Sunday, 29 June 2014

Feelings can not be bigoted

Inspired by Beckie on twitter, she stated an absolutely definitive point. You cannot be a bigot based on your feelings. This is because you are not responsible for your feelings. For example, you can feel angry, and even like killing someone, but if you are sane and civilised you will never act on it. The same goes for dislike. If you dislike gay marriage or watching gay people getting it on with each other in public, or do not like a town full of immigrants, how exactly does that make you a bigot?

A bigot is basically someone who is prejudiced, ie believes things about certain groups in general with little or no evidence, or is against certain groups based on such beliefs. You cannot then extend what is essentially a deliberate condition of misinformation into an automatic reaction, distaste, dislike, disgust or whatever, without the slightest logic or reason. None of the examples are connected with my own opinions either way, just three which have raised some of the most accusations of bigotry in the last few years. Are you a food bigot for never wanting to touch raw onions or garlic? Are you prejudiced if you haven't even eaten any to be certain? We are all designed with built in safety and defence mechanisms, and they kick off in both dangerous and unfamiliar circumstances, and also draw on our intuition which again is based on accurate feeling with little or no direct evidence, but when later followed by such evidence almost always turns out to be right.

Most people it seems do not want to live in a community of random races and cultures all forming small tight pockets and speaking foreign languages. This is not logical, it is based on our ancient family makeup and the foundation of tribes in primitive cultures in the past and present. Again, there is no justification to act on those dislikes and drive the foreigners away or attack them in any ways, but it is inbuilt in everyone to be drawn to people more like themselves than anything else. If you want to use political beliefs to attempt to reverse built in human nature it will always end in tears, as it simply is and always was the same. If someone is heterosexual then it is more likely they will wince when seeing two men or women kissing and touching each other without any notice in public, not because they are either bigoted or homophobic, but it is not their own nature and no different to seeing someone eat oysters or witchetty grubs if you don't like them. You're not prejudiced against them, it is just a natural reaction to seeing something you could never do yourself.

By deliberately accusing normal people who have never hurt and never would hurt anyone of being bigots and worse for simply voicing their feelings and reactions which are different to the norm is a totalitarian and intolerant form of control, as you are literally going a level above thought control, which again is not within our powers to stop, but feeling control and taste control. Kim Il Jun (or whatever combination is in power at the moment) made his citizens copy his haircut, just as Chairman Mao made everyone wear overalls. These are Maoist overalls for our thoughts and feelings, and like overalls may hide what is beneath but can never and should never change it. That is no one else's business or right to impose on anyone. If your feelings and thoughts can be challenged, and potentially criminalised as a result what state has the world come to?

Friday, 27 June 2014

Accounting tricks

Believe it or not, one of the main things you learn studying accounting (as I spent a year doing it) is how to present the figures in different ways. This is based on the principle they know better than everyone else so can use their knowledge not just to make a fucking fortune (they really do, and most of the work's incredibly easy, unlike other professions) but to hide things and make things look better than they are, or worse depending what is required. Basically what they do is to arrange the identical accounts in different ways, either hiding losses and dragging future profits ahead to impress shareholders and potential customers, or hide profits and create apparent losses for tax purposes. They have been doing this since the first scribes and tax collectors one way or another, each generation passes the new versions of the same tools to the next, legally (as it is quite possible to avoid breaking the law doing it) presenting the identical accounts to different people and managing to show different results, which nearly all accept and believe implicitly, and would often need at least another accountant or team of accountants to figure them out as the methods could fox a team of Times crossword finalists. In fact the only difficult part of accounting, besides tax accounting, is how to carry out these presentations, learning the law to know which tricks are actually beyond the pale and then keeping up with the latest methods to offshore profits and pay your own company for loans to itself.

So basically it's a dirty business, one which could be perfectly pure and clean but owing to legal breadth has its largest field in saving the clients more money than they pay and reducing or increasing the bottom lines to do so. In accounts they can only work the profit/loss trick for a year or two as they are only suppressing the figures which are all public as that is the law, so can't keep it up for ever. The tax dodges are the exception simply as the government make them permanent by approving them, so once invented can simply run till the law changes. Therefore when the Bank of England shows growth, or low inflation, it is because the government wants them to, but if you get the raw figures (also available in the main) and know what to do, then you can see they are quite able to take some really poor performances and use the same tricks we learnt at college to make borrowing look like assets, while in fact they are huge liabilities, as every penny of profit shown from a loan is a loss as you must pay back more than you borrowed, but if not this year the law says you can include that loan as income. Go figure. So growth can be from increased capital (which technically it only is from) or borrowed capital, much like borrowing expensive furniture when selling a house to make it look better, or hiring a Ferrari for a first date, but despite creating a good impression for a short time they were never yours and you have had to lose money hiring them so actually worse off as they don't even belong to you after you give them back.

