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
“The gyroscope is rotationally at rest relative to the inertial frames in its neighborhood. It and the local inertial frames rotate relative to the distant galaxies with the angular velocity Ω because the Earth’s rotation “drags” the local inertial frames along with it.
Notice that near the north and south poles the local inertial frames rotate in the same direction as the Earth does (Ω parallel to J), but near the equator they rotate in the opposite direction (Ω antiparallel to J; compare Ω with the magnetic field of the Earth!).” (Martin Selbrede, “Geocentricity’s Critics Refuse to Do Their Homework,” The Chalcedon Report, 1994, p. 11)
We have discussed how geocentricity could be valid. The above quote opens another door to this possibility – fluid dynamics. Relativity is false, but even using their own theorems, there is nothing within Relativity which precludes geocentricity. Indeed, ‘The’ Einstein’s scientism is more supportive of geocentricity than heliocentricity.
Let’s have a gander at fluid dynamics and the use of General Relativity.
First, we must understand that space is not a ‘vacuum’, it is not empty, but is suffused with materiality, which in previous centuries was named the ‘aether’. This substack has many posts on why the aether exists and how this (yet again) disproves the Einstotle’s philosophy.
Second, if we view Tychonism or geocentricity, this aether medium is carried with the universe as it rotates around the Earth. What we don’t know is if this aether ‘drags’ on the Earth’s surface and forces the Earth to rotate. As other posts have outlined, the answer could be no.
Relativists themselves do not believe in an aether (aether-denialism) and thereby do not support the forced rotation of this planet by such forces. We can now use this precept to see if geocentricity is possible. More here
“…it is permissible to assume that the Earth is a nonrotating frame of reference. From this point of view, the stars will have a circular velocity around the Earth that is much greater than the speed of light. A star only ten light-years away has a relative velocity around the Earth of twenty thousand times the speed of light (Martin Gardner, Relativity Explosion, 1976, p. 68)
Martin is right but wrong. He assumes, like most Relativists, that the stars would need to move at faster than light speed around an immobile Earth. This is incorrect and is dealt with below. He is right in that it is physically and scientifically possible for a geocentric model to be valid. He is also right that light speed is variant, again destroying the dogma of Einstein’s cult. If light speed is variant - and it is - Relativity is rubbished and the Bang of the Biggest invalidated.
We have discussed in previous posts how the universe could move around an immobile Earth, or Newton’s central point of inertia. There are common sense questions and objections to the idea of a rotating universe, but nothing in mainstream science, including the tortured, flayed maths of Einstein’s cult, can deny the possibility. This is rarely discussed. Paradigms, money, degrees, prestige and all that. More here
“...Meanwhile, NASA scientists calculated that the redistribution of mass by the earthquake might have shortened the day by a couple of millionths of a second and tilted the Earth’s axis slightly.
On a larger scale, the unbuckling and shifting moved the planet’s mass, on average, closer to its center, and just as a figure skater who spins faster when drawing the arms closer, the Earth’s rotation speeds up. Richard S. Gross, a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, calculated that the length of the day was shortened by 1.8 millionths of a second.” (Quake Moves Japan Closer to U.S. and Alters Earth’s Spin,” Kenneth Chang, March 13, 2011, in NYT)
The above story is repeated every year. Rinse, repeat. Invariably, when major earthquakes or tsunamis occur we are inundated with mainstream ‘science’ articles declaring that the Earth, as a result of the force coming from these catastrophes, was slowed in its rotation rate and/or its axis moved (Gross, Chao, 2006). The rotation rate is said to change by microseconds and the axial tilt by inches after significant earthquakes or colossal tsunamis are experienced (Fodor, 2019).
If the land masses are moved toward the centre there is an increase in rotation. If they are dispersed there would be a decrease in rotational rate (the figure skater analogy).
In general, ‘the science’ believes that given the Earth’s rotation any terrestrial event will affect the velocity of the rotation, impact the gravitational field and shift the poles (Dahlen, 1971 and ‘Dahlen’s theory’). This is very curious indeed, given the supposed 4 billion (soon trillion?) years of this planets existence. Such dislocations would lead to catastrophe.
