Saturday, August 17, 2013
17 Facts For Any Occasion
1 - The world economy is growing at 4.8% a year, if you exclude the EU then it is a 6 1/2% average.
2 - 28 gate proves the BBC will lie, censor and slant, for years on end if necessary, to promote scare stories they know to be, in whole or part, a lie, because that is undeniably what they did.
3 - If this country had been allowed to reach merely the average growth rate of the world during Labour's 13 years we would all be, on average 48% better off.[1.03^13]. If only since the Tories we would all be 16% better off [1.05^3]. Either way, with current spending, we would not have a problem with the deficit.
4 - The LabNatConDem parties have, since 1983, deliberately and unnecessarily killed 1 million British people through fuel poverty.
5 - The EU costs us, conservatively, £150 bn a year.
6 - The LNT theory simply cannot be called a scientific theory since there was no scientific evidence for it when it was introduced 50 years ago and after half a century of diligent search not only is there still no evidence for it but there is quite a bit for the opposite theiry, known as hormesis, that low level radiation is beneficial to health. Every scientist in the field knows this and when pressed, most will admit it.
7 - Poverty means lacking wealth. The only way to reduce poverty is by increasing wealth. The ruling classes have attempted to redefine poverty to mean inequality but that is a dishonest abuse of the language. Most "anti-poverty campaigners" are actually campaigning for things that would reduce growth and they are thus, provably, pro-poverty campaigners.The only true anti-poverty campaigners are those who promote economic growth and the only successful way to promote growth is by market freedom.
8 - Our poliice dissected thousands of people, while they were still alive, to provide organs for western hospitals. All politicians, like Blair, who were in command authority when this happened are personally as guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity as Hitler was over Auschwitz.
9 - Economic Freedom + Cheap Energy = Wealth
10 - Nuclear is at least hundreds and arguably 10s of thousands of times safer than any other form of power generation.
11 - We can have commercial space industry, with unlimited energy and resources, and consequently an economic boom far beyond anything ever known in human history, able to make the entire planet rich, any time our politicians are willing to allow it.
12 - Global warming stopped 18 years ago. That is longer than the period of warming from 1979 to 1995 on which the fraud was based. There is no evidence whatsoever for catastrophic global warming.
13 - Having asked 10s of thousands of politicicians, journalists, climate pseudo-scientists and activists from David Cameron, the Head of the Royal Society and Hansen down, I can say with certainty that not one of them can name a single scientist, anywhere in the world who says CAGW is true and isn't ultimately being paid by the state. I have found a couple who claimed to be such scientists themselves but turned out to be lying about their paymasters. Nor doe there seem to be any senior activist in the eco-fascist movement who workd for a living for somebody other than the unwilling taxpayer)
14 - Al Quaeda was created by the western powers in Afghanistan; it was hired & armed by them to comit genocide for them in Bosnia and Kosovo; it was hitred and armed by them in Libya; it is being hired and armed by them in Syria. It is and alwys has been a iseful tool for committing atrocities that western governments actually want. The "war on terror" is and always has been a fraud by our own Fascist politicians to keep us scared and obedient.
15 - Most charities and political activists whose scare stories and calls for more government controls of our lives (eg friends of the Earth, WWF, ASH, 90% of "environmental" charities, anti-smoking campaigners, the gay marriage campaign, "Non-Governmental Organisations", the BBC, Channel 4, most "health" and "anti-poverty" campaigners etc etc are actually false front government funded fakecharities. The government spends about £60 billion, half the deficit, simply on advertising false scare stories designed to increase their power and on direct departmental advertising. ll this money, naturally, is spent promoting things most people don't want (otherwise they wouldn't have to spend it).
16 - Anybody who claims to be in favour of growth but pushes policies keeping us in recession or claims to be against censorship but supports censorship or against fuel poverty but supports windmill subsidy is, by definition, a corrupt liar whose word cannot ever be trusted, without strong corroberation, on any other subject either. Almost all Lab/Nat/Con/Dem politicians are in these categories.