So once you know these are used to present pretty much all statistics, so much so when top civil servants are appointed the statistical department asks them what figures do they want (this is a fact not an anecdote), it really means whatever the government tell you is happening you have to check for yourself. It also means something far, far worse, the government are inherently dishonest. They spend millions a year employing top level accountants and statisticians to take whatever real figures exist and make them look as close to how they need them to to make the public believe whatever they need them to believe. Global warming is similar to business, you can't borrow future profits forward forever unless you are actually going to make a real profit eventually to back it up. So although they can divert people's attention with predictions outside their lifetimes as the people are mainly as thick as pigshit, they can't drag heat from the future, hide cold from the past and adjust existing temperatures up forever as the main temperature measurements are public knowledge and the longer they remain flat (or even fall, which is quite possible) the harder it will be to convince enough people they are really rising, and if you believe Barack Obama (billions do worldwide, shame on them) it is going up faster than ever then they don't even need to spend five years studying complex tricks to make bad figures go away, they will simply lie openly as enough people trust their authorities few actually bother to check. So in the end these tricks can only work as long as enough people fall for them.

So to summarise, we have inflation figures, unemployment, growth, profits, and temperature rises which governments have the ability to take the identical set of figures and present showing a wide range of different bottom lines, using legal and sometimes less than legal methods to offset genuine losses and bad news to delay them till the next election, or whichever other point they can maintain the illusion. But the real figures are always there which the experts can use to undo the illusions, subtracting borrowings from growth and immigrants from employed people and you see the starving bodies beneath them, the skinny, scrawny economy padded by fake muscle suits and scurvy rashes covered up by thick makeup. Don't look at the surface, and don't even expect the surface to represent anything any longer, as beneath it you will see what is really there. In some cases it could even be the same, but when interest rates are 0.5% and house prices are rising 20% a year don't imagine it means the economy could ever be healthy as those real figures are the sign of a rampant disease. If rates were around 5%, the median in a healthy economy, and house prices were fairly stable, then you're onto something. Look at price to earning ratios. How much is petrol, gas bills, car prices compared to average earnings? They can never be tweaked so they are the constants, the roots you need to really know how an economy's doing. How many of the people coming off the unemployment figures are sick, leaving the country, retiring or working part time rather than actually getting full time jobs? Again, the data is all there if you want to know, and can do your own sums to see the truth. One area where the data cannot all be found is the climate data, as much of it is protected by commercial law. That tells you more than enough on that front.

Thursday, 19 June 2014

These are the foundations of 21st century science and politics

In law (my own field) a confession followed by a guilty plea removes all need for a trial. That isn't confined to law, they simply use a universal method themselves as it is a simple way of reaching the truth with little need for additional research. In rare occasions there will be false confessions, nearly all weeded out by detectives who have evidence they can't be genuine, but a guilty plea is usually just that, and a corroborated confession, where other members of a conspiracy cough independently from the rest and say exactly the same thing then they are almost certainly telling the truth, as do all corroborated secondary evidence. So when presented with pages of confessions from 40 years ago to the present day, how can it be possible to even imagine they have not told the truth despite the 99% of their co-conspirators continuing to lie? The Mafia and other organised crime gangs like the IRA relied on this for centuries, but the climate community have so far only sacked and ostracised their own members who squealed on them, while the others tend to rub them out and some of their family to put people off in the future. But the difference here is crime gangs do not confess, they stay together for so long for that very reason, but our current gang extorting trillions from the world economy, the poorest paying the most proportionally, have what are actually their own leaders openly telling anyone who cares to listen  it is all a racket, and much like the murderers who leave a few extra clues as they get bored when the police can't work out who they are, seem to laugh at the world having been given such a clear head start yet they still haven't been caught up in 40 years. So all I can do is collect each similar confession yet again, and wonder in total mystery how 90% of people I show them to say they don't mean anything. But that seed has been planted, if and when one of these guys gets busted in the public eye, then they'll remember someone actually told them what they were up to already and they ignored it. Why would someone actually ignore their own leaders admit they are shtupping them? I only pass the information on, I can't answer the thoughts behind it. Apologies for repeating old material here, but this is the skeleton key to the door of fraud.

