Monday, November 13, 2006

New Sources Prepared

No further entries will be made here

(April 2005 - November 2006: 362 posts)

The transfer of the original entries into the appropriate new place is now complete (24.11.06) and cross linking has been introduced to facilitate fast, accurate referencing.

The Pyramid original
Pyramid Comment current topical items
Pyramid Philosophical ideas that occur to me
Pyramid Science factual entries

This should make the contents clearer by not mixing them up into one journal.

Webpage links from my site:

has been updated.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Wind power

Apparently, some 72 trillion watts (72,000,000,000,000) of electricity could be generated by wind power at sites identified by Stanford University. Researchers mapped 1000 locations worldwide where the wind could power a turbine.

Wind power could supply more than 5 times the Earth's energy needs.

A combination of oil (hence petrol) to fuel cars and wind generated electricity would solve many problems instantly. There must be many worried oil and energy people around the world. But not for long. They'll find a way to obfuscate this potential solution.

But, what would be the justification of a tax on wind?

A problem of a different kind.

This is the sort of issue a true leader would be investigating/exploring.


How about sabotaging the implementation of the technology?

Sunday, October 29, 2006

The Paradoxical Scientist

Those who ridicule 'conspiracy theorists', or anyone who may hold a quite different radical viewpoint to mainstream thinking, are essentially closed-minded and rather naïve. Oddly, these people are in many cases scientists.

Quite the opposite, in fact, to what a scientist should be. Questioning and challenging. Exploring new ideas. Not accepting dogma and mantra. Properly examining claims and by quality argument proving claims to be unfounded if that’s what they truly believe. And can show. It takes courage and is not about belief systems.

This attitude in itself suggests manipulation and the price that must be paid by risking the professional reputation. If a claim cannot stand up to critical argument, then that’s that. If counter argument cannot persuade, then the viewpoint must be allowed to stand.

Otherwise, science itself can be ridiculed.

This is a very bad scenario.

Smoking Kills

Life expectancy for female smokers is 70 (11 years less than the average of 81). Male smokers lose around 3 years: 73 instead of 76.

Why the difference between the sexes? (Not fair is it! DA)

But, simple though: smoking kills.

Men don't reach 76 and women don't reach 81, but all smokers die in their early 70's.

On average, meaning a lot...

die even younger

Every lungful of cigarette smoke full of poisons, including carbon monoxide, will have one less lungful of properly oxygenated air.

Very short story:
  • "What did you achieve in life, Daddy?"
  • "Nothing, really. I had my time cut out trying to stay alive. Getting through my fags. Over my 50 year career of 40 a-dayI managed to smoke 730,000 fags! That's the equivalent of one 23 mile-long fag."
Almost 0.5 mile every YEAR

Missing plutonium from the 'responsible' UK

Unaccounted plutonium at Sellafield nuclear plant was 29.6kg up to 31 March 2004. This is 10kg more than the year before. The 'authorities' put it down to "uncertainties inherent in the measurement systems".


This is the responsible UK? What a load of...!!!

Where's it really gone? Making weapons? Unaccounted for is simply a euphemism for 'diverted elsewhere'.

Not the ideal message to send to N. Korea or Iran, is it?

Another example of our leaders' intellect.

Bush, Kyoto and Blair

The US gives the middle finger to the Kyoto Protocol (link updated to April 2010). The most aggressive user of oil and producer of some 20% of global greenhouse gases, so it would be just 'too difficult' to help save the planet.

A justification has been that it won't work.

Without trying?

They won't try just in case... it works!

It may be a strategy to shame the American public if everyone else does their bit. Doubtful though as there isn't enough time and...

...shame? Get real. Rather like Blair saying he cares.

British crime is almost non-existent

Apparently there are some 2.2 million jail inmates in the US. Of a US population of around 200 million. About 1%.