17 - If anybody promoting the Precautionary Principle really believed in it, rather than using it as an argument because their pure Luddism is not attractive to normal people, they would have to oppose windfarms, whose low frequency sound is much more dangerous than any low level radiation could be, far more seriously than they do nuclear plants. Of course none of them do.
The politicians whornalists (particularly in the government owned BBC "Ministry of Truth") and government paid activists all know this - at least they have been informed of it and don't deny it.
2 - 28 gate proves the BBC will lie, censor and slant, for years on end if necessary, to promote scare stories they know to be, in whole or part, a lie, because that is undeniably what they did.
3 - If this country had been allowed to reach merely the average growth rate of the world during Labour's 13 years we would all be, on average 48% better off.[1.03^13]. If only since the Tories we would all be 16% better off [1.05^3]. Either way, with current spending, we would not have a problem with the deficit.
4 - The LabNatConDem parties have, since 1983, deliberately and unnecessarily killed 1 million British people through fuel poverty.
5 - The EU costs us, conservatively, £150 bn a year.
6 - The LNT theory simply cannot be called a scientific theory since there was no scientific evidence for it when it was introduced 50 years ago and after half a century of diligent search not only is there still no evidence for it but there is quite a bit for the opposite theiry, known as hormesis, that low level radiation is beneficial to health. Every scientist in the field knows this and when pressed, most will admit it.
7 - Poverty means lacking wealth. The only way to reduce poverty is by increasing wealth. The ruling classes have attempted to redefine poverty to mean inequality but that is a dishonest abuse of the language. Most "anti-poverty campaigners" are actually campaigning for things that would reduce growth and they are thus, provably, pro-poverty campaigners.The only true anti-poverty campaigners are those who promote economic growth and the only successful way to promote growth is by market freedom.
8 - Our poliice dissected thousands of people, while they were still alive, to provide organs for western hospitals. All politicians, like Blair, who were in command authority when this happened are personally as guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity as Hitler was over Auschwitz.
9 - Economic Freedom + Cheap Energy = Wealth
10 - Nuclear is at least hundreds and arguably 10s of thousands of times safer than any other form of power generation.
11 - We can have commercial space industry, with unlimited energy and resources, and consequently an economic boom far beyond anything ever known in human history, able to make the entire planet rich, any time our politicians are willing to allow it.
12 - Global warming stopped 18 years ago. That is longer than the period of warming from 1979 to 1995 on which the fraud was based. There is no evidence whatsoever for catastrophic global warming.
13 - Having asked 10s of thousands of politicicians, journalists, climate pseudo-scientists and activists from David Cameron, the Head of the Royal Society and Hansen down, I can say with certainty that not one of them can name a single scientist, anywhere in the world who says CAGW is true and isn't ultimately being paid by the state. I have found a couple who claimed to be such scientists themselves but turned out to be lying about their paymasters. Nor doe there seem to be any senior activist in the eco-fascist movement who workd for a living for somebody other than the unwilling taxpayer)
14 - Al Quaeda was created by the western powers in Afghanistan; it was hired & armed by them to comit genocide for them in Bosnia and Kosovo; it was hitred and armed by them in Libya; it is being hired and armed by them in Syria. It is and alwys has been a iseful tool for committing atrocities that western governments actually want. The "war on terror" is and always has been a fraud by our own Fascist politicians to keep us scared and obedient.
15 - Most charities and political activists whose scare stories and calls for more government controls of our lives (eg friends of the Earth, WWF, ASH, 90% of "environmental" charities, anti-smoking campaigners, the gay marriage campaign, "Non-Governmental Organisations", the BBC, Channel 4, most "health" and "anti-poverty" campaigners etc etc are actually false front government funded fakecharities. The government spends about £60 billion, half the deficit, simply on advertising false scare stories designed to increase their power and on direct departmental advertising. ll this money, naturally, is spent promoting things most people don't want (otherwise they wouldn't have to spend it).
