of power as in winter you may need heating and wipers which unlike petrol cars use the same power you need for propulsion. This reduces the range and you can't always allow for sudden poor weather when you set out somewhere.
5) The batteries don't last more than a few years, and cost around the current secondhand value of the car to replace when they run out, wiping out all the fuel savings to that point.
6) It is virtually impossible to exchange batteries instead of charging them. One company tried and found it needed every company to make interchangeable ones, which they won't do. It would cost millions to provide the stock for one exchange and would need as many as we currently have filling stations.
7) What do you do when charging away from home, for the 4-12 hours required? There are a growing numbers of points appearing on our roads but where do they expect people to go while they are waiting, especially at night and in the cold and wet?

Costs and benefits

Many of the severest acts of government are in the name of public health and safety. This is like the skeleton key, the free pass to spend our money on basically screwing up everyone's lives. The reason we have these atrocities is because people don't understand they are, as if they did once a single road got humps or street lighting was turned off to save money there would be a revolution like they do in France, and if the councils and politicians knew this they wouldn't be voted back if they dared to try it again.

There can never be an excuse to ruin lives today to prevent possible problems tomorrow, especially when they both never existed today or yesterday, or prove such acts prevent them at all. And with road humps we do know exactly what they do. Each costs around £10,000, they cost the council far more per year in compensation for damaged vehicles, and besides the official role of deterring car drivers (yes, Transport for London finally admitted recently their own restrictions are designed to get cars off the roads by making it unappealing) every other vehicle uses the roads as well. Barnet council have a list somewhere (I read it in the local paper so can't dig up an instant link) and there is a number of deaths caused annually from emergency services missing their dying patients and burning buildings as they can't drive over 20mph where they exist, and then the patients who die in the ambulances as they can't get to the hospital in time and the humps stop certain equipment being set up as the needles may go in someone in the wrong place if the vehicle is being thrown up and down every few yards.

How many people knew that? Certainly everyone who read that edition of the Hendon Times, but who else? They don't just kill people in Barnet, they do everywhere they exist, but which other papers reported it?

This goes for banning cars altogether, something the EU are planning by 2050 in urban areas, while the London congestion charge which charges drivers again for driving through the centre stopped my neighbour leaving his children with his mother each day in the school holidays as he couldn't afford to take them there and had to arrange alternative means of childcare rather than their own grandmother. I have already demonstrated so called renewables such as wind, solar and biofuel either waste money for nothing or cause starvation now to stop something possibly happening in a hundred years but we'll never know anyway because we'll all be dead before it can ever be known for sure.

I am old enough to remember roads before any restrictions, people did not aim for children crossing, and believe it or not the winding country roads outside cities have 60mph speed limits, but people do not drive at 60 even though they can, as unlike Ken Livingstone, they are responsible people and drive at a speed safe for the road conditions, as nearly everyone did in the past. And making it almost impossible to drive above 10 mph on many roads with more coming every week is not going to save a single child but ruin every user's quality of life. But they do cause more accidents with idiots trying to swerve to avoid them and hitting parked cars or traffic coming the other way.

Monday, 28 October 2013

Judge the tree by its fruit

Regardless of religion the bible has many of the best lessons in it, but people seem to know the rules but not how to apply them, evidenced by the total bloody mess the world is currently in now, not through violent takeovers by autocratic tyrants, but just like Hitler's Nazis, freely voted in. Unless the voters understand what they are getting (although many did with them and still voted for them) they will continue to get the same garbage which has now spread worldwide like the shingles and met in the middle. You would not ever go to the market and buy rotting fruit or with worms in, but you get policies even worse and many still ask for more as they haven't a damn clue what they really mean. So use lateral thinking, put the cart before the horse and then see if it gets you anywhere.

In normal circumstances who would spend many times more for their energy which was no longer even guaranteed to deliver constantly as based on the weather? Not me or you I expect, but 10-30% of our energy bills in the EU are spent on doing just that. They are closing cheap and effective coal power stations for wind, solar and biofuel, which both cost many times more (wood chips are 6 times the price of fossil fuel for example, while offshore wind costs 12 times as much per kilowatt, before input costs are added) while wind and solar only work when they feel like it and solar is reduced 25 times by the atmosphere so cannot produce more than a fraction any house requires.

If a salesman came to you and asked you if you wanted to pay £8000 for a solar array which would heat a bath or run a TV for an hour you'd probably tell him to go away and have sex (I have decided to curb the swearing here for a change) but if they then offer you someone else's money to pay you back the sum quickly with a profit who wouldn't? Forget the power as that's a bonus if you can save a few quid on the annual bills on top, but the government are taking money off everyone else to pay your investments back. Or what about getting 20% of the world's corn, one of the staple foods of the poor, and  burning it for fuel while taking it away from those who needed it to eat and shoot up world prices as a result and it also costs many times more to burn? You'd probably put them in prison and throw away the key.

So why the hell do people willingly roll over and submit worldwide to such nonsense and atrocities? Because the governments tell you we have to do it to stop the planet warming more than 2C in 90 years. Run that by me again, because a tiny amount of the atmosphere has changed (140 parts in a million), they are telling us add the same again, which they expect to take almost a century, may make temperatures rise a whole 2C, although we'll never know anyway but they want you to trust them (as most do, as these laws are worldwide). It gets worse.

