Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Einstein admitted there is no relationship between maths and reality. The two are distinct. My lying eyes tell me that the train crashed into the mountain. Not so says the Einstotle, ‘It is also true to say dat dee mountain crashed into dee train’ he assures me. ‘Relativity’, he condescendingly informs me, smiling, ‘has proven it my little mensche’. The polite and right response is to break out the white strait-jacket, apply it to the Einstotle, and quietly usher him into a small room in a pleasantly located sanitorium and lock the door.
....Einstein ingested Lorentz whole except for the bones and joints around the aether and the implied kinetic energy of ‘space’. He removed these and refined the equations around moving objects with no absolutes. It was one thing to say that ‘rods shrank’ (or material pace Fitzgerald) as they moved through the aether with the Earth, even at the reasonably slow pace of 30 km / second. However, to be consistent, Lorentz understood that clocks running through the aether must also be affected and must therefore ‘tick’ more slowly by the same factor that made the rods shrink.
When Relativity was first proposed in 1905, almost immediately, many perceptive scientists and mathematicians noticed the tautological nature of Einstein’s calculus. The equations themselves are circular and of little value. It is not hard to spot and is explained below. As part of the author’s quotidian existence he is involved with tensor calculus equations deployed in data analysis. He knows full well that you can create complex tensor and field equations that no one understands, to generate a desired output, or parse the data in a certain desired manner. This is often done to prove an apriori or confirmation bias.
A few posts have assessed the tautology of the transformation equations which is the foundation of Relativity. The Einstotle’s philosophy that everything, time and space, all objects, all grids, all motion, all aspects of life is ‘Relative’, was based on flawed maths which are called, ‘Einstein Field Equations’. As you would expect these are canonical ‘laws’ within ‘science’ and ‘education’. Memorise, regurgitate, repeat.
The cornerstone of General Relativity or ‘GTR’ is the Einstein field equations (EFE), which describes the unproven and frankly ridiculous curvature of spacetime in relation to the distribution of mass and energy within it. More here
Einstein and his gravitational ‘theorem’ do not explain anything. For Relativists, gravity is a wave oscillation found within the non-existent (unproven) ‘continous field’ of a merged space-time curvature. This theory has never explained why you are glued to your chair and not floating off somewhere.
Pace ‘The Science’, there are 3 ‘claims’ which ‘prove’ Relativity.
1. Bending of starlight around the Sun (absurd, this was known to medieval natural philosophers). See below.
2. Connected to #1, ‘gravitational redshifts’, sometimes called ‘gravitational lensing’. Redshifts are discussed on this substack, given they actually disprove Relativity. There is no factual evidence that a ‘redshift’ means a recessionary movement nor long ages.
3. Mercury’s perihelion (easily explained by both Newtonian maths (Gerber 1887) and the cosmic aether.
Let’s focus on #1 – the ‘bending of starlight’.
More here
Einstein received a Nobel prize in 1921, for his earlier work on photons and ‘Brownian motion’. He should probably have surmised that it was unlikely that space is ‘empty’ and equally unlikely that particles are not connected, even over a great distance. His own gravitational theorem, which is wrong, posits that gravity is a wave, generated by unknown forces (mass gravitational attraction), through the non-existent 4th dimension of space and time.
GTR by default must support some ‘gravitational spooky action at a distance’.
A Nobel winner for a discovery related to photons and light should have known about the many experiments in the 19th and early 20th centuries which demonstrated a spatial connection between particles.
One would expect that a Nobel winner in the area of photonic energy would have been cognisant of such physical experimental evidence and keen to reproduce such mechanical proofs or at least work with others to try to explain them.
However, as usual, there is no evidence that Einstotle or the cult of Relativity ever interacted with 20th century scientists and engineers who were engaged with electron and photon experimentation. Relativity is always a maths game.
More here
Einstein, or Einstotle, was a philosopher. He was not a scientist. He was not an engineer. He was not a practical builder of anything. You can’t even call him a physicist, given he never worked on ‘physical matter’ or mechanical projects. He was an abstract, abstruse Jewish-cosmological philosopher, who had some skills with calculus, and as the quote above states, ‘rigged’ his maths to prove his philosophy.