16 - Anybody who claims to be in favour of growth but pushes policies keeping us in recession or claims to be against censorship but supports censorship or against fuel poverty but supports windmill subsidy is, by definition, a corrupt liar whose word cannot ever be trusted, without strong corroberation, on any other subject either. Almost all Lab/Nat/Con/Dem politicians are in these categories.
17 - If anybody promoting the Precautionary Principle really believed in it, rather than using it as an argument because their pure Luddism is not attractive to normal people, they would have to oppose windfarms, whose low frequency sound is much more dangerous than any low level radiation could be, far more seriously than they do nuclear plants. Of course none of them do.
The politicians whornalists (particularly in the government owned BBC "Ministry of Truth") and government paid activists all know this - at least they have been informed of it and don't deny it.
Labels: eco-fascism, Errata, Fixing the economy
Friday, August 16, 2013
Dear BBC - Are You The 2nd Most Totalitarian Broadcaster in the World?
How totalitarian is the BBC? The problem is this isn't really measurable except by a crude measure of airtime (as I did when I showed the Greens get 40 times more coverage per vote than UKIP). This thus proves the BBC 39/40ths corrupt or 97.5%
But this only applies to mentions of the parties - a "news" piece on UKIP which either has no UKIP spokesman or in which they are asked "prove you aren't racist" when other parties are given full freedom to put their case and never, ever, accused of being war criminals (a true accusation for the LabConDems as the one against UKIP clearly isn't). If UKIP were accused of such on every interview (an exaggeration) and the LabConDems were asked the equivalent as much as every 100th time one of their members were interviewed (a gross exaggeration) this would make the BBC 99.9975% totalitarian fascists.
But there are some markers:
New "news" :
"UKIP treasurer Stuart Wheeler has denied being sexist by saying women were "nowhere near as good as men" at games like chess, bridge and poker."
This is a significant news item from a BBC that has yet to stop censoring Andrew Neather’s revelations about Labour’s secret immigration open door policy that ‘I happen to think this brief glimpse of the truth was the most important political revelation of our time."
So is Wheeler's statement more important than Neather's. if not the BBC's total censorship makes calling them merely 99.9975% corrupt cannot be overstating.
There is another aspect to this. Nobody is seriously denying that Wheeler's statement is true. The objection is entirely that it is "politically incorrect". The origin of that phrase is worth pursuing. It comes from Lenin who deliberately created it as a way of delineating the limits of free speech. Which is precisely how the BBC and their allies use it.
The BBC may not have the Marxist underpinnings that Lenin had, indeed I am quite sure they are not motivated by any such misplaced idealism, but they are provably tactically his equals in their commitment to totalitarianism (as is anybody who uses PCness as a total alternative to debate).
The entire coverage of Geoffrey Bloom's speech, which is generally agreed to have been an attempt to open debate on a major political issue on which the vast majority agree he was right, was on his wording not being sufficiently Leninist/PC.
Another example that proves the BBC to be literally Stalinist is 28 gate. We know that the BBC had deliberately lied for 6 (now 7) years about having scientific support for their censorship of climate dissidents. Compare this with the very similar, if less damaging, case of Lysenkoism in the USSR where their media supported a "scientific consensus" (at least among government employed scientists in the Soviet zone) with almost as much enthusiasm and lack of scientific principles as the BBC have for the equally evidence free CAGW. In the Soviet journalists' defence there was less specific proof of fraud in Lysenko's "experiments" than in the IPCC's and it is possible many journalists fooled themselves as well as others whereas almost every department of the BBC was involved in 28 gate, so it is impossible any serious journalist there was not aware of the fraud.
A more minor case is this, from Al Jazera, of the BBC taking a photo of pro-government Iranians and calling it an anti-government demo. Stalin also used such photographic fraud.
