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.

Friday, March 30, 2007

Blair, Bush, Hypocrisy, Iran and Iraq

Hypocrisy rules, but is, of course, better known as spin.

"Blair and Bush vent anger at
Iran's TV footage of hostages"

screams the Independent (29.03.07). The situation that caused the arrest of service people alleged to be in Iran's territorial waters (as though even Iraqi waters are friendly) was brought about illegally. The case for war was elevated and was, allegedly, based on lies. To take a nation to war on such a suspect premise is an absolute betrayal of the duty of a prime minister. The duty is to protect the citizens of the UQ (aka UK) and not to endanger them.

Responsibilty for all the deaths that followed is down to two individuals and the British prime minister is one of them. But to vent anger at the 'enemy'. The arrogance in that statement is absolutely mindblowing, but not particularly surprising. In character, actually.

To insist on diplomacy being the right way shows weakness in the face of a potential attack. This is similar to talking your way out of a nasty situation. Possible, but almost certainly improbable to be successful. Makes me think of appeasement. Roll over and show how vulnerable you are. 'Belly up'.

This is all about the 'aggressors' saving face: Blair and Bush. That's what is seen. Iraq seemed an easy target. A pushover. All this use of terms like WMD. The justification. It really enabled a close examination and assessment of potential defences before an attack. Once that was done and defences were determined as inadequate to withstand the combined onslaught of the UQ and the US, the attack began.

Mass murder of defencless civilians had been approved.

I am not condoning the Iraqi 'leadership's' treatment of its people. Far from it. As a repressive regime it was one of the worst and this is from commentary by Iraqis living in that regime.

Newspapers and TV-studio discussions are not to be trusted. There is too much potential for influence and distortion to be brought to bear.

The background of oil must not be underestimated as being the prime reason for Bush wanting to be there. As an 'oilman', the prize is just too fabulous. Send men and women to their death. Conscience is absent. Oil is a blinding entity. Something to be worshipped. Honoured. Liquid black gold is seen as simply gold.

A finite resourse and essentially captured in full. The exploitation of a non-replaceable resource.

So, the illusion is of creating wealth. It's not creation, but, in this instance, conversion of liquid black gold into a solid form. Asset stripping. Resourse laundering. Essentially synonymous.

But there the illusion stops. Gold cannot be created. Is alchemy possible?

King Midas.

Power begets control and together they marry to create wealth. Wealth and power. That means control. Societies everywhere play the same game. A very lethal game.

So, was Iraq a relative pushover? No society can be regarded as that. Iran is a logistical problem, but the Americans are 'legitimately' in the area. Long-term planning demonstrates that Iran could have been the real target all along.

And Saudi Arabia is just another country.

But it has the largest reserves of oil in the world.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Mortgage Yoke

Banking Master Plan

As time goes on and house prices continue to increase, the length of a mortgage will also increase. Currently, the mortgage term for 1 in 4 mortgages is 40 years and this, apparently, is not unusual. Debts still being paid at age 65 and beyond. This is going to be more common. Some mortgages are being offered over 52 years. What is the interest on £100,000 over 50 years? Or should that be £1000,000 over 500 years?

Confounded Interest

Banks and building societies are only providing a lending service and cannot possibly have an interest in seeing property prices escalate off the scale. Can they?

Repossession - Speed Ensures Best Return

This illusion is of everyone becoming wealthier, but this is, of course, a long way from the reality. The yoke around your neck just gets tighter and heavier.

I despair for my children who will face the situation eventually about buying property. But what is all the hype about getting onto the property ladder? The lenders want to get potential borrowers onto the property ladder and will devise all sorts of schemes to do just that. The question to ask is who is behind the building societies. Where does the money to lend come from? Lending up to 6 times a joint income. The 'joint' is no longer endorsed by marriage. Defaulting is likely to increase. Lenders won't worry about that as the deal has already been struck. The grip gets tighter and tighter and nobody seems to notice. To get on the property ladder is at any cost. Literally.

Is it better to wear a heavy and tight yoke than give your money to a landlord? Used to be. That's for sure. A new dilemma is raising its head: put yourself in a potentially desperate situation and reject your freedom by relinquishing all control of your own destiny or give your money over to a landlord who could be a work colleague.

There has always been a society of them and us and the gulf in between is widening and getting deeper. The so-called "upper classes" whose wealth has always been, allegedly, questionable (I've never noticed any logic to connect "upper classes" and wealth) now diverts attention to the middle classes. The dilemma gets more sinister as the redistribution of wealth moves to the "new wealthy". The illusion continues and spreads like a virus, never fear though, they won't hold it for long.

It will all go onto the sickeningly-rich rich: what do these people do with their money?

Buy control, of course. Or put it another way: Awareness Of Standards.

Paying off debts till the end of lifetime. Living in order to finance a mortgage. What a joke. Like smoking: buy cigarettes, pay taxes and die before you get ill. Perfect. Lending money is better and, ideally, should be together. Include drinking and there are the magic three: lending money, smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. More like an Unholy Trinity.

All encouraged and all tied together. A wicked trinity. An unholy alliance.

