Wednesday, 8 April 2015

The bible and 1984, evil is good.

Doubletalk, wolves in sheep's clothing, good presented as evil and vice versa, these are all concepts beginning in the bible and probably earlier, and consolidated in the book 1984, where everything that was deemed good was bad and listed by Big Brother to indoctrinate the people freedom was slavery. None of this was fiction, it exposed a trick used by governments worldwide who can only rule by deception and consent to that deception. The list of examples is potentially endless, from Hitler's demonising of the Jews within a decade of his election, from a society where the Jews had been accepted and integrated with the natives for centuries. He blamed Germany's economic problems on the Jews as they were not natives and outsiders, and had prospered as professionals and businessmen as the remainder of the German economy failed. So it was their fault, they were an impure race with no place not just in Germany, but the planet itself, and as a faulty race had to be wiped out.

When you read this now how many people previously unbiased would believe it? I think by history the actual answer is as many people as they want to. This is a timeless formula. It worked then and it works now. It takes a baseless claim, one too hard for most people to check directly, so works almost entirely on trust, where if the governments all tell you the same thing they must be right, after all, why would they lie to you or want to hurt you, except Hitler did, Ayatollah Khomeini did, Stalin did, Mao did, Idi Amin did, Robert Mugabe did, etc etc. History actually demonstrates very well governments are actually some of the most extreme tyrants known to mankind. But a psychological process well known within the profession is the exclusion principle, ie 'It can't happen here'. They exploit this, even to our own borders where the IRA could run half of Northern Ireland but never England. Or the Mafia, except we now know as well as making up the largest part of the Italian economy, at 8%, it now also runs Aberdeen. So yes, it can and it does happen right here.

Once you realise your own government are no different from the Mafia, you release the blinkers and accept anything is possible. Of course the Mafia cannot run cities or countries without government acceptance, so we know Italy is run by them, and Aberdeen, as part of Britain, must do as well as normally the police would do all they could to wipe out such a cancer as with any other criminal activities, yet they clearly haven't. Libor fixing could never have carried on for over a decade without full acceptance from the top, and across countries as it set rates worldwide. Are you seeing a picture now? The Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky set these rules out in full, demonising and ridiculing those who attempt to expose the illusions and criminality, mobilising the 'useful idiots' to act as an unpaid army to quash any attempts to expose the true nature of their activities. Reversing the good and evil is the standard formula, insulting those who try and help and accusing them of every possible crime you can think of, with absolutely no idea they are actually right and the people you are trying to defend are your enemy.

The solution is simple, explained in one word, awareness. Use your own research. Just because most people, whoever they are, say something, doesn't make them right, it just makes them act for a mutual interest, which is usually against yours. Look at history, the South Sea Bubble, tulip madness, church indulgences, Enron, Bernie Madoff, all official looking and successful schemes which were all variations of an identical scam. Our police, at the highest level, colluded for 23 years over altering evidence of Hillsborough, when they blamed football supporters for entering an area where in fact the police closed the gate causing them to get crushed to death. And not one person has been charged with a crime so far over it, or for Libor or fixing the gold and foreign exchange prices, all international scams working at the highest level. This represents the norm more than the exception, and as long as most people trust the government they are scamming you by consent, take that consent away and the scams all fall apart, it's really that simple.

Thursday, 2 April 2015

A summary of the information process

Rather than a specific piece this is simply a story of my own personal journey from an early view of politics as a teenager which developed over the years, and focused to a point after discovering the web of dirty dealings behind global warming. I also discovered a process of focusing, starting with feelings of right and wrong, followed by evidence and application, and then seeing how people who wanted one outcome often voted for ideas which would bring about the opposite, but did not realise it. Such as the anti-car brigade, who frown on what the think tanks of the left call 'personal transport', yet they need to get everywhere just as much as car drivers, and of course with their typical hypocrisy, most of them do as well. So far there simply isn't any other method to get from A to B besides the journeys you can do on a bike or walk, and public transport is fine if you live near it and it goes where you need, but outside that most non-drivers simply hire a cab and pay someone else to do exactly what they would have done had they owned their own.