Dear BBC,
This is from my blog today. I would like to ask, under the FoI or otherwise, whether the BBC has any factual basis for disputing any part of it including for altering the arithmetical calculation that the BBC is at least 99.9975% corrupt, totalitarian and committed to censorship or is in any way less committed to the tactics of the late Vlad Illych Lenin (though not to his ideological underpinnings)
If not I assume that, with the possible exception of North Korea's this would make the BBC, who control most of British broadcast news (above 70%) to be a legal monopoly, the most totalitarian broadcaster in the world.
Bearing in mind the statistical evidence of the close correlation between state control of broadcasting and state authoritarianism, corruption, economic failure and even poor state health services, does the BBC have any counter information that would weaken an assumption that this totalitarian lying has played a major role in such events as this country being the most economically unsuccessful sizable English speaking country or the South Staffordshire hospital deaths going unnoticed until too late?
But this only applies to mentions of the parties - a "news" piece on UKIP which either has no UKIP spokesman or in which they are asked "prove you aren't racist" when other parties are given full freedom to put their case and never, ever, accused of being war criminals (a true accusation for the LabConDems as the one against UKIP clearly isn't). If UKIP were accused of such on every interview (an exaggeration) and the LabConDems were asked the equivalent as much as every 100th time one of their members were interviewed (a gross exaggeration) this would make the BBC 99.9975% totalitarian fascists.
But there are some markers:
New "news" :
"UKIP treasurer Stuart Wheeler has denied being sexist by saying women were "nowhere near as good as men" at games like chess, bridge and poker."
This is a significant news item from a BBC that has yet to stop censoring Andrew Neather’s revelations about Labour’s secret immigration open door policy that ‘I happen to think this brief glimpse of the truth was the most important political revelation of our time."
So is Wheeler's statement more important than Neather's. if not the BBC's total censorship makes calling them merely 99.9975% corrupt cannot be overstating.
There is another aspect to this. Nobody is seriously denying that Wheeler's statement is true. The objection is entirely that it is "politically incorrect". The origin of that phrase is worth pursuing. It comes from Lenin who deliberately created it as a way of delineating the limits of free speech. Which is precisely how the BBC and their allies use it.
The BBC may not have the Marxist underpinnings that Lenin had, indeed I am quite sure they are not motivated by any such misplaced idealism, but they are provably tactically his equals in their commitment to totalitarianism (as is anybody who uses PCness as a total alternative to debate).
The entire coverage of Geoffrey Bloom's speech, which is generally agreed to have been an attempt to open debate on a major political issue on which the vast majority agree he was right, was on his wording not being sufficiently Leninist/PC.
Another example that proves the BBC to be literally Stalinist is 28 gate. We know that the BBC had deliberately lied for 6 (now 7) years about having scientific support for their censorship of climate dissidents. Compare this with the very similar, if less damaging, case of Lysenkoism in the USSR where their media supported a "scientific consensus" (at least among government employed scientists in the Soviet zone) with almost as much enthusiasm and lack of scientific principles as the BBC have for the equally evidence free CAGW. In the Soviet journalists' defence there was less specific proof of fraud in Lysenko's "experiments" than in the IPCC's and it is possible many journalists fooled themselves as well as others whereas almost every department of the BBC was involved in 28 gate, so it is impossible any serious journalist there was not aware of the fraud.
A more minor case is this, from Al Jazera, of the BBC taking a photo of pro-government Iranians and calling it an anti-government demo. Stalin also used such photographic fraud.
Dear BBC,
This is from my blog today. I would like to ask, under the FoI or otherwise, whether the BBC has any factual basis for disputing any part of it including for altering the arithmetical calculation that the BBC is at least 99.9975% corrupt, totalitarian and committed to censorship or is in any way less committed to the tactics of the late Vlad Illych Lenin (though not to his ideological underpinnings)
If not I assume that, with the possible exception of North Korea's this would make the BBC, who control most of British broadcast news (above 70%) to be a legal monopoly, the most totalitarian broadcaster in the world.
Bearing in mind the statistical evidence of the close correlation between state control of broadcasting and state authoritarianism, corruption, economic failure and even poor state health services, does the BBC have any counter information that would weaken an assumption that this totalitarian lying has played a major role in such events as this country being the most economically unsuccessful sizable English speaking country or the South Staffordshire hospital deaths going unnoticed until too late?