But don't stop there. Add a car and fuel (distance) tax and the picture gets even more grim. Do you see how the moderately wealthy will be made poorer and the rich even richer? The amount of money won't change, just who gets their hands on it. This redistribution of wealth. Monstrous debt and potential hardship and walking straight into it. The definition for having your 'eyes wide shut'.

We are, of course, heading for meltdown and that has nothing to do with the next solar maximum (coming in 2011/2012). We'll not survive that long, but the Earth will. Survived the virus walking the planet. How BIG is your ego? Way too small. Planet Earth doesn't have an ego as it doesn't need it. Just let life extinguish itself. Again?

Taking out a loan over such a long period is extremely dangerous, leaving people susceptible to all sorts of circumstantial change, like the next rise in the interest rate. How many in 2006/7? Four? To keep the rocketing cost of housing down by making money more expensive to borrow. That was always the plan. Trap you into your thinking that you need the debt to get on the property ladder then make it more expensive to do just that. Those already on it have to service their loan since it becomes more expensive. Saving money is also virtually impossible. This also means that little in the way of interest is paid out.

This is an almost foolproof method of sustaining wealth at the expense of those desiring to become wealthy. The property ladder is an illusion: the only time that any personal wealth is made is once the property has been paid for and possible downsizing when family size decreases. Conversion of property to actual 'money in the bank'. Interest will be non-existent on the non-existent mortgage, but interest on the yield of the final sale (savings) will be lower as time goes on. Banks collect the (high rates of) interest during the lifetime of the loan (mortgage) then pay back next to nothing when the loan has ended. It's perfect.

Money laundering
potential is enormous.

For the buyer still on the property ladder, buying the next (probably) more expensive property will always consume any potential profit. This is usually the reason for moving (though also any necessary relocation or an increasing size of family). Yet mostly to acquire the ladder to increased perceived wealth.

It's self sustaining: little interest out implies less cash into the coffers. But the interest paid into these same coffers by borrowers is the source of income.

The property ladder creates the illusion of self betterment. The reality is working for a lifetime to make money for someone else. You may (eventually) own your property, but at a huge cost paid to someone else. The interest you pay to the lender will easily surpass the capital originally borrowed.

Where do you imagine the banks get their money from? The banks are funded by the megawealthy families in the world. Think Rockefeller (and consider the bloodline). Even in death the government makes a fortune out of inheritance tax. That cash cow will continue relentlessly. In life, it involves stamp duty in property transfer. You might theoretically make potential wealth out of property, but the reality is everyone else in the system is making it too. And a lot more than you. A lot, lot more.

The nett growth is just about zero. No gain. No loss.

Government makes a fortune, but always claims it never has enough and so just takes more. Council tax is technically extortion: demanding money with menaces on pain of imprisonment. Is this spin taken to the extreme? And the bailiffs take possession of goods to the 'value of your debt' and all with government endorsement.

The debt that has been created because the government demanded more money.

How do you know where your tax money goes? Corporation tax on lending and the associated interest. Again this can be illusory. Tax breaks mean that corporation tax can be avoided, the taxpayer plugging the hole.

The minority can make money out of you buying your own property.

Except you. One of the majority.

The illusion gets more vague, yet becomes clearer. Paradoxical?

Just think who benefits, but exclude yourself.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Animal Rights and Terrorism

The issue of animal rights has always been a very sensitive one and I take no side. It's a complex issue, but has now been expanded and made even more complex, or simply made deliberately more complicated, by including the right to experiment on animals free of harrassment or intimidation. Animal rights? The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act has been passed (US Congress).


What else? That catch-all phrase:


The one that makes everything acceptable and attempts to not only close the door to public view, but also hide that door. Experimentation used to be simple(!) abuse of animals and cynically for 'the public good', but is more accurately to enable business to 'make money' by the exploitation of animals and minimise the probability of legal action (compensation costs) when things go wrong. The Human Right is to get paid out. This absolves the individual from taking personal responsibility for their actions. Animals don't have rights, but humans do. Then only some humans. If you conform you are rewarded with all sorts of rights and rewards. If you don't, then watch your back. That has always been the attitude pushed by business and endorsed by government. How can anyone 'make money' if we can't kill animals or any creature.


There is a chance.
And it's a very good one.

Though you must:

Think for yourself.
Not what you're told to think.

Who decides who should get an 'honour'. The establishment. And who or what is that? Good question. Pathetically, human attitude is (generally) totally hypocritical. Horse meat is disallowed for human consumption in the UK. Why? 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. But horse racing is 'the sport of kings', so horses are exempted from human fodder. And 'the sport of queens'. Horses end up in pet food though when the possibility for living exploitation of the beast has ended. So, make some money out of their death. Officially, dogs seem to be spared. When have you ever seen horse meat or dog meat (the animal and not consumption by the animal) on the restaurant menu. Pathetic isn't really the right word. A more poignant word is 'sickening'. 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 more powers that are not necessarily asked for, but given in any event by government that supports wealth creation at any price, to deal with intimidation by animal rights activists. Animal rights activists are like the flies in the ointment that spoil the easy money making schemes. Making money and conscience try to form an impossible marriage. It never happens. 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'). The illusion is one of protecting the public. Most of the police who are not politicians dressed up and masquerading 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?