If the above is true, just based on what we know about earthquakes and other seismic-terrestrial impacts, there would be no life on this planet given the massive shifts and catastrophic changes which would ensue.
We discussed previously why Copernicanism has a problem with planetary rotations over endless ages. In the past decade, Venus’ rotation, which spins the wrong way, has supposedly slowed down by 6-10 minutes just in the past decade. Mars for some reason is rotating faster. If the same was applied to our Earth, all life here would end.
What has caused Venus’ ice-skater-pirouette to slow down, or Mars to perhaps speed up? Does Mars suffer from Mars-quakes? No one knows. ‘The science’ maintains that space is simply a void and absent of energy or material (of course not, the aether exists, though it is denied by the standard model). So what causes rotational speed variation?
Let’s break out the calculators and move the IQ needle back to common sense. Let’s put away the models and word salads. We can add up all the earthquakes occurring on an annual basis and go back in time to assess the overall impact. More here
Saint Albert of the Relativity:
“To begin with it followed from observations of the Sun that the apparent path of the Sun against the background of the fixed stars differed in speed at different times of the year.” (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 263)
Saint Albert writes about a fixed absolute background and space which is anathema to Relativity where no absolutes exist. He also mentions variations in the Sun’s speed and movement. What causes these? Saint Albert declined to provide answers. The explanations for both will depend on your world-view.
We are told the Sun imitates the angry, one legged man, jumping ‘up and down’ within our solar system and taking 230 million years to orbit the centre of the milky way. To say that this is conjecture proferred as ‘fact’ is only to refer to the usual array of scientistic propaganda. If the Sun can gyrate up and down, and move around the milky way centre (which is of course a ‘massive black hole’ called Sagittarius A), could it orbit the Earth?
Or to frame it differently; does the Earth’s apparent elliptical movement around the Sun prove heliocentricity? Or can the same apparent elliptical orbit be applied to the Sun around the Earth?
It depends on how you view the distance traveled and velocity of the planets. Let’s consider the geocentric model and the Tychonic framework (the mixed Copernican-geocentric model). More here
“The dogma of a single cause for disease was decisively shaped by microbiology, which became predominant at the end of the 19th century, declaring specific microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, fungi) to be the causes of very definite diseases; including mass epidemics such as cholera and tuberculosis. The founders of microbe theory, researchers Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, ascended in their lifetimes to the heights of medicine’s Mount Olympus.” (p. 27, Dr Sam Bailey in ‘Virus Mania’, reviewed here)”
The above digram is the standard influenza story and is just another example of scientism. We can eviscerate this fantasy and its ‘authoritative narrator’ Artificial Intelligence (AI, or maybe it is Artful Idiot). The quote above aptly describes the fraud of virology, a criminal industry which has killed and maimed countless millions since the days of the quacks Pasteur and Koch, not to mention that insufferable country charlatan Saint Jenner.
The very name ‘influenza’ came from the belief that the alignment of stars caused an annual ‘disease’ or ‘influenced’ the body to become ill. That ancient theory possesses more science than the current dogma. More here
There are a few philosophical assertions which make the bien pensant’s head explode. One is the idea that the universe could rotate around the Earth. Wailing and gnashing of teeth. You can’t be that stupid they exclaim. You have desecrated our temple with your filth they will moan. Off with your head they will tolerantly declare.
But, what if the Sadduccees and Pharisees of establishment ‘science’ are wrong? In a previous post we discussed the law of inertial mass and geo-centricity. Let’s persist.
The law of Newtonian inertia identifies a barycenter or mass-point around which objects will move. There is mounting evidence that our solar system is that barycenter (the axis of evil). Further, not only does Einstein’s maths allow for geocentricity but so do Newton’s.
When we view Newton’s Proposition 43 and its related mathematical-mechanics, it shows that the Earth has no inclination to rotate. When the gravitational and inertial forces are balanced around the center of mass (or inertial point), they cannot generate a torque, and thus the Earth will remain absolutely motionless.