Labels: BBC, Media, Rise of modern fascism
Thursday, August 15, 2013
If The Eco-Fascists Really Wanted Low CO2 Rather Than Going Back To The Middle Ages This Is What They Would Want
If we actually want to subsidise "alternative" fuels and there is a case for doing so, the way, as with most such things, would be X-Prizes.
Give substantial prizes for technological progress that reduces to cost of generating capacity or increases its efficiency (limited to low CO2 if we must).
Had 10% of what is put into subsidising windmills had been put into that we would probably, by now, have solar power efficiency increased to make it competitive, "cold fusion" commercially, ocean thermal working competitively at least in the tropics and solar power satellites, all CO2 free except ocean thermal which, because it stimulates plankton growth, is CO2 negative power.
Inspired by a post on Bishop Hill
The big cost in all these things is the day to day building and running not the basic research. Of course if the ecofascists really believed CO2 was a problem they would have been the most enthusiastic supporters of nuclear forever, since it is CO2 free.
Provably they don't believe their own scare and provably what they actually want is the roll back of human progress and a return to, or at least in the direction of, the Middle Ages.
Give substantial prizes for technological progress that reduces to cost of generating capacity or increases its efficiency (limited to low CO2 if we must).
Had 10% of what is put into subsidising windmills had been put into that we would probably, by now, have solar power efficiency increased to make it competitive, "cold fusion" commercially, ocean thermal working competitively at least in the tropics and solar power satellites, all CO2 free except ocean thermal which, because it stimulates plankton growth, is CO2 negative power.
Inspired by a post on Bishop Hill
The big cost in all these things is the day to day building and running not the basic research. Of course if the ecofascists really believed CO2 was a problem they would have been the most enthusiastic supporters of nuclear forever, since it is CO2 free.
Provably they don't believe their own scare and provably what they actually want is the roll back of human progress and a return to, or at least in the direction of, the Middle Ages.
Labels: eco-fascism, Fixing the economy, X-Prizes
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
The Great Victorian Way
This was the Great Victorian Way designed by Sir Joseph Paxton in 1855 as a mixed shopping mall and 10 mile circular bypass for central London.
It wasn't built because they didn't have money for both it and a sewerage system and decided, I guess rightly, that they needed water more.
It would have cost £34 million then which equals £3,100 million today. Which comes to £58,700 per foot. That looks pretty good when the Glasgow motorway extension came in at £26,000 a foot.
Those were the days when big engineering projects using new technology weren't automatically stifled. OK the world was much poorer then and governments only collected under 10% of gdp so they ultimately couldn't afford everything but at least they thought big.
Imagine what Victorian London would have been like if it had gone ahead. As it was London was the capital city of the world but this would have been so much bigger.
Labels: Big Engineering, History, Science/technology
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
The Bad News - Britain in Last Place - The Good News - Lots of Room to Improve
Yesterday I took advice about the English language being a factor in the growth of the world's fastest growing cities. Not surprising since so much of the world's communication is in English that it should provide an advantage. For example Singapore deliberately decided to promote English in its education system, though Chinese was native language of most people, for that reason.
So lets look at how well Britain is doing in terms, not of the whole world, but of the English speaking world. This is from the bottom end of Wikipedia's list of growth for 2012:
163 Ireland 0.9%
172 Trinidad 0.4%
175 United Kingdom 0.2%
177 Cook Islands 0.1%
177 Jamaica 0.1%
181 Barbados 0.0%
196 St Kitts and Nevis -0.9%
214 Bermuda -3.5% (2011 est)
219 Anguilla -8.5 (2009 est)
Hardly surprising that postage stamp countries should be at both ends of the list - they are so small that they will have a far larger random statistical variability.