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 comes out and protecting your mates becomes important. Who is the enemy? Who is on which side? It gets very sinister. Imagine a similar scenario in the death camps of Nazi Germany in the second world war. That's hardly allegedly, even today. A terrorist may claim to be a patriot and that may invoke an honest conscience rather than being state indoctrination speaking. Perhaps it's the same thing? There is no right or wrong. Just the side you happen to be on. Conscientious objectors are in principle courageous and honourable people, standing up for their principles. Even prepared to die for those principles. The myth perpetrated by governments is that they are cowards and should be 'hung out to dry'. Even put them in prison for ever, but release murderers into society. They must be relatively harmless. Only some sentient animals (humans) fight on the side of non-sentient animals, but God said "help yourself". Some small group within mankind created the concept of god. That part of mankind is god. The real controller.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Drug Abuse - A Personal View

Based on the original, January 2000

Drug abuse is the road to ruin. Plain and simple fact.

There is no redeeming feature to drug abuse. There is no logical or meaningful reason to touch them at all, but every reason to stay away from them and treat them for what they are. Like it's a plague. Any future is killed by drugs. Careers are destroyed before they get started as the acquisition of the necessary skills and knowledge never happens. Or is even attainable. 'Intelligent' people are reduced to morons. They are more interested in drug taking and the perceived effect, and eventually compelled by addiction, than anything else. The financing can and almost certainly does lead to crime. Intelligent people don't take drugs. They don't need to. There is no method of funding it legitimately since any long-term occupation won't exist.

Wealthy people can fool themselves into the abuses. But it all leads to ruin. Inevitably. Drugs have no principles. Rich. Poor. Educated or not. It all goes to the same place - Hell. Gambling and drinking are very similar in this part. The difference with drugs (depends on the drug source taken) is the physical addiction in addition to the psychological one.

Psychologically the dependence is a strong one. Regardless of physiological dependency. What this means is that the hold is very much in the mind and is not necessarily physical. When drinking to excess the individual gets very drunk. The hangover should discourage such abuse, but it doesn't.

Never again until the next time.

A hangover will probably be cleared within 24 hours and then not really any the worse. The hangover can be very unpleasant. Usually. As the effects of a drug wear off, that drug will bring its own type of hangover, but with a difference. It will last.

A very real and major problem with alcohol is that though it may wear off, addiction to alcohol does not just 'wear off'. Recovery from alcohol addiction is possible, but can be very difficult. Ethyl alcohol (alcohol) is a very significant human poison and any justification by attempting to promote the benefits of alcohol are fatuous. The need to go up again will kill the hangover (maybe), but only stave off the down. Chasing the 'hair of the dog' is a total myth.


It can only result in a perpetual hangover syndrome and the associated dehydration. The only way to avoid being hungover is to 'shoot' up again. But the dehydration continues. Get drunk and 'forget' the mental anguish. But the grief is enormous. The damage severe and very complete. The knowledge that the only relief is to use a drug brings its own set of psychological problems. This grief spills over to family and friends who can do nothing to prevent it.

Drugs or alcohol? Much the same, just a different substance. Both potentially and very probably lethal. If you crash a car with you inside it, eventually you will kill yourself if you do it enough times. Enough may be once, twice, three times...

Not IF, but WHEN

Soft drugs are supposed to be harmless. This is the tale told by users. It is a justification for doing what they do. Much like smokers will tell you that they enjoy smoking. I believe the actuality is that these people know that they cannot stop - they are hooked, but in absolute denial 'convinced' that they enjoy what they do. Addicted. To state they enjoy what they do means they do not have to attempt to stop. Some probably do "enjoy" smoking, but it is the dependency and effect of nicotine that is the force behind the enjoyment. That's what it is - an addiction. This paints a grim picture. It is supposed to do just that. It is intended to unnerve and frighten. There is no pretty picture to be seen. Only despair and ultimately a terrible death.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Government Access to Patient Record(s)