Around 80,000 in Britain? This is approximately 0.13% of a population of 60 million. But then Britain doesn't lock up many criminals. So they are not jail inmates. This means UQ (aka UK) is 8 times more law abiding than the US.

They are let out on their BEST behaviour. To be model citizens.


Who is Bliar's mob trying to kid?

Who actually believes that based on such distorted figures? But it's how it works. People around the world do believe it.

Pathetic isn't it?

CIA trying very hard to be effective

The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) in 2000 were apparently opposed to using a biological agent in Columbia to control drug crops. The argument is very simply not to use something in a foreign country that wouldn't be used in the US.

How unbelievably caring.


Nothing to do with ignoring a possibly effective measure, then?

Nicotine Fix

Getting the nicotine fix from cigarettes is roughly equivalent to trying to get salt by drowning in seawater.

Speeding police car


Police car, NOT on a flashing light (09.10.06), doing at least 35mph and probably more, in a 30mph zone.

One law for us and one for them, eh? DA

Politicians and the end of the Human Race

One way of looking at the continuing 'relaxation' of immigration restrictions is that cheaper labour will be on offer. The numbers taking less well paid jobs will increase. The same situation that happened decades ago and resulted in many dark-skinned persons taking jobs that were considered beneath white-skinned English natives.

That is not meant as a racist comment, but just as I see what happened.

The housing market has been allowed to rocket in price (not value). Look at some of the crap buildings being constructed: maximum cost and minimum quality so everybody makes a shedload of money except the purchaser. Then tax at 40% any inheritance from the sale. The tories will not remove this tax. Nobody will. It's too profitable.

Currently at over £2,000,000,000 (£1 billion is £1000 million - it always looks less when the zeros are removed). Incidentally, look at debt in the UK which runs into £trillions. A £trillion = £1000,000,000,000 = £1000 billion = £1 million million. Sounds much more realistic and scarier.

The UK is technically bankrupt, of course. Don't you just admire G. Brown's ableness. The 'best Chancellor we've ever had' so the spin goes. The stuff we are all supposed to accept!

Listen to what Shadow Chancellor (George Osbourne) says:

"I'd like lower taxes"

Always listen to what is actually said and read what is written. There's psychology at work. Working on your intelligence. Be aware of that.

This is politics. It's child's play really.

Osbourne is NOT saying lower taxes will ever happen. It's a simple implication without foundation. He simply says he'd "like" them lower. But not particularly tricky or underhand. Just typical politico-speak.

Bring in cheap labour and price the housing market out of reach. The way this has already backfired is that the future homegrown generations of this country have also been so disadvantaged that they will seek work in another country.

But, trap the students here by making them debtors. Can't leave the UK to work until the debt in this country is paid off. This will also keep salaries down and let the debt continue. Cheap educated people on hand along with cheap and, possibly, non-educated migrants.

The short-term thinking of (any) government. Government of the day by the day. Tomorrow it's another government. Somebody else's mess to sort out? But really it's longer term thinking.

Creation of a better and cheaper work-force so more profits to the employers. And with mergers and takeovers happening everywhere moving towards a single employer.

Absolute control.

New Labour, Old Labour, Tories, Liberals... different label stuck on the same innards. They are all the same breed. Power mad politicians. Control freaks all of them.

Yes, that's control of the rest of us 'non-politicians'.

Sadly, those with the vision to see the future (Environmentalists, Greenpeace) who look to the survival of the Human Race are ignored. Like the wrongly-labelled 'conspiracy theorists'. It's a wakeup call to the incumbants of planet Earth. The Earth will recover over a few million years.

Without us.

Us. The really useful people.

That by definition excludes all politicians.

Serotonin Syndrome

The following is not original, but mostly taken from:

Ann Blake Tracy, Ph.D.,

Executive Director, International Coalition For Drug Awareness

Author: Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? - Our Serotonin Nightmare
& CD or audio tape on safe withdrawal: "Help! I Can't Get
Off My Antidepressant!"