Excluding them Britain is the worst economically performing country in the world, with the runner up being Ireland, a fellow EU member, about whose performance we have, over the last few years, been scathing (& whom our media ignored for the previous 2 decades of 7% annual growth)
This may look pretty pitiful, and it is, but it also reinforces my opinion that, with world average growth of 4.8%, non-EU growth of 6% and Commonwealth average growth of 7.3% it would take no great effort to reach the average, or surpass it. I don't think that with this evidence anybody could seriously dispute that it isn't the "world recession" or international bankers or any of those, it is entirely the fault of our political class backed by the BBC state propaganda service (who ALWAYS CENSOR how well the rest of the world, outside the EU is doing). All that is required for that is for politicians to get out of the way, let the free market be free, end Luddite banning or making artificially expensive our shale gas, nuclear power, housing etc. etc., quit the EU and revel in our good luck of speaking English and having the world's highest ratio of scientific citations to population of any sizable country.
To do much better than average my 24 point programme for growth has never been seriously disputed.
So lets look at how well Britain is doing in terms, not of the whole world, but of the English speaking world. This is from the bottom end of Wikipedia's list of growth for 2012:
163 Ireland 0.9%
172 Trinidad 0.4%
175 United Kingdom 0.2%
177 Cook Islands 0.1%
177 Jamaica 0.1%
181 Barbados 0.0%
196 St Kitts and Nevis -0.9%
214 Bermuda -3.5% (2011 est)
219 Anguilla -8.5 (2009 est)
Hardly surprising that postage stamp countries should be at both ends of the list - they are so small that they will have a far larger random statistical variability.
Excluding them Britain is the worst economically performing country in the world, with the runner up being Ireland, a fellow EU member, about whose performance we have, over the last few years, been scathing (& whom our media ignored for the previous 2 decades of 7% annual growth)
This may look pretty pitiful, and it is, but it also reinforces my opinion that, with world average growth of 4.8%, non-EU growth of 6% and Commonwealth average growth of 7.3% it would take no great effort to reach the average, or surpass it. I don't think that with this evidence anybody could seriously dispute that it isn't the "world recession" or international bankers or any of those, it is entirely the fault of our political class backed by the BBC state propaganda service (who ALWAYS CENSOR how well the rest of the world, outside the EU is doing). All that is required for that is for politicians to get out of the way, let the free market be free, end Luddite banning or making artificially expensive our shale gas, nuclear power, housing etc. etc., quit the EU and revel in our good luck of speaking English and having the world's highest ratio of scientific citations to population of any sizable country.
To do much better than average my 24 point programme for growth has never been seriously disputed.
Labels: British politics, economic growth, economics
Monday, August 12, 2013
Conspiracy Theories Can Be True But They Still Don't Get Reported
This article fits very nicely with the heading of this blog - Mencken's the way to keep power is to "frighten the populace with an endless series of scare stories, all of them false". It is an extensive listing of such frauds from
"70 BC Rome was still a Republic.....
Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Sparticus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Sparticus had already defeated in battle. But Sparticus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Sparticus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom.
Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Sparticus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Sparticus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that Sparticus had no choice but to march on Rome.
Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor"
to, in the Clinton era
Meanwhile, back in Kosovo, stories about genocide and atrocities were flooding the media (in time to distract from the Sudanese embarrassments), just as lurid and sensational and as it turns out often just as fictional as most of William Randolph Hearst's stories of atrocities against the Cubans.
I assume the article was written before Blair's "Iraqi WMDs can hit us in 45 minutes" let alone Cameron's "we have to stop Al Quaeda in Mali" before they drive from Timbuktoo to London.
A depressing lesson in the dishonesty of government and the willingness of people to believe them just one more time.
This other article from The Truthseeker I take with less certainty but am willing to believe the Frankfurt School movement has played a part, possibly a significant part, in the intellectual promotion of political correctness and the culture of promoting failure across western countries. It was once said that "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of mankind" and in general I would rather have poets doing that job than academic philosophers. Of course given the option I would give the job to science fiction fans, but it is conceivable I am biased.
"Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s director from 1923-1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and he believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research. When Hitler came to power, the Institut was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and migrated to major US universities—Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley.
The School included among its members the 1960s guru of the New Left Herbert Marcuse (denounced by Pope Paul VI for his theory of liberation which ‘opens the way for licence cloaked as liberty’), Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, the popular writer Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and Jurgen Habermas - possibly the School’s most influential representative.
Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.
To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the School recommended (among other things):
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family "
AllAll in all I'm going to say http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/oldsite/index.asp is worth checking out. Most of it is wrong and there is an unpleasant trend of anti-Judaism but enough is both seriously informative and not reported by our MSM to be worth checking.
"70 BC Rome was still a Republic.....
Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Sparticus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Sparticus had already defeated in battle. But Sparticus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Sparticus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom.
Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Sparticus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Sparticus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that Sparticus had no choice but to march on Rome.
Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor"
to, in the Clinton era
Meanwhile, back in Kosovo, stories about genocide and atrocities were flooding the media (in time to distract from the Sudanese embarrassments), just as lurid and sensational and as it turns out often just as fictional as most of William Randolph Hearst's stories of atrocities against the Cubans.
I assume the article was written before Blair's "Iraqi WMDs can hit us in 45 minutes" let alone Cameron's "we have to stop Al Quaeda in Mali" before they drive from Timbuktoo to London.
A depressing lesson in the dishonesty of government and the willingness of people to believe them just one more time.
This other article from The Truthseeker I take with less certainty but am willing to believe the Frankfurt School movement has played a part, possibly a significant part, in the intellectual promotion of political correctness and the culture of promoting failure across western countries. It was once said that "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of mankind" and in general I would rather have poets doing that job than academic philosophers. Of course given the option I would give the job to science fiction fans, but it is conceivable I am biased.
"Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s director from 1923-1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and he believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research. When Hitler came to power, the Institut was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and migrated to major US universities—Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley.
The School included among its members the 1960s guru of the New Left Herbert Marcuse (denounced by Pope Paul VI for his theory of liberation which ‘opens the way for licence cloaked as liberty’), Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, the popular writer Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and Jurgen Habermas - possibly the School’s most influential representative.
Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.
To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the School recommended (among other things):
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family "
AllAll in all I'm going to say http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/oldsite/index.asp is worth checking out. Most of it is wrong and there is an unpleasant trend of anti-Judaism but enough is both seriously informative and not reported by our MSM to be worth checking.
Labels: conspiracies, Errata, Rise of modern fascism
Sunday, August 11, 2013
World's Successful Cities
John Redwood has posted on this. His bias (or perhaps the negative of my bias) is towards London which is, by most standards, doing well. My negative being that it is a capital city so it is no surprise that it does better than its hinterland.
"The world’s economic advance is increasingly spearheaded by the great cities of the world. Europe only has two of them, London and Paris (and there is Moscow). The USA has several, whilst rising Asia is pitting its traditionally successful city states against a new tide of fast growing cities in India, China and elsewhere.
If we look at the OECD list of richest regions in the world as measured by GDP per head, it is led by London (Inner west) at a mighty $152,116 a head. The District of Columbia around Washington USA comes second, at $131,343. Paris is the best of the continental cities, at a very successful $76,146 for the city as a whole. Edinburgh appears high up with $49,970, parts of the UK Home counties do well and Inner London east is there at $47,470.
...... To succeed a world city needs to encompass a population of around 10 million in the city proper and close surroundings. It needs to be very open to talent and money from outside. It needs to have premium properties available for foreigners to buy. It needs a great ambience, plenty of good high specification modern commercial space, and preferably some iconic older buildings and symbols of the city. It has to have great food, great drama.
My comment:
"Unfortunately of the cities you single out all of them – London, Paris, Washington & Edinburgh are capital cities, ie magnets to top civil servants and the leaders of large companies that want to schmooze them. Washington in particular has no raison d’etre outwith government. This is not a model that has general applications.