PATRIOT Act Patient's access to records: register with the website Healthspace to review your records, or you can ask your GP for a printed copy, but it's currently unclear how any necessary amendments can be made or how you can opt out if there is such a choice. It is anticipated that around two months will be allowed to review records and/or opt out if desired. The record should remain in your GP's surgery. This implies the record will already be in the database so it can be reviewed. After the review period, the presumption will be your agreement if the opting out choice has not been made. The implication is of a thin end of a wedge. The first suggestion is that there is a choice to include the personal record or not in a national database. I anticipate that at some time in the future it will be added anyway, assuming it hasn't been already. Such an 'opting-in by inaction' system cannot be used for organ donation and requires positively 'opting-in'. That's a very significant difference. Whatever the claim in launching a public information programme, the majority will almost certainly not even review the record for accuracy let alone make the positive choice of denial of access.
Refuse permission and keep your records locally with your GP.
How can I know what is available to unknown agencies? I cannot, though my presumtion is that it will all be available with or without my agreement. Initially the patient records [Summary Care Records (SCRs)] to be uploaded from GP's surgeries, it is claimed, will contain data only on medication, allergies and adverse drug reactions. Eventually, more detailed and sensitive information will, no doubt, follow. It's unlikely that such uploading will be done twice: a whole nation's (verified for opt-in accuracy and permission) medical record? The cost: part of the £6bn NHS IT (alleged) upgrade. Again, money no object even though there is never enough money for adequate facilities and service. These two themes are just too incompatible to suggest truth. Justification: the Department of Health (DoH) claims that only clinicians with legitimate relationships would be able to see clinical notes and facilitate easy access to information if ever there is a 'medical' need. Plausible. Just. I don't accept this justification. There is an implied suggestion that 'clinicians can see clinical notes' so 'others can see other notes'. It is entirely feasible that the information could be locked to casual interrogation of the database and so create the illusion that the information is not there. You wouldn't know as it would have a higher level of security access. Confidentiality? Forget that. It's all part of the 'systems' paranoia and obsession about surveillance. Back door snooping by knocking at your front door. My personal medical record is between my GP and myself. Breaking confidentiality is contrary to law. The misuse of medical history is brought into the equation with this invidious move. Take for example my own personal experience of abuse of records. My Abbey Life insurance claim: once a claim is filed, the entire medical becomes available to the insurer/assurer. 'Cherry picking' suitable instances covering a life time that suits a refusal then takes place. And they do not need to give any detail of the "associated symptom" that is alleged to support the refusal. My personal outcome was successfully concluded - just about satisfactorily - breaking this original refusal though it took 15 months. The dangers inherent in such a system are many. Never will I "knowingly" make it easy for such a system to include my record. But that's only the illusion. It almost certainly will happen whether I opt out or not: such is this goverment's (to be continued by the 'next') predilection for surveillance. Knowing as much about me as possible. Health minister Lord Warner says that the system is secure. Such comment does not inspire me with confidence. In fact, the absolute reverse. If anyone ever says " me..." to a comment (especially if ''... would I lie to you?" is added: of course you would!) then I know a lie is coming. Honest people never say " me..." as there is no need to subconsciously imagine that any comment would not be believed.
Has the national police computer ever been accessed illegally?

SARS And Bird Flu

What's the status of SARS and Bird (Avian) Flu.

Gone quiet, but has it? Yes, it's gone relatively quiet in the news, but it is still a very serious issue. Now, it's swine flu (September 2009)... beware of over-reaction and unnecessary panic.


Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Brown, Gordon: And Dennis Healey

Gordon Brown allegedly "can't do his sums" (New Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer).

Old Labour had "silly Billy" Dennis Healey, as he styled himself, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

See the conditioning connection?

Portray the lie that they are inept and perhaps you won't look too closely.

Chancellors of the Exchequer who are totally 'unqualified'? But they're politicians.

Think again

Monday, March 12, 2007


Whatever the arguments for or against cannabis use or abuse, and that depends on your viewpoint, of course, it is much stronger today and affects thinking and perception. If there were no effect, why take it? Like alcohol dependency and addiction. The 'enjoyment' is purely self delusional. Seriously dangerous stuff.

Polite Notice

Why are the British so polite? In public places and car parks everywhere, signs like:

Please don't park

DO NOT work and should just be trimmed to:


In the places allocated for the disabled, there may possibly be some sort of effect on those who are absolutely selfish and don't care:

"You've got my parking space. Do you want my disability too?"

  Even this shouldn't be so weakly worded. Perhaps:

You and your vehicle
are forever cursed

Is Saddam Dead?

Is Saddam really dead or just hanging out somewhere? The Daily Telegraph declared at 30th December 2006:

"Saddam is dead"

Allegedly, led to the gallows hooded before being executed. Was he seen and conclusively identified? Not one of the many doubles? "Saddam is dead"


Driving And Swimming

This describes one of those peculiar situations where choices don't make much sense. Car driving lessons are nearly always funded. They are so important, it being necessary to drive a car. Swimming lessons are, however, not considered very important. The one is potentially lethal and the other is life saving.

A swimming ability could last a lifetime and indeed being able to swim could prolong that lifetime. It can begin from a very early age and be many years longer than a driving career, which doesn't (legally) start until 17 years of age. Knowing how to swim is critical, especially if on board a boat that may capsize. Wearing a life belt may give a sense of security, but so can a seatbelt in a car: travelling at 70mph and being involved in a accident the seatbelt will not be much use. Knowing how to drive is not critical, but is perceived as being the more important. Perverse thinking.

  • It's an interesting example of double-standard: at 17 years of age, the young person is legally enabled to drive a car and place their life at risk, but to do the same by using alcohol the age limit is raised to 18 years old. The dangers or alcohol seem to be appreciated so why is the availability of alcohol not curtailed? Profit and government taxes always prevail and clear winners when common sense is in the air.

Carbon Offset Con

Assuming that global climate change is a reality, but is not caused by human activity and the reasons propounded, then cynically trading a carbon footprint with less technologically advanced countries further disadvantages competitors taken in by the lack of logic, but seriously trying to reduce CO2 emissions. This attempts to kill the opposition, by ensuring resources are spent on 'doing the right thing' and not making a profit.

This is politically motivated. Scientists are served with death threats [by Fostering the Ethic of Antiterrorist Rule (FEAR Services)] if they don't toe the correct line. Remember science is funded and the paymasters (governments) direct who gets paid: if they behave. That (allegorical) financial stick that is used in the attempt to beat up, silence and subjugate any living creature that constitutes opposition.