What is Serotonin Syndrome?

It is a condition in which serotonin levels become much too high. It is generally caused by mixing two serotonergic medications together. No chance with three - Zoloft, Lexapro, and Methadone! Since the main function of serotonin is constriction of smooth muscle tissue (which all the organs, veins and arteries are) when one dies of Serotonin Syndrome it is generally caused by multiple organ failure as the organs clamp up and shut down. Tragically for many years a Google search for Serotonin Syndrome would produce our web site where it discusses my book explaining how deadly and dangerous this is and little to nothing else on the subject. Most of my information came from Dr. Kirk Mills who I consider a leading expert on this condition. Thankfully there is now a little more on the net about this deadly and generally fatal condition.

The following quote from a study lists the symptoms:

"Mental status changes are the most frequently reported symptoms [confusion (51%), agitation (34%), hypomania (21%), anxiety (15%) and coma (29%)] associated with serotonin syndrome. Other commonly reported features include motor abnormalities, cardiovascular changes, gastrointestinal problems and miscellaneous changes such as diaphoresis [sweating] and fever."

Now, those of you who have been on these drugs know all too well just how very often these drugs produce those side effects! So how often are patients going into high levels of serotonin that could become dangerous? I believe it is far more often than most realize. All the drug companies have ever wanted to discuss is low levels of serotonin, not what happens when the serotonin
levels become too high. Do they really think the drug is going to put the brakes on when it reaches the "normal" level of serotonin?

Spinning the wheel of toxic reactions generated by high serotonin is like playing Russian Roulette - you do not know which you are going to get. That is one reason why it is so difficult for people to understand all the many toxic reactions these drugs can produce whether they manifest as mental/behavioral or physical it is the same toxic reaction.

This should make it all too obvious that the black box warnings we
got on antidepressants in the last couple of years are not nearly enough!! As a society we continue to use these drugs with absolutely no education about how they work and the cautions that need to be taken - the same mistake we have made with drug after drug after drug until we finally know enough about them to pull them from the market. In the meantime too many innocent victims, literally used as guinea pigs, are left in the wake. And once again I ask how many must die before we wake up to the nightmare produced by this group of drugs?

A Reason for Honours

If you think about it, some of the ‘names’ that get honoured have been so for services to the people. These names are the well-known. The so-called ‘celebrities’. In fact they are well known and so have influence. The more simple among them can themselves be influenced and circulate any ‘message’ to the people. The brighter ones can say simply what the establishment wants as this is possibly how they got their gong anyway.

What do you think?

David Icke newsletter, October 1st 2006

Hope David doesn't object to me showing the unchanged copy of his newsletter. I believe it's what people need to read.


Sycophant: 'Someone who flatters in a servile way; a crawler' -
Demon: 'A source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin' - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Hello all ...

I want to highlight this week the crucial role performed in world affairs by the sycophant. Their contribution to war, death and injustice is mostly ignored and seriously underplayed. The 'Sy-cos' are, in truth, the very foundation of the system that seeks to enslave us. I have always had an aversion to the sycophant, the arse-licking hero worshippers who concede their right to free thought and individuality to the perceived 'greatness' of another - or in the belief that it will help them scale the social peaks.

The establishment structure is fiercely hierarchical and sycophancy is the sticky stuff, or sicky stuff, that holds it all together. The rule is that you must be sycophantic to those 'above' you and demand sycophancy from those below. That way, everyone knows their place and which arse to keep clean. There is no better example than the British royal family. People bow, kneel and back out of the room in the presence of these deeply imbalanced symbols of human injustice and control. Ambitious clergy, for example, must know that 'God' is one step down from the Queen. They might not say that, but that's how most of them act, especially those in the finest robes and prettiest frocks. The Christian hierarchy may talk about the need for justice, fairness and equality - well, now and then - but they know their place. The Mother Goddess must not be criticised for her grotesque wealth, much of it plundered through theft, war and conquest across the centuries. That would upset the Goddess, the Defender of the Faith, and she is there to be obeyed, not challenged. My goodness, you'll be saying that religion is supposed to be spiritual next. The climbing clergy don't serve their 'God' primarily and become a voice of the downtrodden and abused. No, no, they are in service to the system - the system with the ever-scowling face sitting at its symbolic summit.