Einstotle’s math skills were pretty advanced but probably no more refined than the skills that many a university graduate in maths today possesses. If they were curious enough, current graduates could find the tautological errors in Einstein’s tensor calculus models. I can help them, working with tensor calculus as I do in building AI models. Most of these clever students never bother to inquire and just assume that the Einstotle was ‘right’. He was wrong on just about everything.
More here
One of the most risible aspects of the philosophy of Relativity, is its indiscriminate and peculiar use of an ‘Observer’. If you prove that light speed is variant (Sagnac, Michelson-Morley, Dayton Miller etc), the Relativist will simply declare that this is only true in ‘your reference frame’ by ‘your observer’.
If we move the reference frames and ‘observer’ around, then presto, everything is ‘relative’ and light speed is indeed finite. The entire philosophy of Relativity is based on an ‘observer’ viewing something at the absolute and finite speed of light (whatever that might actually be), hitting the retina. Relativity is composed of the following assumed postulates:
Light speed is the only absolute in the universe and its speed is finite (this is wrong and admitted as erroneous by Einstein). Relativity demands that every observer receives light hitting their retina at an absolute speed.
Virtually every idea and formula surrounding Special Relativity is based on ‘what the observer sees’ at this invariant (unchanging) speed of light as it hits the retina.
Each ‘observer’ sits in their own ‘reference frame’ or grid or map. You in your chair is one ‘frame’. Myself crushing my own chair is another frame. We both see the same event. We can both mathematically describe it from completely different observer viewpoints. I saw the cat eat the bird. You saw the bird fly into the cat’s mouth. We can use maths to prove both.
There is no absolute framework, just ‘relative frameworks’ and the only ‘absolute’ in Relativity is the speed of light in vacuo (vacuums don’t exist in space of course).
This observer-related reference frame is referred to as the ‘inertial frame of reference’. Newton’s First Law of Motion is also called the Law of Inertia.
More here
Einstein was asking his camp follower Zangger, if the rather noisy and violent disciples of Relativity, or ‘the colleagues’, might be willing to denounce light speed invariance? After all there is the great ‘obstacle’, namely that the invariance of light speed in Special Relativity and Einstein’s ‘new’ General Theory of Relativity (GTR) with its ‘gravitational aether’, are at odds and incompatible. Would the ‘colleagues’ be amenable to some sophistry to amend the gap, Einstotle asks Bishop Zangger?
By 1912, Einstein fully comprehended that he had to modify his claim about the constancy of the speed of light, since the c postulate (light speed invariance) of the Special Theory (STR) only applied in the absence of gravitational fields which is what GTR was proposing. Therefore, light speed invariance was wrong. A conundrum indeed. How to save his STR while elaborating the ‘mathematical proofs’ for his GTR? More here
We have written on this substack why General Relativity is wrong. We can pursue this a little further by looking at the Einstotle’s theory of gravity. It has been mentioned that gravity can bend light. This is not entirely accurate. Newton was closer to the truth. Newton believed that light refraction was due to gravity and other forces which would bend light. This is more apposite (see below). It also disproves General Relativity and the Einstotle’s belief that the aether was simply a ‘gravitational field’ devoid of energy, kinematics, or material (the aether exists, Einstein was wrong).
In 1915, Einstein developed his GTR, the geometric theory of gravitation that is the current description of gravity in modern physics. This is part of the standard model of science and is taught and emitted by the narrative owners and is found in all textbooks and AI.
GTR states that gravity is a geometric property of spacetime, in which the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present.
That at least is the current refinement. This is not really what the Einstotle actually proposed. The Einstotle had chosen his maths teacher Minkowski’s spacetime model to graphically show the gravitational forces implied in GTR. He wanted an aether of gravity devoid of energy, merging Space with Time into a 4th dimension where Time now becomes ‘relative’ and in effect disappears as a subjective measurement.
More here
Physicist Charles Lane Poor was one of many intelligent people in the 1920s, who was deeply fatigued by the Relativistic fantasy worlds created by Einstein and his cult. Poor’s 1922 work, "Gravitation versus Relativity," cuts a swathe through Relativity’s gravitational assertions. Poor explains in non-technical language, basic principles of gravity, while critically examining the astronomical evidence used to support Einstein's theory of Relativity. Poor discovered that there was no astronomical evidence to support any of Einstein’s gravitational claims. The same is still true today.