This can theoretically amount to a small panel of individuals acting as a group so controlling global outcomes

But there's nothing new in that, it happens all the time and it's known as:

'bringing pressure to bear'

Notably, the IPCC makes no mention of how BIG or small it is as an 'organisation'. Grandiose names like UNEP and WMO are by association and only suggest that the IPCC is very important. The connection with Gore and the Nobel Peace Award also creates the illusion of importance. Rather like the mediaeval days of being burnt at the stake if you dared criticise the church. Not only has Gore been linked to this once admired Nobel name, but now also US President Obama. Shamed once then shamed again within two years by political inveigling. Obama has only been in office for one of those years, but is already afforded a prize for an unmeasurable future (hope) that has been earned by the many for a lifetime's contribution in seriously important and measurable done deeds. This supports and creates the illusion of 'urgency', but still talk is of anything between 2020 - 2050. The global public conditioning shows how weak the position really is and the dangerous propagandist pomposity of convincing the world that spending to save the planet is the only way. To save the planet. Meanwhile funding and promoting wars so destroying the planet and its inhabitants. Governments around the world will not even agree to anything so the gambit is already lost. Few are making serious attempts at saving the planet. The Copenhagen bash illustrates this perfectly. But it won't stop the attempts to subvert opinion away from truth and support the lie.

For all their apparent collective wisdom, nowhere does the obvious fact that water has always been totally recyclable until mankind started to build with bricks, mortar, cement and concrete. Water is locked up forever within these materials and can NEVER be recovered. Once it has been used that's it. Gone. This is the elephant in the room: so obvious it's just ignored. Or simply not realised. Not understood. It's very worrying that for all their self-congratulation in being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (why!!!) they don't recognise the basic facts. Water is critical to climate though the continual recycling from the start cannot continue once it has been irreversibly 'destroyed'. Drinking water or potable water to support life is around 2% of a global resource. All the oceans are salt-containing and are therefore unusable. It cannot be used in the manufacture of cement and concrete so drinking water is consumed without a thought. So, all the posturing and hand wringing is a complete sham. But, of course, desalination will be one of the next buzz words to be put inside the money machine, alongside such terms as climate change and global warming.

Saving the planet? Sounds a very laudable goal. If true. But it's not. It's about the parasite (governments) screwing more money out of the host (global population). It's one plausible explanation as to why the growth in the population is encouraged to increase.

Gender Selection

Buying opportunity to pump out more greenhouse gases. The whole idea of a carbon offset is a con rather like the Apollo hoax . The groundswell is gathering momentum in the rejection of the alleged 'landings'. The carbon offset argument that is unbelievably crude only attempts to suppress and so control Third World countries trying to raise their life standard and prosperity. If one country (like an individual) were to get rich then another must get poorer.

The rich not only want to stay rich...

but get richer.

Who gets hurt? They don't care as long as their wealth and power only increase.

It's a disease

It's somewhat similar to what used to be a no smoking area in a restaurant. Smoke drifts. It's no good stating that there is a no smoking area when the smoke cannot be controlled. Same with carbon dioxide. It drifts. It cannot be controlled by stating that a 'fine' has been paid.

It's all about raising money justified as 'taxation' on the back of a natural phenomenon.

Earth's precession orbit around a star that is getting hotter.

But placing a tax on the humble Sun could encourage it to cool down. Placed against the oversized human ego, the Sun is so hopelessly tiny. This obvious paradox exemplifies the ludicrous state of affairs with human belief and credulousness. Planet Earth would obviously straighten itself up, too. Up against such terrible odds as the human ego, the planet and star would quiver in their collectively anthropomorphic (hypothetical) boots. Or even change orbit in an attempt to escape the grip of human stupidity. The Earth and Sun could never hope to survive.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is doing a 2009 World Tour (probably not using any bicycles or canoes) demonstrating the self-importance of this gang. Extracting colossal finance-support to simply exist. Human belief is so weak and gullible that it quite happily stumps up the money without question and just complete and pure acceptance.

21-23 January: Amsterdam, Netherlands
29 January: Sao Paulo, Brazil
23-25 February: Hayama, Japan
3-6 March: Honolulu, Hawaii
18-20 March: Oslo, Norway
23-26 March: Oslo, Norway
20 April: Antalya, Turkey
5-7 May: Sao Paulo, Brazil
22-26 June: Santiago, Chile
13-17 July: Venice, Italy
30-31 August: Oslo, Norway
1-4 Sept: Oslo, Norway
14-16 Sept: Geneva, Switzerland
17-18 Sept: Geneva, Switzerland
26-29 October: Bali, Indonesia
9-12 November: unspecified
16-18 (am) November: Geneva, Switzerland
18 (pm)-20 November: Geneva, Switzerland

Olympic Lottery

Olympics 2012
Olympic Fund: Raided
Olympic Scheme
Olympic Torch

Without the lottery 'fund', the British taxpayer would have to pay more (and more and more...) to have the very dubious 'honour' of hosting the 2012 Olympic Games. This smacks (and has the very nasty smell about it) of 'doing a Gordon'. Just take so much of people's lives away?