This means that once the universe begins rotating, its angular momentum (object movement and velocity) will keep it turning ad infinitum. This system will be the most stable of all rotating systems since the universe is so big and its momentum is so great and per force, immutable.
This model is counter-intuitive, given that it would be much more stable than a small Earth rotating in a fixed universe. This is because we need to consider all the internal and external forces that could act on a rotating Earth to slow it down (earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, asteroids, planetary perturbations, solar forces, etc.) More here.
Aristotle’s physics and naturalism dominated ‘Western’ philosophy and science for some 1800 years. A millennium of Relativity philosophy and non-science has been upon us for a while, its roots dating back to Galileo. The apostle of the cheap tricks and magical imagery, that all must bow to, is of course Einstein or Einstotle, who merged maths with philosophy (Einstein + Aristotle).
But what if all these little wizards and the maths-philosopher Einstotle are wrong?
The problem statement: How could the Universe rotate around the Earth?
An impossibility declaims the bien pensant! Absurd declare the priests of physics and astronomy! Only a relic worshipping, toothless, shoeless, medieval peasant, who has never read Copernicus or Galileo believes that, bellows Professor Quack Quack!
But…what if this is indeed possible? Is there scientific justification for such a belief? Sadly, for the Relativists, there is plenty of justification for such a model. No one is ever taught such things of course. Philosophies, ‘consensus’, money, paradigms, political control, power, prestige, endless degrees and all that. More here
Sir Ein of the Stein, Lord of Relativity and all he surveyed, died in 1955, having accrued a mere U$14-15 million in net assets in today’s money. This is poverty you understand for the ‘greatest scientist evah’, who never invented a single mechanical device, never performed a single physical experiment, and whose theories have been destroyed more times than a nose-ring, needle pushing, anti-white-racist, purple-haired lesbian has howled at a MAGA hat. Einstein’s estate is however, by any considered calculation, about U$12 million too wealthy (see below).
What is never discussed is the Jewish Einstein’s very close relationship with the Jewish Rothschild family. Both were ardent Zionists and both were committed to Jewish intellectualism and ‘scientific’ achievement. Cue the cries of ‘racism’! A claim Einstein used himself to disarm his hundreds of critics in the 1920s.
When Neil Armstrong died in 2012, his estate was worth U$15 million or more. The actor-naut never worked, retiring after his famous film production. There is no evidence of great investments, speaking tours, or other largesse from work or paid engagements. Yet the massive estate was somehow concocted. A good saver. A prudent investor. His wife was very smart you know and invested in that fruit company Apple. Real estate appreciates with time the true-believer intones.
As with ‘The Einstein’, surely men so capable, intelligent, other-wordly, and even godlike can turn water, or even nothing, into green? Or perhaps Armstrong was paid by the CIA and NASA to shut up and stay quiet? So who financed ‘The Einstein’? More here
Fraud means ‘Science’. Or rather $cience and $cientism.
20 years ago John Ioannidis Published, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" in PLoS Medicine (2005). It is still relevant, even if it understates the issues by half. Ioannidis highlighted problems which have only blossomed and flourished beyond all control in the last 2 decades:
Small sample sizes: Many studies purposely use very small sample sizes, which distorts the data and provides false positives (the skew theme).
Small effect sizes: Small sample sizes will produce ‘small effect sizes’, which indicates that they are unreliable and statistically invalid (the stats fraud theme).
Large numbers of tested relationships: When many hypotheses are tested, the likelihood of finding a spurious ‘significant’ result increases (the shallow-analysis and misdirection theme).
Flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes: This allows researchers to ‘p-hack’ or selectively report findings that meet statistical significance (the ‘confirmation bias’ and significance fraud theme).
Financial and other interests and prejudices: Conflicts of interest obviously distort and bias research outcomes. How many reports have you read which state the author(s) biases, worldviews and funding (the corruption theme) ?
Publish or die: In competitive fields, there's pressure to publish narrative supporting ‘studies’ quickly, which leads to fraudulent or flawed research (the race-to-the-bottom-theme).