Einstotle’s Relativity Gravitation
The Special Theory of Relativity disavows an aether and says nothing about gravity. The General theory reinstates a gravitation-only aether and establishes a gravitational field. Einstein’s ‘theory’ on gravity can be summarised:
“The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.”1
Einstein’s aether is not an aether of materiality. It is a ‘field’ of gravitational fluctuation. No gravitational force exists. It is a wave phenomena. In Relativity’s fantasy world, space and time are merged into a 4th dimension. Within this dimension, gravity from unseen forces will vibrate or flow within the ‘imponderable’ aether generating fluctuations. This theory adds precisely no value to understanding how you are fixed to your chair, or why the milk in your cat’s bowl doesn’t rise up and float away.
In Relativity, gravity is not a force. It is a wave through the ‘curved’ 4th dimension. A critic might ask what exactly is curved if there is no matter in space? How do you curve nothing? Or, if gravity is not a force why do I fall from the top of a tall building to the ground below? Surely pace Einstein, I must be able to fly and float?
In any event this is their story, ‘proven’ by their maths. More here
Dr Ruckhaber (Jewish) and his quote above with its admittedly rough translation, is one of the best summaries of the fraud that is the Relativity cult. Ruckhaber was a professor of philosophy in Berlin. Relativity is not science as evidenced by the scientific method. It was, as Ruckhaber well understood, first and foremost an interpretative philosophy. The entire nexus of the complicated and circular mathematics is of course the philosophical imperative to deny what tens of thousands of light interference experiments found – no movement of the Earth but a confirmation of the aether wind.
From Einstein’s confused and largely plagiarized thesis it is a short hop to the testicles can be an ovary, the universe is revolving around the merry-go-round which is apparently immobile, and our universe is one of thousands of ‘multiverses’ (given that everything is ‘relative’). ‘The Science’ cannot explain the planet we live on, or how the moon was formed, or why Venus’ rotation is backward and slowing down. But apparently, pace its own propaganda, ‘The Science’ knows everything. It knows very little.
Einstein used the charge of antisemitism starting in the early 1920s. Ironically his own diaries reveal Einstotle to be rather racist and misogynistic. Some recent pundits surmise that the Jewish philosopher was actually anti-semitic, based on recent ‘hate laws’. Shutting down debate by calling someone a racist or anti-semite has a long antecedent. It is not a new phenomena.
More here
Heisenberg developed the Uncertainty Principle still used in the standard ‘science’ model today. It is an important part of the QM standard model.
Uncertainty Principle: When scientists view a particle, the uncertainty in identifying the position of a particle and the uncertainty in its momentum, should never be less than one-half of the reduced Planck constant: Δx Δp ≥ℏ2 where:
· Δx: Uncertainty in position (x being the position of the particle)
· Δp: Uncertainty in momentum
· ℏ: Reduced Planck’s constant (ℏ = h/2π)
For example, if we know ‘everything’ about where a particle, say an electron, is located (the uncertainty of its position is quite small), it does not mean that we know anything about its momentum or velocity. The opposite would also be true (we know the particle’s movement but nothing about its current location). Variations of this principle exist for energy and time.
Einstein of course disavowed and publicly criticized Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics. But Quantum Mechanics, initially depending on nothing more than statistical analysis, was having reasonable success in analyzing and predicting the effects of the subatomic world. There are issues with QM, but also definite discoveries and experimental proof. Einstein’s opposition was a losing battle which only highlights the philosophical and temperamental deficiencies of Relativists.
More here
“Pure mathematics consists entirely of assertions to the effect that if such and such a proposition is true of anything then such and such another proposition is true of that thing. It is essential not to discuss whether the first proposition is really true, and not to mention what the anything is, of which it is supposed to be true. Both of these points would belong to applied mathematics…. Thus, mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor what we are saying is true.”
(Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic, 1957, pp. 70-71)
“In my (Einstein’s) scientific activity, I am always hampered by the same mathematical difficulties, which make it impossible for me to confirm or refute my general relativist field theory.”