Contempt doesn't come close and this
man could actually be
prime minister of UK (aka UK) Ltd

I don't want the Olympic Games to be held here and never did. The profiteering is sickeningly predictable and my belief is that this is the single reason for us 'to enjoy' the Olympics. It's a money making exhibition platform. Nothing more. This is supported by the government 'glee' over hosting such an event at a present estimated cost of:

+£4.6bn a week = £9.3bn

Period: 27th July to 12th August 2012

  • 17 days @ £547,000,000/day
  • Over one-half £billion every day
If VAT were to be remembered, the £9.3bn 
would approach £11bn, but if the VAT 
were to be conveniently overlooked (forgotten) then


 appears a lot less than 


But only a tad.

£1.7bn = £1,700,000,000

The 'oversight' of VAT can be viewed simply as a new VATable category that is NOT zero-rated. Created to 'make' money.
  • Virtually no financial outgoings seem to be available to help athletes train for the 'games' (sounds glorious and worth dying for - DA). Councils are cutting back or closing essential facilities: but no financial support from government.
Take, take, take and don't give

    This +£9bn estimated cost, give or take
    the odd £300 million, doesn't seem
    to include any grants or financial help

    The Olympic Games constitute a 'fait accompli'. It will be so well accepted (conditioned) that it's arrival won't even be questioned. But where do these £billions go? Down a hole in the ground acting as a conduit to something. Money goes somewhere. It always does. There is a (very non-transparent) curtain that manifests like a mist and behind it...

    ...remember it took Quebec decades to pay for the Montreal Olympic Games in 1976 ($2bn Canadian). Interesting challenge here: taking inflation into account, how does $2bn (Canadian) in 1976 compare to the projected cost of £9.3bn (UK) in 2007?

    That's over 3 decades later:

    £???bn in 2012?

    The Olympic Games are simply the justification for spending such an enormous (unaccountable to me certainly) amount of money. Again the justification is that it is for the public good so the public pays for it all. The lottery money does not belong to the government, but has 'suggested' it is only a loan: to be paid back, presumably at current interest rates.

    It's money going only one way:


    Wake up!!!

    Who profits? Difficult one as there is no obvious way of telling. Probably not an individual, but a group is just more than one. The construction industry will no doubt make a fortune and as 2012 comes ever closer (and there will, of course, remain much to do), the price will continue to escalate. Up and up and up. Probably rocket.

    But how far? As far as the cash cow can be made to climb.

    Tessa Jowell (Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and Minister for the Olympics) promotes the truth.

    There are better causes (and there always will be) that could use the estimated £9.3bn (as at February, 2007) and there are still 5 years to go. This £9.3bn could easily rise to £30bn, £40bn or... Think of a number and double it. Treble it. You will still (probably) be wrong.

    [Note: 2008 Olympics in Beijing allegedly cost in excess of $43bn]

    But, there is another way of looking at this: by suggesting such a grotesque amount of money now, in a few years time when this "target" is reached complaints won't be too vociferous as it will be seen as a small amount of money, being only what was suggested in 2007. See the psychology at work? Kids' stuff really. Even now, Jowell wants to (allegedly) raise this amount, but has been turned down by government. Today maybe, but wait until the request is remade in the future. It won't be refused then. This is a deliberate publicity stunt. Ask now and be refused publicly. Ask again without so much pomp and circumstance, and it will sail through. Unnoticed.

    Keep asking yourself: who benefits and remember the escalating February 2007 projection of £9.3bn (up from the original £2.375bn). Wait and see how long it takes to start increasing from now: 12th March 2007. Clearly, the £2.375bn was a ploy to sweeten the bitter pill, but the sugar coating has now been removed: 

    £2.375bn -> £9.3bn

    (excluding VAT)

    The oversight of VAT is cynical as this charge varies predictably: temporarily down and permanently up. This at the will of the government of the day.

    All this spin about the regeneration of London. The Olympic cash cow is being used to fund it. Regeneration means building (construction industry). Firing ranges are to be built at enormous expense just to be raised to the ground afterwards (at more enormous cost).


    Build. Flatten and build again.
    Make way for something else.
    Something NEW and very expensive

    To build. To flatten. Both enormously expensive to only

    Build again 

    Generates more money - again

    This is the cynical definiton of


    But, money cannot be created only redistributed. So the question is: where does it go? The source is clearly the people (taxpayer), but the recipient is shrouded in fog.

    If the reasons given had any 'truth' in them then why not refurbish, expand and develop the existing ranges? Not enough money (£bns) in that. Remember, wealth is never created nor destroyed, just moved around. The winners' (very few) and losers' (everybody else) game.

    Why not centralise a venue to host the Olympic Games? Athens would be a good symbolic place. Already successfully built. But the opportunity to make more billions would be lost. Such is the dubious 'honour'. Crap. What honour is there in allowing dope cheats (not all athletes, some are actually honest, I think) to bathe in the goat's milk of glory.

    Climate change is simply another cash cow. It's happening. Yes. It's cyclical. Yes. But it's being cynically exploited to introduce more taxation. It seems that it's all our collective fault that the Earth orbits the Sun in the way it does and that the Sun is hot and getting hotter. Carbon dioxide represents about 0.03% of the atmosphere's content.