The Holy Grail of sycophancy is the monarch's Coronation when the 'servants of God' tell the people which idol their deity has decided they should serve and pay homage to. The fact that the would-be monarch sitting on the throne before them is only there because their bloodline has been manipulated, often through violence, into the succession is of no interest or relevance to the men-in-frocks. They are pillars of the system, not free thought, and must therefore serve their masters without question. You want to speak out against the system and be a Christian priest? Well, I know this little village church on an island in the far north of Scotland. When can you leave?

The Coronation script captures the mood:

The Archbishop, together with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Great Chamberlain, Lord High Constable, and Earl Marshal (Garter King of Arms preceding them), shall then go to the East side of the Theatre, and after shall go to the other three sides in this order, South, West, and North, and at every of the four sides the Archbishop shall with a loud voice speak to the People: and the Queen in the mean while, standing up by King Edward's Chair, shall turn and show herself unto the People at every of the four sides of the Theatre as the Archbishop is at every of them, the Archbishop saying:

Sirs, I here present unto you
your undoubted Queen:
Wherefore all you who are come this day
to do your homage and service ...

The Christian establishment worship their false idol

Religion is a key part of the system and merely by joining the church hierarchy you take your place in the system as a whole. Others may start on the outside, but unless they hold to principle and perspective it will ensnare them. Power is an immense magnetic force and those who seek it or its prestige are bound to be sucked in.

Trevor Phillips is Britain's best-known 'defender of racial equality'. He claims to believe that everyone should be treated the same and given equal opportunity no matter what their race, creed or colour. If this were the case that would be great, but, of course, it isn't because the establishment hierarchy takes precedence over everything, including racism. Sycophancy is all-powerful.

I wrote to Mr. Phillips and his Commission for Racial Equality, a government operation designed, it says, to investigate and prosecute cases of racial discrimination reported by the public. I made an official complaint about the fundamentally racist system of selecting the reigning monarch. Not only does the king or queen have to be white and from the same genetic line, they even have to follow, at least officially, a particular branch of a particular faith - Protestant Christianity. Monarchy is the most racist and elitist of institutions and I asked Phillips and the Commission to (a) investigate and prosecute those involved and (b) why the head of the 'anti-racist' Commission (i.e. him) had accepted an honour from a racial elitist - the Queen.

I received in return a bullshit letter from the Commission lawyer that studiously avoided the points about royal racism and the gross hypocrisy of Phillips' honour. It was the establishment speaking on behalf of itself. Of course it was, because the demands of the system overrule everything, especially logic and justice.

Maybe it's just me, but the sight of 'Prince of Darkness' Ozzy Osbourne talking about the 'honour' of performing before the queen makes my belly churn - as do the stream of showbiz 'celebs' who line up each year to be 'honoured' by Monarchy and State for 'services' to whatever. Invariably it means service to the system, the very system that is screwing the people who made them 'celebs' in the first place. One notable example is the former 'anti-establishment' rock singer, the infamously money-obsessed Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones. He completed his seamless transformation to system sycophant when he accepted a knighthood at Buckingham Palace in 2003.

The Stones' Keith Richards said it was 'ludicrous' for Jagger to take a 'gong' from the establishment because it was not what the band was all about. But he must have noticed that Jagger had long succumbed to the attractions of the boardroom and kneeling to royalty was merely history repeating and taking its course. It is a well-trodden path. 'I don't really think the establishment as we knew it exists any more', said the new 'Sir Michael' Jagger, but in fact it is more powerful than ever because the lines are no longer clearly drawn. It has not diminished, it has further infiltrated. Only its faces have changed, not its power-base.