Bus lanes were my first exposure to the sheer deviousness of government. Our local paper in the mid 70s announced a rollout of bus lanes in the borough, and being new my mind naturally imagined some sort of road building programme allowing buses to keep their own lanes separate from cars. When all they did was cut existing roads in two, forcing the traffic to half and the rest empty 99% of the time, I realised we'd been conned. Forty years later I now know many policies we've got now and since are variations of that theme, a pig in a poke mock auction where you pay up front and get a sour lemon for a £5 risked investment. Global warming coalesced this mafia-style operation to a worldwide operation, using every trick in the book, the propaganda methods of Goebbels, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and the Delphi Technique, where you offer a number of limited choices making people pick one, when in fact they are all versions of the same thing but the people think the varieties of turd must mean they've picked a good one freely and it's better than all the others, but all they were offered were turds.

The mental process is much like a hole of golf. You start off with a vague idea where the hole is on a par 5 as you can't see it, point in the general direction, and as you get closer the shots and approach narrow down till you see and reach your target. Once you pot the ball then you are complete. The reason some teach and others learn is this process is very standardised. Just like you are expected to be enlightened to teach it, you have a similar level of knowledge to teach politics or sociology. Unlike science, which I loved but failed at A level as my maths wasn't up to the rest of it, I did pass politics, sociology, law and even statistics, so went on after graduation to teach law and politics and can only teach by keeping up with current relevant events, and see the yawning mistakes some pupils can make before they learn how to remedy them. Then you see such mistakes in everyday life, but not being your pupils they have no exams to take and think they are right. You (uninvited) point out the errors and of course get little more than abuse, except the odd few who are pleased to learn and make it all worthwhile.

It doesn't matter, as the process is complete and is not the responsibility of the teacher to collect souls one at a time. You know what you know, you test it to confirm it, and you do your best. The only rule then is never to give up, as you don't know the effect of 99% of your teaching as most people read and do not comment. Then when a few come back and say how much you've taught them you know it's working, and they probably represent many more who say nothing.

So, to summarise, it's a process where certain feelings and suspicions become explored and refined, and the ultimate point is where all the parts collected fit together to a single comprehensive picture, and then when anything happens subsequently you know where it goes within. I spent some time testing my role and can now claim I am qualified to teach, simply as the process is a standard path and it has been completed, taking approximately 40 years, and supported with six year's worth of higher education. Rather than apply false modesty, would a doctor or solicitor say they didn't know much but they'd do what they can or say they know exactly what they're doing and can speak with authority. Otherwise how much confidence would you have in them? The only difference is teaching philosophical and political ideas isn't any specific profession, and like journalists open to anyone with the knowledge and experience regardless of their specific qualifications or lack of any at all. So I am accepting the role now of teacher as I've seen the difference between those who nearly know and know for certain, and most people at all levels are strung out on a range of knowledge and ignorance, while a few complete the route in any one area to see enough to leave precious little absent. There's a regular caller to local radio here, Geoffrey from Bracknell, is a good example of quality standing out, it usually does. It stands above the others when a selection of voices from single sentence comments, opinion pieces, bare facts and comprehensive explanations are all presented when only one actually fully deals with the issue. I have no idea of his qualifications, but his knowledge of history and politics is phenomenal, and depth of perception second to none. The same goes for others, agree with them or not, such as Lord Monckton, who see straight through common illusions and delusions in society and cut them away with the sword of logic. Many are not qualified in the areas they speak of but most educated to a level where they can tackle any subject with equal ability as they have learnt to apply knowledge.

Recognise this in others, and also in yourself. See where you are on the process and see where and how you want to progress. Find others able to do it and read the ways they express themselves, and present every claim with evidence and prepared connections. You need to know why you make a claim and how it fits in to other areas, and if you can't hold up to the toughest questions you tend to get on the radio from the presenters then work at it. Preparing the material means you know your thing, and others will respect it even if many insult you, which is actually a sign you are getting close as you're challenging other people's beliefs which usually ends in a negative reaction, but because you are right, not wrong. This is my path and has been building up ever since I saw my first political speech at around 13 onwards.