Who remembers Enron? They made a huge loss and rather than go broke invented future profits and offered them in exchange for investing in the company. They filled the hole and found they made so much trading nothing in the form of energy credits they took over as their main form of business, eventually being caught and busted for major fraud. Before they did their idea was taken up by the US government and is now compulsory and called carbon trading. It was fraudulent and illegal then, it is still fraudulent. Imagine a government doing that without a good reason and in the open, and think of what the standard of their reason for doing it is when this is the result?

Rule two, a house is also an asset, so you don't want to pay too much.

People still celebrate house prices, but they don't celebrate a diagnosis of cancer or osteoporosis, but unless you're a doctor they won't help anyone, likewise unless you're a property speculator no homeowner profits if they pay more for their house any more than any other asset, and nothing will ever cost you as much as your house so why the hell would you want to pay more for it?

This even applies to people who have already bought one. This is because, like share gains, you can't realise them  until you sell your asset.  But you don't need those shares, they are an investment which is convertible to cash. Sell your house for bazillions and where will you live? In another house I'm guessing, and if yours has gone up 200% (as mine has) everything else in the surrounding area you are probably wanting to trade up to has as well (as that's what asset inflation does), meaning the £50,000 difference between your house and the one you are buying in 1990 is now £200,000, but you're not earning four times as much to fill the £150,000 gap so probably won't be able to afford it now.

You've actually lost money now, as everyone does when hit by asset inflation. Unless you are an asset seller for a living the rise in assets such as houses, cars and TV sets is as bad for you whether you live in it or put it in your house. And low interest rates cause all assets to rise as currency and cash investments don't provide returns so people switch to assets, like buying extra houses and making yours cost more as a result.

Rule one: Don't trust the interest rates

The simplest illustration of how politicians shaft you and look after their friends are low interest rates. It's not even capitalism as they are not following the market but fixed by government, sorry, the Bank of England or EU or Federal Reserve. Whatever the difference is.

But those cheap rates represent the entire illusions of politics. They do the exact opposite of what they say:

1) Thanks to Max Keiser, we now know 2/3 to 3/4 of all the population lose from low interest rates as they lose more (from savings and pensions) than the people with lower mortgage rates. But it doesn't even stop there.

2) Low mortgage rates don't mean you pay less? No?? Why not? Because estate agents look at your means and calculate what you can pay a month. So if you are buying a house when rates are low, then they work out you can pay more on the principle as they look at your monthly income, and (when running ethically) calculate your reasonable outgoings. So you pay less on the interest and they make it up on the price.

3) Then of course low interest rates force money from savings into assets, first of all housing as the most useful and solid long term there is. And when more people think they can afford a house as rates are low they all rush in and buy, increasing demand and prices again. This forms an endless cycle but one day, long before the 25 year term is up, the rates must rise so if you've paid more for the house than you could at higher rates you will find out.

4) Existing owners only get a temporary benefit, as when they sell everything they have saved will usually go on the new house as they have all risen on a false bull market.

5) Only banks and governments actually borrow at base rate and get little more money whatever the rates as they simply make the same spread between borrow and lend regardless of the level. They can use it to speculate with far less risk, and as they pump it into commodities it raises prices further.

6) Currencies are debased by artificially low rates, meaning they are dumped in favour of hard assets in the form of commodities, again driving up prices and as a result inflation.

So only bankers, brokers and governments get an overall profit from low interest rates, and guess who pays for it, everyone else, including you.

Introduction and aims

The post-internet revolution is one of information. Knowledge is power and the effect of viral sharing now means anything of value can be spread from person to person until a large enough percentage are both informed and accept that information as genuine. Here are some of the basics, and will give each its own post with explanation, plus more to be added as I go along.

1) Politicians are not your friends: If they help you it is a coincidence, otherwise they are only nice to you before an election and rarely deliver on any promises. I will add as many examples as I can on its own page, but David Cameron and the Lisbon Treaty is atypical example, but the best is Julia Gillard's 'There will be no carbon tax'. And she is now working as a climate change advocate, fancy that. They look after themselves in the majority. Many are decent and honest but either knocked into shape or never get promoted.

2) Judge the tree by the fruit. If the policies resulting from an idea hurt people, then so is the idea. Remember Enron created carbon trading and we all remember what happened to them.

3) Apart from being unreasonable to save up for a house as you'll probably be retired or dead by the time you do, do you really need anything else before you do, like a holiday, TV or new car? What's the purpose of buying anything you don't really need on credit? Bankers rarely use the same credit cards they sell, they know and won't touch them. Follow the insiders, not the sheep.

4) Follow the money. If money is 'lost' it has to go somewhere unless it's actually physically destroyed. None of the money 'lost' by bankers disappeared, it went to commissions on sales and loans and property owners whose customers couldn't afford to pay it back to the lenders. The total did not shrink, it just moved its location.

5) The Hegelian Dialectic: If a government wants a policy they know no one will accept, create an artificial reason where your policy like magic becomes a solution. So if you want full surveillance and stop and search make sure there's a genuine fear of terrorism. If you want to double taxes pretend it's to save the planet. You get the drift.