As I have written before, a profound expression of the establishment suction machine is the case of 'Sir' Bob Geldof, another royal honour-bearer, and Bono. For me, Bono, while no doubt genuine, has always been lightweight in his presentation of global injustice, but at the time of Live Aid in 1985 Geldof was magnificently outspoken about the system's built-in bias that blights the lands and lives of billions. What has happened to him since the surly became a 'Sir'?
... Passionate defender of the abused ...
... now defender of the abusers ...
... the establishment rules. OK?

We now have the sight of Geldof praising George Bush for what he has 'done' for Africa and the same with Blair and his would-be successor, Gordon Brown. Bono has called them 'the John and Paul of the global development stage'.
Yet these people are front men for the very rape of Africa and elsewhere that Geldof once so memorably articulated. Blair and Brown have supported and instigated finance and action that has led to the slaughter and maiming of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. They supported and campaigned for sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s that, even according to United Nations figures, cost the lives of more than half a million children.

But this week Geldof told Blair's Labour Party Conference that Brown and Blair had helped to change the political landscape by putting Africa at the top of the agenda at last year's G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland. 'It really altered the parameters of what's doable in politics,' he said. 'They saved an awful lot of people from going down the tube. That was achieved last year. It must be continued.'

Claptrap Bob. For God's sake, wake-the-hell-up.

In reality, Gleneagles was all a show, a sleight of hand to which Geldof, Bono and their 'Live 8' concert gave essential cover. It wasn't that they meant to, but they became so close to the manipulators that they fell for the manipulation. Both Geldof and Bono have been invited to speak at the Labour Party Conference and, on a stage that is the very epitome of spin, this does not happen unless it serves the spinner's purpose. Geldof is not a sycophant of power in its wider sense, though Bono shows all the symptoms, but he has allowed the intoxication of political position to cloud his judgement. If you are a potential problem to the system it either seeks to destroy you or draw you into its lair.

As the saying goes - keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Once again Keith Richards saw through the contradictions, refusing to take part in Live 8 because the line between establishment and campaigner was much too thin: 'I just thought the connection between Geldof and the Labour Party was ... just too tight ... Who is this gratifying and where were the Africans? Where was their say?'

African musicians were only introduced to Live 8 when their absence was highlighted and condemned and even then they were given their own stage hundreds of miles away from the main event in London. It was musical apartheid, not on the basis of race, but of fame. 'Music' has an establishment also.

Both 'Sir' Bob Geldof and Sir Mick Jagger had tried to make Richards change his mind, he said. 'Oh yeah - all the Sirs had a bash - every one of them.' Richards may well have been seen as not supporting the suffering children of Africa, but in his assessment of what he saw he was right. Surely we should be pursuing real change, not the illusion of it.

I have watched with a gathering dismay the trail of British 'celebs' supporting the 'New' Labour Party under Blair as, like Bush's Republicans, it has goose-stepped its way to an Orwellian tyranny. The Labour Party was founded in 1893 as a defender of the masses from the fascism of the established order. But under successive leaders, especially Blair, it has become the established order and so many of its sycophants have made the same journey. This week, the lie-machine that is Anthony Blair made his last speech as leader to the Labour Party Conference in Manchester. It was the usual catalogue of lies, exaggerations and avoidance of reality. If you ever find a half-truth in a Blair speech it is a typing error. One newspaper put it like this: 'Almost every word Blair spoke would have been perjury had he been on oath.' But as the last lie left his lips, the Labour faithful were on their feet - their symbolic knees - for nine minutes cheering and clapping to the dictates of those conducting this sickening spectacle. Hundreds of thousands of dead people were forgotten, the lies that led to wars of conquest and mass murder no longer conscious. But then sycophancy is an amnesic condition.