All of the above saturate ‘The Science’. The priority is of course money. When you follow the funding, you will find the ‘science’, much of it fiction. More here
“Dark matter makes up most of the universe. It’s not made out of atoms. Your chemistry teacher was wrong in saying that the universe is mainly made out of atoms…. Whole generations of textbooks have now had to be thrown out….It’s invisible. You cannot photograph dark matter. We know it’s there because of its gravitational presence.” (Michio Kaku, Parallel Universes)
Feel that religion. Apostle Michio, one of the more excitable and luminous of Big Bang and string-theory evangelists, says we cannot identify, discover or even confirm Dark Matter, but it exists, because it must exist to hold the universe together and make up the missing energy density from Big Bang models. I am sure Apostle Michio is well-compensated for his dogmatic sermonising.
The self-proclaimed geniuses say no to atoms and no to molecules. Even though both can be observed. Apostle Michio and ‘The Science’ say yes to a mysterious ‘miasma’ that remains undiscovered. No religion here. Just ‘The Science’.
In the previous post we discussed why Dark Energy was a mathigician fraud. The same is true of its mysterious, never found twin brother, Dark Matter. Neither impress the sane or critical. More here.
“Many cosmologists advocate reviving [Einstein’s] cosmological constant term on theoretical grounds, as a way to explain the rate of expansion of the universe….The main attraction of the cosmological constant term is that it significantly improves the agreement between theory and observation….
For example, if the cosmological constant today comprises most of the energy density of the universe, then the extrapolated age of the universe is much larger than it would be without such a term, which helps avoid the dilemma that the extrapolated age of the universe is younger than some of the oldest stars we observe!” (NASA, often confused with a film agency, “Dark Energy: A Cosmological Constant?” http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/ uni_matter.html)
But
“Additionally, we must take seriously the idea that the acceleration apparently indicated by supernova data could be due to large scale inhomogeneity with no dark energy. Observational tests of the latter possibility are as important as pursuing the dark energy (exotic physics) option in a homogeneous universe.… because of the foundational nature of the Copernican Principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation.
And one must emphasize here that standard CMB anisotropy studies do not prove the Copernican principle: they assume it at the start……then uses some form of observationally-based fitting process to determine its basic parameters” (“Inhomogeneity effects in Cosmology,” George F. R. Ellis, March 14, 2011, University of Cape Town, pp. 19, 5; http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.2335.pdf).
The confusionists and ‘science’. NASA and its deep state-financed organs of ‘the science’ maintain that ‘dark energy’ must be real or else they are faced with a younger universe. Observational evidence pace Ellis in the 2nd quote, indicates that dark energy is a phantasm, premised on philosophical foundations and biases.
“…do not prove the Copernican principle: they assume it at the start.”
Indeed, philosophy and tautology inform interpretations. The mathigicians can now enter and perform their necromancy. The graphic designers and image propagandists will then take over and assemble the evocative pictures and visualisations. They will have a line pointing to a black area on an image with the notation ‘Black Hole here’. Another arrow will connect to a region on the image and name it ‘Dark Energy’. You will be convinced. More here
"That the earth is a sphere is shown by the fact that as one goes south the stars of the northern constellations appear to sink down, and those of the south to rise higher; and also by the fact that the shadow of the earth, as cast on the moon in eclipses, is circular." (Aristotle, On the Heavens)
Aristotle’s observations are correct and confirmed. He offers 3 good reasons why this planet is a spheroid, and these are discussed below.
The ‘Enlightenment’ based its animus against the ‘Schoolmen’ on the idea that the medieval era ‘slavishly followed’ Aristotle. Unlike the Muslims and Arabs, the European medieval scholars did not. Beginning in the 12th century, Christians translated, analysed, experimented with, and eventually overturned, Aristotlelian physics.
However, some astronomical observations made by Aristotle, or the ‘teacher’, some 2500 years ago, are entirely valid and these informed medieval and early modern astronomy. There is nothing ‘dark’ about that. Use what works. Reject what does not. Given the vast quantity of Aristotle’s work, this analysis does take time.
