Pyramid Comment

This journal takes an alternative view on current affairs and other subjects. The approach is likely to be contentious and is arguably speculative. The content of any article is also a reminder of the status of those affairs at that date. All comments have been disabled. Any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Truth


"I'm right, you're wrong"     (most likely)

or

"You're right, I'm wrong"     (least likely)

It's a one-way argument, regardless of who "I" may be. Speculation borne out of speculation, but disguised as 'fact'. If the original speculation is flawed then every subsequent 'fact' must also be suspect. That's self-defining. Some 'facts' are accepted simply because there is a consensus at that point in time as each new 'fact' is fitted into the paradigm. It may be a force fit, since the accepted 'facts' make it so this must happen. The dogma cannot be wrong. Historical 'facts' endanger truth since possibly erroneous 'facts' remain as the crumbling foundation. The collapsed structure can be rebuilt, of course, but the changes won't be obvious. Maybe the structure appears the same, but the use and incumbents will have changed. Failed dogma can persist, yet its origins might not even be questioned.

Pyramids

The traditional force fit fails, yet persists.

If something fits the rule then it is considered right. Otherwise it is wrong: 2+2=5 is wrong since the fundamental rule of mathematics that even + even = even is broken:

  • odd + odd = even
  • even + even = even
  • even + odd = odd
  • odd - odd = even (and zero)
  • even - even = even (and zero)
  • even - odd = odd
  • odd - even = odd
It could actually be something that is right, but just fails to fit into the accepted paradigm.

Compounding a mistake by using an incorrect value obtained from an earlier result distorts the truth even more. Basing a later premise on an incorrect earlier 'fact' simply produces a magnified error. It's one explanation as to why science is in such a contradictory muddle.

The Fibonacci series is a number sequence that only attempts to describe a spiral and has no magic of its own, however perceived. Many fascinating comparisons can be made, but they only constitute points of interest. The illusion of some esoteric and mysterious connection is just that: illusion, but nonetheless, still interesting. Truth and illusion can be confused and differentiating between the two gets very confusing.

Be aware that looking elsewhere can reveal a different truth.

First Lady Freebie

The demonstration of conceit is common today. The arrogance. The 'in your face' contempt. The stereotypical hypocrisy of a stance. The 'I don't care what you think' attitude. 'I do as I please and if you don't like it, then tough' attitude.

Apart from all that, it is a morality code of sorts. Couple that with talk about poverty and it all fits together quite consistently. Consider the Blairs: obviously 'First Lady' freebie Blair since there is nobody else as important except the one to whom she is married (remember Blair?), a male (only political, but this equates to power) ex-'head of state'.

I always thought that the Queen (simply bloodline and chance, though historically engineered) was the head of state in a monarchy and so in the reverse sense, Royal consort Prince Philip should be 'First Man'. So we have the current offspring (bloodline) as the two Princes.

Perhaps Mrs Blair sees herself as The Queen fighting for Human Rights. That makes her husband: King Tony.

Chunder (watch under)

Incidentally, bloodline is really a misnomer: blood only connects the head (capital) with the body (corporal) so it is symbolic, but it suggests the connection with the term capital punishment. This could be ordered by an 'arbitrarily' positioned individual ('off with his head', said by a head about a head, the technical linked with the physical).

It does highlight ruthless self-interest. Care only about self

Burma and Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

The closest label I should wear is probably Marxist, but that still has to be a long, long way from the truth. I don't subscribe to labels: individuals and free thinkers never do. Communism doesn't work, although in theory it should. But it cannot work as hypocritical communists are, in fact, camouflaged capitalists (George Orwell's Animal Farm). And political capitalists actually come over as communists: The New Labour Communist Party. It's got the sweet smell of honesty about that label, but labels don't work as there are just too many shades of gray. Or red.

Thatcher's idea of a Federal Europe (European parliament). It's coming. Inexorably coming. Too many influential 'meal tickets' for the taxpayer to look after. The elephants' graveyard for the politician. To keep the imagined influential in their pig trough of excess.

Arrogant 'First Man'

The demonstration of conceit is common today. The arrogance. The 'in your face' contempt. The stereotypical hypocrisy of a stance. The 'I don't care what you think' attitude. 'I do as I please and if you don't like it, then tough' attitude.

Apart from all that, it is a morality code of sorts. Couple that with talk about poverty and it all fits together quite consistently. Obviously 'First Lady' freebie Blair since there is nobody else as important except the one to whom she is married (remember Blair?) as an male ex-head of state.

I always thought that the Queen was the head of state in a monarchy and so in the reverse sense, Royal consort Prince Philip should be 'First Man'. And we have the two Princes (bloodline).

Perhaps Mrs Blair sees herself as The Queen fighting for Human Rights. That makes her husband: King Tony.