(Einstein November 25, 1948, quoted in Letters to Solovine, translated by Wade Baskin from the French Lettres à Maurice Solovine, 1987, p. 111)
Russell is right. You can blind anyone with maths. Einstein knew that his maths-only theory was hardly a ‘law’ or ‘axiom’ and he was ‘hampered’ by his own tautological maths. Einstein could not prove his own theory as he admits in the quote above. His theology, preached from a soap box in the village square, had precious little mechanical support and was based on forced answers from largely circular calculus equations. More here
Dr. J. Le Roux (1930), French mathematician, physicist, criticising Einstotle the great confusionist.
“The conclusions sometimes have no relation to the premises, the basic components of the calculations assume a meaning that does not correspond to the definition in the underlying data….it takes its own principle as the starting point…geodetic measurements in the form of quadratic differentials with four variables, through space time with four dimensions….this hypothesis contradicts gravity….my very clear conclusion is that Einsteins RTH (relativity theories) does not belong in the field of positive science.”
Indeed. Nothing in Relativity belongs in ‘positive science’. There is no physicality to Einstotle’s theorems. They are just maths games.
Beyond the mathematical garb and gibberish no one understands, we have the aether, or as the Einstotle called it in 1916, a ‘Relativistic ether’, whatever that means. Einstein had to remove the aether in 1905 to make his ‘Relative motions’ theories seem plausible. He had to reinstate something similar in 1916 to account for gravitational attraction between this planet and the Sun, or ‘spooky action at a distance’. For the record Relativity’s theories on motion have never been proven.
The aether exists and was known until Einstotle and his Relativity cult in 1905 decided to tell us that reality does not exist and that space was nothing. Nothing is nothing, it means an absolute of nothingness, not a reduction of energy. How then is light or sound transmitted?
First, a short talk on why the aether exists: (5 minutes)
As presented in this video, in 1887 Michelson and Morley failed to detect the Earth’s motion but they did pick up a ~5 km per second aether wind. ‘The Science’ simply lies when they say that the aether was undetected. That is not what the experiment was set up to prove, and that is not what they found. Their results – finding an aether – have been replicated quite literally thousands of times including, as the video presentation states, by the US Air Force in 1986. Not many know of this.
You can’t use your ‘apriori’ assumptions or worldviews and interpret the data any way you want. A real ‘scientist’ would accept the thousands of data points that prove the aether. From there you try to explain why no motion of this planet was found.
As presented, the reason no one knows the truth about the light-interference experiments is that the entire corpus of ‘modern science’ would be rubbished. Can’t have that now.
Second, an introduction to the aether and the Michelson-Morley failure to detect the Earth’s motion in the aether, (8 minutes, you only need to watch from minute 2:45 to 7 mins, after that it is advertising).
Minute 2:45 onwards presents why ‘space’ is just another name for a material-energy rich aether. No aether, no light, no radiation, no existence. Nothing means nothing.
This 2nd video in general, comports to the confusion that is modern cosmology.
The presenter clearly states that an aether exists but asks, ‘what is it’? Fair enough. Quantum mechanics confirms an aether. The Cosmic Microwave Background also gives us a clue, since it is the backdrop of the aether. The Big Bang and Relativity both confirm the CMB or CBR (cosmic background radiation). Ironically both the CMB or CBR disproves Relativity and the Big Bang.
So pace this 2nd video, ‘The Science’ is proposing an ‘Einstein aether’ which is frankly ridiculous. Einstein did not want a material-rich, energy-laden aether. His idea was that an imponderable aether was simply a gravitational field medium. He was wrong of course. As the video above presents the ‘Einstein aether’ is so flexible it means nothing.
Further, ‘science’ knows that within the aether, light speed is variant and that the ‘relative’ velocity of both sender and receiver impact light speed calculations, which is denied by Relativity. Relative motion and velocity impacts on light measurement was known in the 17th century and was discussed against experimentation in the 14th century. So much for progress. NASA uses the Sagnac effect and Galilean calculations, which are based on light speed variance, not Relativity. All our communications and satellite technology use geocentricity for calculations, not Relativity.