So yet again, hopefully in its purest form yet, here are as many confessions from those at the very top, whose combination of ideology ("The earth has a cancer, the cancer is mankind"- Club of Rome) works together with those who can make the rules politically in exchange for trillions in subsidies they then invest in, yet a single visit to a website will bust their entire mission apart. If you still don't accept it, imagine if someone on the CBS news read this out in a report and the following reactions.

----------------------I CONFESS ---------------------------------------------
Margaret Mead in 1974:
"What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats"
"After they break from a comfortable egg, the human maggots move in two dimensions and become second-level maggots who crash other maggots in proportionality with their own weight, who defecate all over the environment, and who eat the defecation from the other, usually larger maggots.
Some of these humans become tenth-level maggots who are big wheels. That's what the consensus environmentalist and global warming science knew about the humans and their co-existence with the environment at least since 1972."

David Suzuki
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”—H.L.Mencken (1918).
“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many… who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. So we call our process something else such as “comprehensive planning,” „growth management‟ or „smart growth.‟”
Environment * Economy * Equity * Consensus * Affordable Housing * Friends of… * Action * Protect * Preserve * Quality of Life * Benefit of all * Sanctuary * Social/Environmental Justice * Best Management Practices * Watershed * Facilitator * Traffic Calming * Outcome Base Education * Endangered Species * Invasive Species * Restoration * Public/Private Partnerships * Common Good * Regional * Collaborative * Inter-disciplinary * Stakeholder * International Baccalaureate * School to work * Historic Preservation * Vision * Sustainable Medicine. Smart Meters.

J. Gary Lawrence, 1998 UNEP Conference, UK
At Bucharest it was affirmed that continuing, unrestricted worldwide population growth can negate any socioeconomic gains and fatally imperil the environment.... The earlier extreme views that social and economic justice alone can somehow offset population increase and that the mere provision of contraception can sufficiently reduce population—were defeated.

1975 Endangered Earth conference
 "Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence." Followed by the Guardian journalist who added "In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage."

Mike Hulme, UN climatologist.


“Although donors must meet their commitments, it is time to look for other ways to find resources to finance development needs and address growing global challenges, such as combating climate change…
“We are suggesting various ways to tap resources through international mechanisms, such as coordinated taxes on carbon emissions, air traffic, and financial and currency transactions.” 

Rob Vos, The U.N. World Economic and Social Survey

" must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

Ottmar Edenhoffer, UN economist


"Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troups entered Los angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is expecially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existance. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing everyman fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government,"

Henry Kissinger

David Rockefeller, in his 2003 memoirs:

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."


The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
  • Dr David Frame, Climate modeller, Oxford University-----------------------------------

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
  • Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
  • ----------------------------------------------------
    "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
  • Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
  • ---------------------------------------------
    "No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
  • Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
  • ------------------------------------------------
  • Mikael Gorbachev, 1996:
  • "The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order"
  • ----------------------------------
    "A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
    "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
    "Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King  


    Thursday, 12 June 2014

    Delayed reactions

    Watching well known atrocities to some people carry on apparently indefinitely, despite trying to spread the world, and then eventually one story appears in the media and everyone's on it seems to be the standard delayed reaction process within society. Even though I first heard about female genital mutilation about 30 years ago it carried on unfettered from western disapproval ever since, until suddenly only this year in 2014 there was an article about it in great detail and the celebrity scene picked it up and now something is being done about it, with Britain's first ever court case even though many thousands are carried out here alone (illegally) every year. Similarly the eating, often after being skinned alive, cats and dogs in Asia has always been well known in the west and all the big and small charities turned their backs and did nothing, possibly because China and Korea were too dangerous to get involved with so beyond their scope. But now a group in China itself has begun fighting this primitive and backward practice, as there is absolutely no attention paid to their welfare and are simply packed into cages as if they weren't alive at all.