Technically, the label I should wear is probably a Humanist embracing scientific scepticism. Communism doesn't work, although as a theory it could. But it cannot work as hypocritical communists are, in fact, camouflaged capitalists (George Orwell's Animal Farm). And political capitalists actually come over as communists: The New Labour Communist Party. It's got the sweet smell of honesty about that label, but labels don't really work as there are too many shades of grey.

Margaret Thatcher's opposition to the (ultimate) perverted concept of a Federal Europe would have made politics in Europe more for the people and less for the few: in the European Parliament. At least, in theory. The reality is much, much worse. It's coming. Inexorably coming. Too many influential 'meal tickets' for the taxpayer to look after. The elephants' graveyard for the politician. To keep the imagined influential in their pig trough of excess.

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

The issue of animal rights has always been a very sensitive one, but has now been expanded to include the right to experiment on animals free of harrassment or intimidation. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act has been passed (US Congress).

Terrorism?

Well, of course. What else? This attempts to not only close the door to public view, but also hide that door. The experimentation used to be "simple abuse of animals" and cynically for "the public good". More accurately to enable business to 'make money' by the exploitation of animals minimising the probability of legal action (compensation costs) when things go wrong. It is the Human Right to get paid out. This absolves the individual from taking personal responsibility for their actions. Animals don't have rights, but humans do. That has always been the attitude pushed by business. How can any legitimate and credible business 'make money' if it is prevented from killing animals or any creature. This constitutes an obnoxious ethic:

The complete exploitation of animals
that have no rights by humans that do

Pathetically, human attitude is (generally) totally hypocritical. Horse meat is disallowed for human consumption. Why, when the slaughter of cattle, sheep and pigs seems to be quite acceptable? This is the massacre of the animal kingdom for 'the public good'. Blind acceptance. Horse racing is 'the sport of kings', so horses are exempted from human fodder and declared 'unfit' for human consumption. End up in pet food though when the possibility for exploitation of the beast has ended. Pathetic isn't really the right word. More like 'sickness'. A serious blow was dealt to SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) when six members were convicted for inciting threats and harrassment against HLS (Huntingdon Life Sciences) staff and shareholders. In Britain, police have powers (given by government) to deal with intimidation by animal rights activists. It's all part of the 'control paranoia'. It will always be a dilemma when attempting to protect defenceless animals about how to do it. Desperate measures can be necessary when opposed by state endorsed violence from the 'police service'. In service to goverment to protect business (ie: money 'creation', shareholders). The illusion of protecting the public. Most police who are not politicians dressed up as policemen, are decent people, but are subject to control the same as any soldier under orders. It's the nature of control. But control of who and by whom? In a public disorder scenario, the army (and armed police) will shoot defenceless protesters if so ordered:

legal summary execution without trial


Anyone placed in this position is 'under orders' and must obey regardless of personal conscience. Of course, it gets more complicated when the pack instinct gets out and protecting your mates becomes important. Who is the enemy? Whose side are you on? It gets very sinister. A terrorist may claim to be a patriot. That may be an honest conscience rather than state indoctrination speaking. Perhaps it's the same thing. There is no right or wrong. Just the side you're on. Sentient animals are not all fighting on the side of non-sentient animals. God said "help yourself". Man created the concept of a god. The true bosses on planet Earth. The real controllers. Think for yourself and not what you're told to think. Imagine a similar scenario in the death camps of Nazi Germany in the second world war.

Human Worth

The story goes that the housing shortage is extensive and indirectly provides a good reason to encourage the growth in population. Peculiar? Every living soul (potential consumer) is worth so much money. Not the assets they have, but what they are worth to someone else. How much money can be made from their existence. Potential debtors and a future source of income. Only the living have any 'value'. The a$$et-$tripped dead have no value.

One of the latest schemes is the prefab house that can be put up by five men working for less than half a day - four hours. The cost is £60,000, yet is (2007) still technically a prefab. Apparently, 10,000 houses need to be built in the southwest region alone every year to tackle the housing problem. So, at £60,000 x 10,000 = £600,000,000. Every year there is potentially £600m to be 'created'. Nice little earner for the construction industry from just one region.

How deep is the trough? And encourage house prices to keep rising and this £600m should reach £1 billion. When? Perhaps in less time than you'd imagine. And, of course, there's all that other revenue (council tax). And what about the building insurance? Not particularly resistant to strong winds or floods. Perhaps they will be built in areas that don't suffer high speed winds or torrential rain!

Not on floodplains perhaps, but on the coast of Cornwall instead.