    Consider the Apollo hoax if you cannot imagine a very considerable proportion of the global population believing it. How about that greatest of all conspiracy theories: God. Can never be proved or disproved. The single most important feature of a good conspiracy.

    It's always in terms of £billions now and almost never the old-fashioned £million., unless it's in £100s of millions (£1bn = 10 x £100m).

    The Value Added Tax (must be a joke in there somewhere) was overlooked and Chancellor of the Exchequer (another joke? Yes) Gordon Brown has set aside a contingency fund of £2.7bn and that is more than the original 'sell-to-the-people' estimate of £2.375bn. This is Blair's concept of transparent government:

    There's none so blind as those that will not see

    Have you noticed how government will always attempt to sell the idea that it is costing government more money. Of course, it is stinging the sucker taxpayer for more and more and more and... Someone is making an obscene amount of money. Tantamount to theft, or so it would seem.

    How can costs rise in billions and not just (!) millions?

    The taxpayer has absolutely no authority to veto this. To stop the rot. To stop the profiteering. This money hasn't been spent yet, but it is totally unrecoverable (irrecoverable), but unlike any other corporate 'business', which exists to make money (profit), absolves itself from any responsibility to stakeholders (taxpayers). Any real business would very quickly go into liquidation. But 'corporate' government? That is a financial impossibility. There is no definition and, in fact, no term to describe such a scenario.

    How you 'see' things all depends on how you define terms:

    , Belief, Fact, Faith, Illusion, Real, Reality...

    Truth (n):

    1. the quality or state of being true
    2. that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality
    3. a fact or belief that is accepted as true
    Belief (n):
    1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists
    2. something one accepts as true or real
    3. a firmly held opinion or conviction
    4. a religious conviction
    5. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something
    Fact (n):

    1. a thing that is indisputably the case
    2. the significance of something that is the case
    3. a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article of the truth about events as opposed to interpretation
    Faith (n):
    1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something
    2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof
    3. a system of religious belief
    4. a strongly held belief or theory
    Illusion (n):
    1. a false idea or belief
    2. a deceptive appearance or impression
    3. a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses
    Real (adj):
    1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact
    2. not imagined or supposed
    3. not imitation or artificial
    4. genuine
    5. adjusted for changes in the value of money
    6. assessed by purchasing power
    7. an increase in real terms
    8. having no imaginary part
    9. not virtual
    Reality (n):
    1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist
    2. a thing that is actually experienced or seen
    3. a thing that exists in fact, having previously only existed in one's mind
    4. the quality of being lifelike or resembling an original
    5. existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions.

    Appropriation of public funds for the public good.

    £1bn = £1000million. That's a lot of 'increase' that's never going to be seen again. It will just disappear:


    Interesting to speculate how much lottery and public money will be used to construct athletes' village (rent to be charged, of course) and then privately sold off at the public's enormous disadvantage. The public paid for it and the public will get nothing back - just my prediction, of course. The latest comment was that the lottery fund is just making a (voluntary?) loan to be paid back. At best that could actually happen, although it is, no doubt, interest free. A loan? At worst: never to be seen again because it's possibly hiding inside a bank account:


    Don't wait up. Go back to sleep.

    Government is in control and is always to be trusted to manage public (ie others') money, but don't worry:

    Blair's in control

    Smoking Stress

    Forcing up the price of smoking, or restricting smokers indulging in their addiction, will never stop it. It will only lead to higher stress levels.

    But there’s always a pill for that.

    It's good business to encourage smoking then throw over a 'cure': a pill. Fixing one addiction by creating another, although possibly end up with two addictions instead. Use the one to create another. Creating the problem then providing the solution that could theoretically work (but probably will not).

    Cessation of smoking and the end to the consequential addiction to nicotine can only happen through a real desire to stop.

    And education.

    Wherever government looks, look the other way.


    Selling Human Eggs

    Selling human eggs is illegal. So it doesn't happen, then?

    Two British students have (allegedly) been paid £8,800 for eggs: ie 50% of genetic makeup. The other half (donated sperm) could easily be substituted or tampered with and can originate from an unknown source.

    Consider: then think about it.

    Making babies for money.

    Doesn't conjure up much in the way of ethics.

    Climate Change

    Changing Climate
    Climate Change
    Climate Change: Debate
    Climate Change: Observations
    Climate Change: The Convenient Lie
    Climate Change: A Reasoned Argument (Science Journal)
    Climate Change: Copenhagen, December 2009
    Climate Change: The World Natural Health Organization
    Earth Mantle: Drilling Into An Artery

    Global warming is the (natural phenomenon) justification for fuel usage reduction and at the same time increasing the cost of a 'limited' resource. This is being cynically exploited to maximise profits, which continue to rocket (still only the redistribution of a fixed amount of wealth).

    And nobody notices.

    All mammals (including humans) breathe oxygen to live and exhale CO2 adding to the %age of this greenhouse gas. Vegetation and trees (the lungs of Earth) consume CO2 and generate oxygen. Destroying trees reduces the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

    Corporate Mantra

    Subservient Servants

    The concept of a selfless and altruistic government has no meaning.