From this list of the top 25 I have extracted those that are not capitals of hinterlands
http://www.aluxurytravelblog.com/2013/05/15/the-wealthiest-cities-in-the-world/
(Singapore is capital only of itself)
2. New York – 389,000
5. Frankfurt – 217,000
7. Osaka – 190,000
8. Hong Kong – 187,000
9. Shanghai – 166,000
10. Singapore – 157,000
12. Munich – 130,000
14. Los Angeles – 126,000
15. Toronto – 118,000
16. Chicago – 107,000
17. Sydney – 104,000
18. Houston – 103,000
What do they mostly have in common – fairly entrepreneurial, good rule of law mostly ports, perhaps tending towards good weather but not overwhelmingly so, several but not all have famous opera houses or museums, ethnic peace though not homogeneity, all cities people have heard of, cleanliness.
If anybody can think of other common factors I would be interested to hear of them.
When looking to see how a city can be successful it is worth removing the most common feature (being a capital) to see what common features remain.
This is not yet developing a formula for making a city/region/Scotland particularly successful but it does point to some factors that would help. I'm not sure I agree with John's assessment that a 10 million population is required, because I am aiming at a region that satisfies its population's needs not necessarily the needs of would be immigrants, but again this may be that my prejudices are different from his.
Overall free marketism, which includes being free to build; peace; quality entertainment; clean streets; and some iconic architecture. We could do that.
"The world’s economic advance is increasingly spearheaded by the great cities of the world. Europe only has two of them, London and Paris (and there is Moscow). The USA has several, whilst rising Asia is pitting its traditionally successful city states against a new tide of fast growing cities in India, China and elsewhere.
If we look at the OECD list of richest regions in the world as measured by GDP per head, it is led by London (Inner west) at a mighty $152,116 a head. The District of Columbia around Washington USA comes second, at $131,343. Paris is the best of the continental cities, at a very successful $76,146 for the city as a whole. Edinburgh appears high up with $49,970, parts of the UK Home counties do well and Inner London east is there at $47,470.
...... To succeed a world city needs to encompass a population of around 10 million in the city proper and close surroundings. It needs to be very open to talent and money from outside. It needs to have premium properties available for foreigners to buy. It needs a great ambience, plenty of good high specification modern commercial space, and preferably some iconic older buildings and symbols of the city. It has to have great food, great drama.
My comment:
"Unfortunately of the cities you single out all of them – London, Paris, Washington & Edinburgh are capital cities, ie magnets to top civil servants and the leaders of large companies that want to schmooze them. Washington in particular has no raison d’etre outwith government. This is not a model that has general applications.
From this list of the top 25 I have extracted those that are not capitals of hinterlands
http://www.aluxurytravelblog.com/2013/05/15/the-wealthiest-cities-in-the-world/
(Singapore is capital only of itself)
2. New York – 389,000
5. Frankfurt – 217,000
7. Osaka – 190,000
8. Hong Kong – 187,000
9. Shanghai – 166,000
10. Singapore – 157,000
12. Munich – 130,000
14. Los Angeles – 126,000
15. Toronto – 118,000
16. Chicago – 107,000
17. Sydney – 104,000
18. Houston – 103,000
What do they mostly have in common – fairly entrepreneurial, good rule of law mostly ports, perhaps tending towards good weather but not overwhelmingly so, several but not all have famous opera houses or museums, ethnic peace though not homogeneity, all cities people have heard of, cleanliness.
If anybody can think of other common factors I would be interested to hear of them.
When looking to see how a city can be successful it is worth removing the most common feature (being a capital) to see what common features remain.
This is not yet developing a formula for making a city/region/Scotland particularly successful but it does point to some factors that would help. I'm not sure I agree with John's assessment that a 10 million population is required, because I am aiming at a region that satisfies its population's needs not necessarily the needs of would be immigrants, but again this may be that my prejudices are different from his.
Overall free marketism, which includes being free to build; peace; quality entertainment; clean streets; and some iconic architecture. We could do that.
Labels: economics, Glasgow, International politics