Increased Debt

The Daily E*****s is at it again: encouraging debt by helping house prices to increase. It's really disgusting to see it wet itself in glee because:

"Home owners had a double
cause to celebrate last night"
(08.03.07)

Note the use of home OWNERS. Proportionately, who is buying their home and how many actually own the house they live in? Anybody trying to get onto the property ladder is encouraged to try harder and the comment 'suggests' it must be a good thing to be on this ladder. For most 'ordinary' people, buying a house is the most expensive single item anyone could (one-day) own. The ongoing process of buying a house usually takes decades.  And all at the expense of amortised debts. The huge population of people 'buying' their own home explains the conditioning to 'owning is better than renting'. Few people have the means to buy outright for cash. Ideally, most people want to be independent of any landlord, but pragmatism doesn't always rise to the top. More often people do as they are expected... to do.

Not necessarily what is best for them

Once on the ladder, there is no way to jump off. And all the time you’re on it (from day 1), someone else is making money [until at least day 10,000 (or 15,000): about 27 years (or 41 years)]. Out of you. Paying a landlord does not involve paying out interest on a debt.

These people are the real target, of course. If you're already on the property ladder then you're home and dry (pun intentional), even though you probably do not own your home and your debt still exists.

Who devised the absolute importance of the property ladder? Why is it so absolutely important? Like breathing air. Sometime in the last 20 years or so, the term came into existence. Just appeared. It is simply an illusion to 'create' wealth or more accurately to increase debt and the virtual money that rides on its back.

There was a time when people actually owned what they possess, unlike in modern times when much of the 'owned' possessions are 'bought' on plastic. Credit. Loans. To identify as being successful, people are cynically encouraged to...


buy, buy, buy

Often, articles that are not necessary.

As far as the parasitic government is concerned, inheritance tax is here to stay and this is a guaranteed source of revenue for evermore. More and more people fall into the trap blinded by their own greed and thoughtlessness. Rather like someone moves into a house close to an airport then complains about the noise and demands compensation because of their own stupidity.

Transparent government is as transparent as a shop window. Look, but don't touch until you buy though you can afford it even if you didn't realise it. Government says so. This perpetuates the illusion of better living standards. Comfortable with all the things you don't need and comfortably in permanent debt. And getting worse with the illusion and the absolute belief of the reverse.

Meltdown. The parasite kills the parasite which in its turn dies and the host lives on. The Earth may (hopefully) survive mankind (yipee!!!). A few hundred thousand years for man against the many hundreds of millions of years that Earth can survive.

Parasitoid

Such is the incredible distortion created by Man himself.

Oil: Locked-In

The lock-in to oil and its products demonstrates the absolute control that is 'in the hand'. Consider the cost of financing a new car: excepting day-1 when the interest on a loan is applied, the cost can only go up. The massive downward value is increased because of 'depreciation'. The 'depreciation' is partly caused by the VAT and car tax (not road fund license). 'Depreciation' is linked to a deterioration through age, so massive depreciation from day-1 nails the illusion.

The lock-in is that the expenditure is considered worthwhile (the 'value'), but must be serviced by paying whatever costs are necessary like fuel and its associated tax. Road tax. Distance tax and usage tax.

Tax! Tax! Tax!

The cash cow for government without any accounting. The public accounts committee sounds helpful, but how is that body scrutinised and who is its paymaster?

There will be no escape. Game, set and match and 'bloodless'. Maybe. The global reaction will be ruthlessly exercised and all opposition exterminated. The 'military', themselves absolutely controlled, will be the servile executioners. A current example is taking place in Burma. Remember that most countries have a 'military' ostensibly maintained to defend against an external invader. A very real use is that government and the 'true controllers' can contain hostility from within. The lackeys of the would-be rulers.

Human? Certainly no soul.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Keynesian Monetary Theory

Economic Theory

"...radical idea that governments should spend money
they don't have may have saved capitalism."

A truly bizarre concept. Unless no thought is given to the concept of interest, loans and inflation. The cyclical mechanism that perpetuates growth. Investors require a financial return that enables growth to 'create' money. It's a ludicrous system. Everything costs more because of the growth and the consequential inflation so nobody actually becomes better off. The illusion (or rather delusion) is that they do.

Wealth Creation

The joining of the two concepts of economic theory and wealth creation produces an interesting paradox. The start of the decline was very possibly right at the outset. It was part of The Plan. Global economic strategy has been based on the "original" Keynesian ideology for a long, long time.

Individuals play one credit card against another. Paying off one loan by extending another. Little conceptual difference between a building society (bank) doing this as a business and the private arrangement. A borrower. Northern Rock (the business) was borrowing money from banking institutions to then be able to offer private mortgage loans to individuals. The borrower pays Northern Rock a higher interest rate than it pays the original lender.