Relativity is a religion of the confusionist.
As many posts on here have outlined, the aether is real, the Earth is surrounded by it, and this is why we will never be able to measure the Earth’s motion through space from below the troposphere. This is precisely what all these light-interference experiments have proven. Such a simple, direct and common sense approach to data and ‘science’ is of course anathema in an age where rods magically shorten along their length, material pops in and out of existence, you can ride moon beams, time moves back and forth, black and white holes lead to singularities, the universe of your choice, or another time-dimension, and there are 4 if not 10 dimensions of our existence.
Many of us call this fiction not science.
All hail (and to find ‘The Science’ follow the money, the awards, the privileges and the narrative).
Relativity is doomed on many fronts. One frontal assault which Einstein vigorously opposed was the 1920’s discovery or creation of quantum mechanics or QM and QED or quantum electro-dynamics. QM proposes a ponderable substance to space, in lieu of Einstein’s amorphous vacuum or ‘Relativistic Aether’, which as past posts outlined, is a seminal manipulation of rhetoric and theory without proofs.
QM nullifies Relativity, though AI and modern apologia will object (using word salads such as ‘nuanced’, ‘relativistic’ and appealing to ‘consensus’). Any ponderable substance in space which is more than just a ‘wave of gravity’ disproves Relativity. Today, physical theorists en-masse know that inner and outer space hold a vast array of particles and/or fields. Einstein as was so often the case, was once again completely wrong.
Particles that are identified within ‘space’ include:
Neutrinos2, cosmic rays, radiation, gravitons, maximons, positrons and electropons, machions, etherons, axions, newtonites, higgsionos, fermions, bosons, to name a few.
A vacuum does not exist. Yet this is taught and repeated in the ‘science media’. For a long time, even back to the Medieval period, it has been surmised and is now known, that space is composed of a world with infinitesimally small molecules of functional dimensions. Descartes’ ‘whirlpool’ or vortices redolent with matter. One physicist describes it:
“Classically, a vacuum is simply the absence of matter. In quantum mechanics, however, the [Heisenberg] uncertainty principle leads us to view the vacuum as a very complex system…The vacuum, then, is more like a pan of popcorn than a featureless, empty sea. Particle-antiparticle pairs pop into existence here and there, but disappear quickly”.3
More here
Carrying on from previous discussions about the reality of the aether, we can now fire an arrow of common sense and pierce the heart of the world’s most over-used equation: E = mc2. It is not just the aether which confounds this equation, but also light speed. Einstein takes credit for something he did not invent, and for something which is wrong. He knew that light speed was variant.
“Einstein continues: “In a similar manner we see ‘unmittelbar’ [immediately] that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum must be modified. For one easily recognizes that the path of a beam of light, relative to K’, must generally be crooked, when the light, with respect to K, moves in a straight line with definite constant velocity”
….The word ‘unmittelbar’ amused me so much that I have taken care to give it in the original German….The whole paragraph is interesting because it goes on to deal with one of the profound discoveries of Relativity, that the velocity of light in reference to a body is the same whether that body be at rest, or in motion towards the source of light!
…I notice for the moment that Einstein, having postulated the constancy of light, is content to “modify” it when his own reasoning leads him to contradiction; but he does not touch the previous mode of thought that led him to decree this constancy.”
(The Case Against Einstein, Arthur Lynch, pp. 209-210)
More here
Niall Ferguson to his credit recognizes the role faith plays in both the development of reason, and of the political-economy and its social-environmental evolution. His comments are worth reading at some length. On page 264 he gets to the crux of the matter as to why the West is better than the Rest [to quote his own depiction]:
“Religions matter. In earlier chapters we saw how the 'stability ethic' of Confucianism played a part in imperial China's failure to develop the kind of competitive institutional framework that promoted innovation in Western Europe....But perhaps the biggest contribution of religion to the history of Western civilization was this. Protestantism made the West not only work, but also save and read. The Industrial Revolution was indeed a product of technological innovation and consumption.”