    The same phenomenon happens in the political world. We can be ripped off for years and then someone with the ear of the media works it out, although many people had already done so and knew between themselves, and once pointed out to the masses becomes common knowledge. It doesn't always work because only two experts I know of warned our government to reduce private and public borrowing before the crash, Vince Cable, who wasn't in government and totally ignored, and a stockbroker who was sacked for interfering with morale. I saw junk mail every day offering me gold cards and thousands of credit, people borrowing ten times their income or not even needing to declare their income for mortgages and borrowing up to 125% of the value of a house, and wondered why every single politician allowed this as you can't borrow or lend more than you have, which ended up with our taxes bailing out the banks, who lost our money as the government removed the regulations stopping it.

    Biofuel was clearly a criminal invention, clearing land across the third world to grow corn and palms to replace food crops and burn them in engines not even designed for the purpose and producing far less power per gallon. Twenty or so years later after causing starvation in many villages where farms were sequestered for biofuel crops and people lost their livelihoods and couldn't afford the remaining food as because they had created an artificial shortage the price and availability were affected, the UN just said biofuel was not good for the environment, while the EU are about to enact a law forcing it into our fuel despite the admission it is evil. Of course the EU are not there to do good but rule with an iron hand, so they are not interested what anyone already said to expose the true nature of biofuel, but at least we can say we know they are doing wrong now and going against official advice. Many food additives were stated to be toxic but always took 10-20 years to get the material beyond the industry system of closure. They have ways to suppress all stories which expose industrial poisoning on a grand scale, so currently aspartame, statins and other conventional chemicals are being forced on millions of people, despite the evidence having already condemned them to the same dustbin as margarine (it is not that different from floor polish) and hydrogenated fats, which again are not a foodstuff but more like the foam chips used to pack fragile goods.

    Eventually the truth has to come out, like a leaking nappy, as the urine is always there and however good the seal if you keep pissing eventually the seals will be stressed too much and the pee or truth will first dribble, and then burst out in a flood of material which will usually overwhelm any attempts to hold it back. So now after 30 years of scare stories of global warming the trend has reduced so much it is almost impossible for the temperature to exceed 2C, so all 'action' to pretend to try and stop it is off really as it's already stopped on its own and with CO2 rising unabated is clearly unable to make the temperature rise very much by 150 years of direct observation. A few scientists are beginning to realise if they continue to prop up what is now almost impossible to maintain as an illusion as there is nigh on nothing left to maintain, their long term credibility is going to end up the same place as the economists who ignored the warnings to change before a major crash, and would rather be the ones who admitted it was beginning to look increasingly unlikely and at least leave with some remaining honour rather than the other end who lie and say it's warming even faster when every single diagram says it's not at all.

    Therefore in all areas where the small private minority discover things are badly wrong but they carry on regardless, they nearly always come to an end, but there's a built in delay mechanism for various reasons- laziness, intertia, apathy, dishonesty, but when someone who can do something about whatever it is catches on and does something, that atrocity ends pretty quickly. If the first prosecution on FGM is successful the CPS will no doubt wave through hundreds, as we do know the figures as every doctor in the country can consult their notes and pretty much name most of the victims simply from being examined. Had they been required, as is perfectly feasible, to report such crimes by law, then the thousands of victims would have become hundreds, tens and eventually hardly any at all, but the apathy and in the case of doctors protection of their own, as it's the doctors who get the worst punishment for carrying out the assault (technically causing grievous bodily harm with intent carries up to a life sentence), while inciting it would as well the court would be slightly less harsh on ignorant foreigners who quite honestly don't know any better, while breaching the Hippocratic oath would get a doctor struck off at the very least, regardless of any criminal punishment. In fact although they said FGM has a law making it illegal, GBH alone would always have covered it as simply breaking the skin not fir the purpose of medical or cosmetic purposes is a serious form of assault with no need to specify every single variation. There's no specific law for poking someone's eye out either but if a child's parents paid a doctor to do that as that's their culture they'd go down for a long stretch regardless, assuming the court weren't prevented from acting like they would in the third world.

    So in the end I think nothing that bad can carry on forever. Suttee and thuggee in India were wiped out by the British in India (who said the colonists never did any good) although sadly the caste system is still going strong in many areas despite decades of effort to wipe it out entirely. But in the end once someone important decides to do something it seems to be very quickly when it is, and all the energy could have been building up to be released all in one go when they do. I see global warming following at some point, as the truth is now diverging further and further from the claims, and one by one the scientists have realised they can't maintain an illusion much longer when their original calculations had been about 80% too high compared to reality. One can only hope anyway.

