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.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Government Priorities

The disparity between 'priorities' is very difficult to understand. But consider the potential for incoming profit as measured against outgoing losses. An example is the current flooding issues. The capital cost of providing planned defenses against future certainties, that will continue for evermore, seems impossible to manage. Arguments concerning the cost outlay of providing and storing equipment for the occasional severe snow conditions do not stand up against a one-off multi £bn event of a known start-date and duration. The cost of a single 16-day event is no problem: the...

It's quite an obscene cost comparison, yet it is planned. The perceived prestige of hosting is parasitical in that the only motive that drives such a non-affordable debt acquisition is more 'growth'. And ahead by 5 years.

Growth defines future 

Potential fortunes to be made are always considered as the very positive priority, but any outlay that will benefit millions forever, and a major responsibility of government to protect citizens of this country, is a very negative cost burden. And avoidable until too little, too late has to be addressed.

Money is very difficult to 'conjure up', when there is no profit potential.

Taxpayer-funding without asking the taxpayer and lottery fund 'raids' are all possible when the public doesn't benefit. So, how does the public benefit from being the host for the Olympic Games?

Essentially bankrupt a nation for decades. And where does the money go?


Friday, July 13, 2007

Tricky Single Leader

The whole concept of having a single 'leader' is a corrupt idea. The days of the likes of Ghandi are over. The ethic these days has become much more 'transparent' that some of those with influence and power create advantage for themselves. Not all, but some. It certainly seems this way. How a single person can control an entire nation by their own desires and belief is hopelessly ridiculous. A collective body makes policy. This is imagined to be parliament, but influence is made by lobbyists and vested interest. And the shadowy unknowns and unaccountables. The general population does not factor into the equation.

The irony is that the people 'elect' the few into influential positions where damage to the those who elected them can be done. The elected few control the many who put them there. Life gets worse. Access to public money is then 'freely' given to spend on all sorts of ludicrous ideas as 'experiments'. Using public money to try out 'private' ideas. Laws are made to make the whole scenario easier. The voters then do not have a choice. For several years. Disastrous actions can (and do) occur. But all technically endorsed by the voters who 'asked for it'. Literally.

The use of the word transparent is a cynical device. It suggests uncovering issues and examining and discussing them in public. Blatant misdirection is the real objective: be guided to look in one direction when the 'trick' occurs in another. Unnoticed. To imagine that government is becoming more honest covers up the opposite. Using misdirection to remain undetected.


The idea of the classic 'sting' reveals itself: never to even know you've been tricked. It's so easy. It's transparent, but paradoxically it's so clear it cannot be seen. Like a spotless toughened-glass window. An impenetratable barrier that is 'invisible'. Comments like " me..." are commonly uttered by liars. It's almost a guarantee that what is about to be heard is a lie. Honest people do not even consider saying this type of comment as they do not expect to be disbelieved. Liars will invariably prefix an untruthful statement.

A parallel exists between the UK 'electoral system' and Zimbabwe 'electoral system' in that there are those that support New Labour's concept of democracy and a high proportion of those in Zimbabwe who (allegedly) support Mugabe. Rich and poor exist in both societies.