All true. Though Weber's Protestant read, work and save ethic, is indeed a prime source of European dynamism it must also be said that the Catholic Church saved Europe and should be given joint credit for its rise to dominance. The Roman church developed the economy, fought wars of liberation and defence against Islam [including the Crusades which bought Europe 500 years of time to develop]; stimulated the creation of schools, universities, enquiry and debate; and financed science and art. The balance sheet of the Catholic Church is usually taught as a negative. This is nonsense. Even with the sordid foibles, corruption and inquisitorial nature of the Church, its influence in European development is undeniably positive and decisive.
The 'Great Republic' is a book compiled from many essays which Churchill wrote about America, during his many years in politics. This book was formed and edited by his grandson, Winston S. Churchill who was also for a time, an MP in the British Parliament. The book makes for interesting reading because it covers all of American history, including the Revolution, the Civil War, slavery, America's role in two World Wars, and even the creation of Canada. One of the more interesting chapters is named 'The American Constitution'. It is a good read because it gives the reasons why America, and its key foundational text is so outstandingly unique.
One has to wonder what Churchill would say today of the American government's disregard for this document? What would be his reaction to the destruction of the rules of political engagement which allowed in very large part, the creation of the modern world and of American exceptionalism? The Federal government alone now consumes close to 30% of national income, with ownership of key sectors such as auto manufacturing and banking. One doubts very much, that Churchill would be impressed by the totalitarian pretensions of the unDemocratic or anti-Republican parties.
One of Churchill's strengths in his 66 year long political career, was his defense of both democracy; and of the Constitutional division of powers. He admired the US foundational texts as being unique in human history, and the bedrock of the Republican ideal. The US Constitution was not just an piece of parchment concocted by rich, white men, who owned slaves – but rather the apogee of genius, crafted by highly intelligent men, who were successful in life, and knew how a prosperous and well-functioning nation state should be developed.
“Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty.”
[Churchill May 14 1908, Dundee Hall speech].
This is little book a wonderful and new product for Churchilliana. The publishing firm, General Books, copied a number of Churchill's speeches between 1906 and 1912 using optical character recognition software. These full length reproductions were then turned into a book of some 138 pages. They are a fine compilation on Churchill's vision of 'Liberalism', or the establishment of what some might call welfare-capitalism, which merges aspects of socialism and communal responsibility, with trade, free[ish] markets, and aspects of capitalism.
These speeches formed the ideology and political convictions of Churchill the politician during the social-reforming era of 1906 to 1912. This was when the modern welfare state and its important components was created. Churchill became a minister of power during 2 governments serving as MP for Manchester North-West [1906-8], and Dundee [1908-22]. He entered the Cabinet in 1908 until 1910 as President of the Board of Trade and served as the Home Secretary from 1910 to 1911. These crucial 5 years from 1907 to 1912 were essential to restoring the communal health of Great Britain and the many 'have-nots'. Churchill's speeches make the argument as to why this is so and why a safety net of health, insurance, poor relief, and wage floors is necessary. Conservatives might be shocked but yes we do need a minimum welfare state.
The usual lament is that 'we don't build anything anymore' in advanced economies. This is not true. 15 % of GDP is in manufacturing and if one adds in software and technology development – which is a manufacturing process – the number is 30%. IT accounts for about 15% of US GDP making it the single most important industry. There are three factors about manufacturing which the mainstream media never reports.
Euro, soon to be a Zeuro. Europe has long been infected with the disease which first appeared with some force in the mid 19th century from the revolutionary slogans of 1848 to the mindlessness of Nietzsche's sad little writings which attempted to create 'supermen' out of a culture which was becoming socialist. All people, cultures, ideas and nations are equal. Fairness means everyone is the same. Equality is where all people and states are equally poor and miserable. Any 'gaps' in wealth, productivity, talent or initiative must be 'reduced' by government. If you try hard you are a criminally liable idiot, a threat to the state. Life is a large vacation punctuated by periods of unproductive, unsatisfying labour. The tenets of Christian civilization – rationality, gratitude, humility, hard-work, the reduction of the ego, the Golden Rule – are all relics of superstition and stupidity. Narcissism, self-absorption, 'free' benefits, TV and cults are the coveted idols of sophistication.