    Who has the moral right to arrogantly approve or deny and so decide who gets what? When it comes to 'government spending', it is taxpayers' money. It's public money: all of it. Government has no money of it's own, but only it's grubby hands on extorted taxpayer-earned income.

    Every employee works for government under the considerable threat of imprisonment. Working for government and paying (tax) for the privilege.

    MP Expenses scandal: basically, it's sanctioned by government and government protects its own.

    So, 'government spending' means: government spending taxpayers' money

    The real corrupting force is potentially having access to the nation's wealth. Misappropriation can be hidden deep as the taxpaying public has absolutely no way of knowing how funds are used or abused.

    Scare Stories

    Scare stories may be true ("truth: who cares? It's (was) a great story though") and is a marvellous way to condition and control behaviour by rumour. Pictures from TV and news stories impart a version of 'truth' that events actually happened as told.

    The concept of distortion to 'create' the illusion.

    Take the example of avian flu: can this 'evolve' (adapt) from turkeys and contaminate the human food chain?

    A 'species jump' and without any help. The description could be interpreted as the 'evolution' of one species into a different species. Not a species jump, but an actual species change. Perhaps create a dog from a cat or a sheep from a fish (DA).

    Currently, a cat is not yet 'manufactured' from a dog. (Really, is that a fact? DA.)

    Such a specific 'jump' could be selectively (theoretically) enabled by genetic mutation (GM).

    Evolution is theoretically just the mutation
    of something that lives

    Security Services And Fear

    The task of the security services like MI5 is promoted as being in existence to protect the citizens of UQ (aka UK) Ltd. Not to instill fear. Islamic terrorists are training (allegedly) in germ warfare: biological agents including polio, rabies, TB and avian flu, bacterial food poisoning and rare tropical and Middle Eastern illnesses.

    • If this is so well known, why tell us? Just fix it.

    In the background and not advising or announcing to "terrorists" the plans to combat the "threat". But it's that 'catch-it-all' al-Qaeda. Again. No doubt when recruiting scientists and students (offering to fund course fees in exchange for newly acquired expertise) al-Qaeda identifies itself. Could be anybody. Even MI5. If it's true, of course.

    The intelligence factor is missing: "[the West will experience] far worse than anything it has seen" if Washington did not change its policies towards Muslim states. Clearly, real influence is arrogantly assumed.

    Watch the skies?

    Look a little lower

    Fear And Respect

    The modern concept of respect is perceived as grabbing attention through fear.

    Give me a gun and I will get 'respect'. What a ridiculous concept.

    The complete opposite makes more sense.

    But ridiculous or not, the perception makes it lethally real.

    Wealth And Power

    Appropriation Conveys the illusion of amassing wealth. Nothing much changes, just the mask.

    Wealth + power = control

    The control of resourses. Barter. Trade. Favours. Corruption. Money. Different masks, but perceived success. A truer description of these morons is of the bully. Ineffective and pathetic unless you succumb to a perception of virtual influence. Absolutely contemptible.

    Control is absolute through money. The wealthy (slave-owners) have money and the poor (slaves) do not.

    Many of the so-called 'middle-rich' (aka - the 'poor' and an invention of the rich - DA) 'own' debt. The wealthy 'own' money.

    Very simple

    It remains a peculiarity why some people get their 'kicks' out of controlling others, excluding any acquired financial benefit (can't do that! It's a major driver - DA). This suggests a natural genetic trait whereby it is normal human behaviour to desire control and by definition anyone who has no need to control must be considered rather odd. For some to control (minority) there must be those who are controlled (majority).

    This describes a perverse logic.

    Honours And Control

    Honour Influence dressed up as perceived achievement. Control Throw rewards at the easily influenced to get more control for nothing and all the 'cost' is passed on to those being controlled. Totally unaware? No, but that's how they'd like it Them and us syndrome

    Beckham's Quest For More. Then Some More...

    So, Beckham could get a knighthood. Why? Pass - dreadful pun intentional. But clearing off to America? That's the bonus. Well, bon voyage. Please, don't come back. Clearly, he'll love the 'adulation' there. The land of the true sycophant. Money, money, money. And then some more. Money. That's all some people have. Not any idea of value. Just more money. And still some more. It's the ticket to... make more money. But making money is all illusion. One amasses 'wealth' at the cost of the many. The survival of the one at the demise of the many on the altar of greed.

    Rather pathetic. Just don't come back. And...

    ...apparently, he's quite a good footballer (yawn, zzzzz....), but he's also comfortable about being forgotten in his pursuit of wealth. Incidentally, that's Blair's real advantage: being forgotten, but making shedloads of dosh in the process. That's almost paradoxical.

    ...make sure Victoria goes as well.

    This is inevitable: if it's Sir David, then it has to be Lord Blair (when he eventually goes) to the US. Couldn't be anything less.

    I can just about imagine these two talking together, but unlikely. Blair is arrogant and David Beckham is somewhat... different.

    The sophisticated 'Two Jabs' Prescott and Blair? Well. That's different, too.

    Who cares, anyway? They'll be gone.

    Won't they?