    Friday, 6 June 2014

    The great EU parliament illusion

    I wasn't sure whether to put this under information or fraud as it's really both, but everyone needs to know what those phenomenally well-paid members of the EU parliament can actually do. Now here is the official 2014 definition, bearing in mind it includes the phrase these powers are far greater than they were originally- imagine how little they could do before:

    "The European Parliament has been steadily gaining power over recent decades and now acts as a co-legislator for nearly all EU law. Together with the Council, the Parliament adopts or amends proposals from the Commission. Parliament also supervises the work of the Commission and adopts the European Union's budget. See how it all works here.
    Beyond these official powers the Parliament also works closely with national parliaments of EU countries. Regular joint parliamentary assemblies allow for a better inclusion of national perspectives into the Parliament's deliberations."

    Can they make law? No. Can they initiate law to be made? No. Are the actual lawmakers elected as well? No.

    Therefore calling such an expensive and large scale group a parliament (bearing in mind its common meaning of a legislative body) is a lie, a major scam and fraud, and means the EU process has to both hide behind a fake body of power which just discusses, makes minor suggestions and rubber stamps the real laws made above, mainly in secret, by the unelected civil servants of the Commission. It has less power than the House of Lords and probably a little more than the royal family, although that would be debatable as information of their actual influence is protected by the law. They can administer the budget, but that is an accounting procedure few if any voters would know how to follow let alone decide on so only a technical rather than parliamentary power, given (although it is planned) as yet they do not actually have a tax budget as countries would. They choose the commission members but cannot participate directly in their process.


    Again, "However there are some differences from national legislatures; for example, neither the Parliament nor the Council have the power of legislative initiative (except for the fact that the Council has the power in some intergovernmental matters). In Community matters, this is a power uniquely reserved for the European Commission (the executive). Therefore, while Parliament can amend and reject legislation, to make a proposal for legislation, it needs the Commission to draft a bill before anything can become law"

    This further implies the separation of powers, designed to avoid tyranny, has never been present in the EU administration as technically the executive must also share the powers of the legislature rather than have a genuine function and balanced scrutiny. So they are passive, and sit and wait for the random jottings and mental wanderings of the cabal to arrive before they spend as long as they feel like turning it over, possibly suggest a few changes (if it's within their power), and according to this actually reject some. Really? I will see. Meanwhile the true function is described far more accurately here by an outsider, something not referred to in their own site's definition at the start:

    "The Parliament also has a great deal of indirect influence, through non-binding resolutions and committee hearings, as a "pan-European soapbox" with the ear of thousands of Brussels-based journalists."

    Condensed down, it means they are a PR front to spread the word of what a great job they're doing and do their best to hide any serious policies being introduced to replace yet another national function, eg European income taxes which are their latest project. Journalists. That is the fluorescent highlighted word in the sentence. It is there to feed journalists to spread how good and really helpful the EU really is, ie they are protecting themselves and their jobs, ultimately at our loss and expense (see Greece and worse still Cyprus), especially if like Britain you are a net contributor (read 'loser').

    "There is also an indirect effect on foreign policy; the Parliament must approve all development grants, including those overseas. For example, the support for post-war Iraq reconstruction, or incentives for the cessation of Iranian nuclear development, must be supported by the Parliament. Parliamentary support was also required for the transatlantic passenger data-sharing deal with the United States.[47] Finally, Parliament holds a non-binding vote on new EU treaties but cannot veto it."

    A few more details on what they can spend those billions they collect from us on, which really are taxes as the £55 million a day the country pays to be in at all is taken from our taxes instead of paying doctors to work a few more hours in the evening a day. But when you ultimately take the things they can do and remove them from the main cake there's still most of that cake remaining, all those really major regulations like the green taxes and open door border policies, and rather than spend an unpaid hour or more looking I'll leave you the small task of finding any actual proposed legislation they have rejected. It shouldn't be too hard. But in the end calling something a 'parliament' which is essentially an archetypal second chamber while the actual parliamentary work your national parliament carries out is nearly all carried out by civil servants, appointed vicariously for 12 years, debate mainly in secret, and therefore carry all the requirements of a totalitarian system as the parliament is just the front for the dictators behind, like in Iran where the president changes but the Ayatollah remains regardless and runs the show.