The Flat Earth question is related to Relativity and some of the topics we have analysed in over 100 posts on the Einstein-fraud. Essentially, much of ‘science’ is about philosophy and the filtering, interpreting and modelling of phenomena through world-views and agendas. The same applies to how Flat Earthers ingest and transform experiential data and observations. More here
“A more intriguing instance of this so-called “time dilation” is the well- known ‘twin paradox,’ where one of two twins goes for a journey and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because acceleration can be brought into the discussion.
Einstein maintained the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably sustains the character of earlier speculations … as “monstrous”. (Max Born 1956).
The ‘muddled thinking’ of Relativity, if one can term obstruse, unproven, illogical, tautological and fraudulent theory as ‘thinking’. As Born states, the idea of the ‘twin paradox’ based on ‘time dilation’ makes little sense (more below). We discussed the tautological aspects of time dilation in the previous post. In this post we will extend this analysis and eviscerate the entire concept.
(discussed here in some mathematical detail as well)
The Special Theory of Relativity (STR) proposes that fast moving objects will ‘age’ more slowly than slower objects. ‘Fast moving’ always means at the ‘speed of light’ for Einstein. A travelling ‘twin’, rocketing off into deep space, will age more slowly than the sibling twin back on Earth returning from his voyage ‘younger’ in actual age and appearance.
The ‘twin paradox’ is probably the most famous implication emanating from STR. It would mean that the age of the cosmos is extremely different than Earth time. A few thousand years on this planet might well equate into millions or billions in space time. The author fully agrees that is likely the case, but it has nothing to do with Einstein or Relativity. We can explain this from gravity and energy, and the infinite speed of light.
There is no way to verify the twin paradox of course. Supposedly this phenomenon was ‘validated’ in 1971 using atomic clocks on commercial flights but this is untrue. This experiment (Hafele-Keating) simply demonstrated that gravity and its effect on instrumentation had a small, almost infinitesimal impact on clocking within the Earth’s multi-layered atmosphere. More here
“The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion.
To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected.
The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.”
Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, p. 44
The quote above dear friends, is the heart of the matter.
It is never taught why the philosophical-mathematical chimera of ‘Relativity’ was erected as dogmatic gospel truth, more divine than any creed emanating from the Catholic Church. The idempotent galvanising factor is the reality that we on this globe have not, and cannot, mechanically measure, using light interference experiments, a movement of this planet through the heavens. Relativity was conjured by the mathigicians to explain this anomaly.
As a ‘science’ Relativity has no merit, as about 1000 pages on this substack attest and establish. It was, and still is, a maths game of illusion.
One of the most risible and inane scientistic marketing claims is that Einstein was a ‘genius’ and the ‘greatest scientist ever’. Neither is true. He was not a practical scientist, and did not build a single experiment to prove this anti-scientific ‘thought experiments’.
‘The’ Einstein created elaborate tensor-calculus models which mean nothing. The author uses the same in his quotidian existence. The author can take any tensor model, distort it, beat it, torture it and force it to produce anything he wants. It does not mean it is ‘science’. More here
“We see thus that we cannot attribute any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity. Rather, two events which, considered from one system of reference, are simultaneous, can, considered from a system moving in relation to the former, not be considered as simultaneous.”
“Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper” (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”), Annalen der Physik, 17, Sept. 26, 1905, p. 897.
We discuss why this contention is false. Einstein was more or less forced to his conclusions about motion and time dilation due to his ‘principle of equivalence’, which holds that there is no net difference between gravitational force and acceleration, and both effects will produce the same results. This equivalence was never proven, is patently false and is just assumed. Further, absolute time never slows, only a measured, calculated frequency of time will vary.
‘Education’, whatever that word means, does not teach critical thinking, nor encourage Thomasian doubts about dogma. Saint Albert’s canon preaches ‘relativity’ of all variables and phenomena. Fine. I will now opt to keep lengths and time constant but change the speed of light. Everything is ‘relative’ isn’t it?
Mathematically speaking, the two solutions, where we have a variance in light speed in the second solution (with invariance in the first), are precisely equivalent. In this case, the ‘relative’ nature of Relativity comes back to haunt it and using the Saint’s own maths we can ‘prove’ that light is invariant which destroys the principle axiom of ‘relativity’. So much science. 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.