Libor
Bank Inter-lending
Glossary of Statistical Terms

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

ID Cards: An Action Network Briefing

An update to ID cards

Action Network Briefing

Previous entries:

ID Cards
ID Cards And On The Saga Goes
ID Cards And The Saga Still Goes On...

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Brown, Gordon: Change

It's now been more than two months since the latest PM has occupied No. 10 Downing Street: placed into power and not elected by the citizens of UQ (aka UK) Ltd. The main emphasis of his incumbency (27th June 2007) featured a repetition of a single word:


Examine the statements: Change in our NHS. What does that mean? Nothing really. Could be change for the better or change for the worse. Or its complete removal. That would be change. Gordon Brown probably goes private as I cannot imagine him entering into an NHS hospital as a patient. If this is the case then to say 'our NHS' is sickeningly patronising. Change in our schools. Improve the success rate of children by dumming down standards. This is an appalling action to take. Basic numeracy is not needed: electronic tills do all the calculations. Basic use of the English language is becoming redundant: 'texting' language is the most popular. Hopeless and useless unless you're just one idiot communicating with another idiot. No controlling influence over pupils by teachers allowed. Let alone possible. I fail to understand why some teachers are necessary in some schools: abused and no support from management. Kids don't want to learn, so 'encourage' learning by pointing out the benefits of an education. But since a life on state benefits is expected there is absolutely no need to pass any exam. Just pass through the school system as quickly as possible to reach a lifetime's success by achieving the donation of benefits for doing absolutely nothing. And all by the 15th birthday: dropping out day. What a future. The sum total of such wonderful guidance?

Zero

The really sad thing about all this is that the tiny 11-12 year olds imagine they're so smart. Being a streetwise kid who imagines a knowledge of how to get things and the life experience of an adult. Sad and pathetic. Real knowledge?

Zero

Chances of being effective in life?

None

So, the change will be to lower the school leaving age to 14 years old to increase the problems for families. Parents who need to work to make ends come close. They often don't meet. A non-educated future workforce who contributes nothing by virtue of being unemployable (not working). Where does the benefit financing come from? Fewer and fewer working adults. One good reason to ensure they work on longer and longer since they are the only source of government 'income' (this suggests that the pension disaster was actually engineered). When this workforce inevitably dies out what is left?

Nothing, zilch, zero

It's quite clear that the interest is only in the wealthy and helping them getting wealthier by making the less well-off (everyone else: the poor) pay for it all.


  • What's the point as we are all going to die anyway. Is it simply self indulgence and selfishness during a lifetime? These are both short-lived for the individual, so presumably it is just for the purpose of self-gratification. Peculiar.

    One way is to reduce spending on the education of the future generations. Typical government thinking: think about getting through today and make as much money as possible and spend as little as possible. Think about tomorrow... ...tomorrow. Someone else's problem to sort out. To finish off what's been started with the illusion that


    will happen. Yet not get any blame because


    means avoiding all responsibility for causing the mess. Noticed how all the (still living presumably) 'self-important' politicians are rarely seen? All gone to that politicians' graveyard in the sky. Mess up planet Earth and retire to the home exo-planet. Such is the value of an absolute void. A vacuum. The end game is underway and is close to completion.


    Change to zero

    Earthbound 'wealth' doesn't exist (never did) and is


    Zero

    Change with affordable housing. Make it less affordable. Lending institutions can only appear to 'create' more virtual money. Debts go up so mortgage terms will continue to be extended. The illusion of everyone being better off will continue to be seen. Meltdown cannot be seen coming along with the momentum of an express train because the blinding light is so... ...blinding. Change to build trust in government. The apparent admission, or at least giving such an appearance, that people don't trust government. Wow!!! Rocket science. It isn't actually rocket science since the method of travel doesn't use rockets (too inefficient and nowhere near the capability for their required function). Consider the alternatives... Change to protect and extend the British way of life. An oxymoron. Totally contradictory. Unless it has the meaning of extending and protecting the worsening British way of life. Remember Brown's a Scotsman. Gordon Brown = GB for Gathering up Britain (Scottish Anthony Blair = AB for Alternative Britain) who controls from London, England. At least Brown speaks with a suitable accent. No masquerading there. Can you imagine an Englishman ever controlling an independent Scottish parliament from the heart of Scotland? The reverse of our 'reality'.



    Another ideal: to heal the divisions within his party and the country over the Iraq war, yet conspicuously no mention of Iraq. Today Blair, the departing PM at the time of handover (27.06.07), is currently the international envoy in the Middle East. Staggering hypocrisy, yet commentators push the argument that he is best placed to fulfill the function. Somewhat like petrol is the best fuel to ignite and sustain a fire. Incendiary action designed to exacerbate problems. Hardly pouring oil onto raging waters.


    Just taking it out of the ground

    Enough to make you feel ill - DA.