When your society is built upon the foundations of Rousseau and modern cultural Marxism it is bound to fail. When a currency is created to 'hide the decline', and allow governments more unfettered access to printed money currency, regulations, taxation, and power, the end is only a matter of time. Of course European 'leaders' now 'demand' a fiscal union. That is after all the whole point of the Euro exercise. Create a monetary disaster which implodes fiscal reality, and then offer 'solutions' which involve more government centralization and unfettered power.
Fiat currencies will disappear at least in their current form. When Nixon abolished the Gold Standard in 1971 he did so for self-interested reasons. He was aping the failed but short term policy of Lincoln during the Civil War – print more money all the time – to fund the war effort. That lasted only 4 years, and the inflationary effects were real but eaten up within 5 years by a rebounding economy, growing large and powerful on a unified Continental sized market. Nixon's feat has endured 40 years with a huge increase in the printing of money aligned with zero interest rates in the past 10 years, guaranteeing some form of future financial destruction. There are laws of economics, and we can't ignore them, though the big brains which run the world often times do.
US debt took off post 1971, when the US dollar was decoupled from the Gold standard.
The ancient Greeks set up the Oracle of Delphi as a temple to Apollo the Sun and Music God. The high priestesses were stoned on Datura leaves and mumbled some nonsense to any who brought a question. They were revealing what the 'Earth Mother' forecast. But like Nostradumuses sayings, much of what these stoned women muttered was completely inane and incomprehensible. No matter. The Delphic cult believed. This is essential. Muslims believe they are the chosen ones destined by the moon deity for an after-life of pleasure and endless sex [at least for Muslim men]. Our new Earth Mother cult has to give the cult members a combination of Delphic surety and Islamic rewards. It must in other words, transcend mere paganism and take on the attributes of a religion. To this end I propose the establishment – with tax money – of Churches in every single urban center, with the name of 'Earth Mother Institute'. Thus they will not look like a 'normal church' and won't be vilified by really smart people or the media. We will teach that by following our cult, your life will be purified, you will be moral, you will be superior, and at some point, because you are 'one with nature', you will be rewarded in both this life and the next.
Climate Change is a mythical problem premised on grand lies and fraud. Witness some real world facts: Co2 Emissions today are at their 2nd lowest level in history.
During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm
Ice Ages are the norm:
“For ninety percent of the last million years, the normal state of the Earth's climate has been an ice age. Ice ages last about 100,000 years, and are punctuated by short periods of warm climate, or inter-glacials. The last ice age started about 114,000 years ago. It began instantaneously. For a hundred-thousand years, temperatures fell and sheets of ice a mile thick grew to envelop much of North America, Europe and Asia. The ice age ended nearly as abruptly as it began. Between about 12,000 and 10,000 years ago, the temperature in Greenland rose more than 50 °F.”
The UN IPCC scam
The fact that Co2 does not cause anything is a scientific fact. The Earth is not a greenhouse and ergo there can be no forcing of water vapour causing global cooling. There are over 1 million impact variables in the earth's convection system. The most common climate is an ice age – a reality completely divorced from Co2 levels or human activity. The sun has more to do with climate patterns than human activity.
No one from the Marxist-Globalist Globaloney Warming cult can explain the creation and the ending of the last ice age. Nor can they posit why Co2 levels which are at their 2nd lowest level in the last 2 million years have any ties to temperature, in spite of local climactic conditions and physical thermodynamics – both of which disprove 'global temperature' as utterly meaningless. The cult can't explain local variations or why the IPCC fraudulent data confirms that the earth is cooling, not warming. IPCC models [26 of them], have proven utterly futile at predicting any real world climate events or temperatures – a fact again left unexplained by the Eco Fascist cult.
Socialist reduction
Socialism always fails. States cannot afford socialized programs. If you deem health care to be a human right than nationalize food, housing, water bottle distribution, and clothing. Health care is no different than any other market. If a socialized system is truly necessary than we should at least have the rational intelligence to allow a functioning market to co-exist in which private insurances, care, and access are subject to price points and supply and demand factors. Not only would that alleviate the stress on state budgets it would improve the morality of the system by both decreasing costs and death rates. The modern dark-age mantra of 'socialism is good' is absurd. Time to move on.