As if the soul had not suffered enough, the next day brought Bill Clinton to the Labour stage for his fix of hero-worship. This is the man who joined with Blair to bomb the former Yugoslavia and impose the devastating sanctions on Iraq. This is the man who gets his kicks abusing mind-controlled slaves like Cathy O'Brien (See Trance-Formation of America) and ran cocaine through the Mena airstrip in Arkansas with the Bush family. Clinton's 'new' public buddy is father George Bush, the child molester and serial killer, who controls his idiot son. Tony Blair said of Clinton: 'When I see him speak, I thank the Lord he is on my side'. As character references go, it doesn't get much worse.

But where were the members of the Labour Party - the 'party of the people' - when Clinton's last lie had faded into the ether? Back on their sycophantic feet cheering the very personification of the system their party was supposed to have been founded to challenge. Even Ken Livingstone, the so-called 'left wing radical' Mayor of London, was up there smiling his approval and slapping palms with the rest of them. The 'radical' Guardian newspaper put it this way:

'... this was the speech of a truly serious political leader, and if it went on five minutes longer than it needed to do, it was still a performance of the highest possible class. If one were reviewing it, five stars would not be enough. What a speech. What a pro. And what a loss to the leadership of America and the world.'

That was said by a 'serious' newspaper of a drug-running serial liar with a stream of unexplained deaths in his wake, including the 'suicide' of Vince Foster, a long-time associate of the Clintons’ who knew everything necessary to put them both away for life. Clinton's new public profile is part of the campaign to put Hillary, his wife-of-convenience, in the White House in 2008. She is another willing and enthusiastic tool of the global elite who brings the sycophants to their feet with her Hollywood role of defender of women and the rights of the people. Emphasise the freedom and don't mention Vince.

Where establishment power goes sycophancy follows, for without it there would be no establishment in the first place. It is not only that power creates sycophancy, but that sycophancy creates power. Political power is the ability to make others do things. If we don't do them where is the power? What we are looking at here is like a mathematical equation. Just as 2 + 2 = 4, so desire for control + sycophancy = power. And desire for control + sycophancy + acquiescence of the general population = absolute power. It is in the latter equation that the answer lies. Real change for the better is not triggered from within 'the club', the 'establishment' in all its forms, where elites rule and sycophants follow. It happens when the club is forced to acknowledge the will of the people - or fall. Great reforms have come when the people have said enough is enough and the establishment has had to respond to protect itself.

There is a belief that you have to be inside the club to affect decisions, but it's not true. If you encircle the building with demands for change and cover all the exits - don't take no for an answer - the establishment has to act. Far from covering the exits, for instance, Live 8 and Gleneagles provided one. It allowed the appearance of action on world poverty to hide the fact that nothing of substance was happening. When the pathetic 'help' for Africa was announced at Gleneagles, Geldof and co should have been screaming 'no, no, disgraceful - the campaign will be stepped up and we will hound you and expose you until you do the decent thing.' Instead, he talked up the 'help' and gave the dark suits their escape route.

The real sign of change at the Labour Party conference was outside the hall in the tens of thousands of people who came from all over Britain to protest at the wars of conquest and control. It is in such demands for change and, even more importantly, in mass peaceful refusal to co-operate with the system, that the powers of imposition will lose their grip on the lives of people. Only then will establishment power be exposed as the illusion that it is. Establishment power is nothing more than the abdication of power by sycophant and population. But even this is only a stage on the road to a new and truly free 'world'. Changing the established order is one thing, but without a massive consciousness shift to a higher level of awareness, an old establishment falls only for a new one to replace it. Indeed, old and new are the same establishment under different names, be it a democracy, a republic, or a fascist state. Only with an enormous shift, way beyond the consciousness of hierarchy, can we move into the realm of universal freedom.

We'll know when we get there because the world will be sycophant-free.

Surveillance 'speed' cameras

If the claim that speed cameras are positioned to reduce speed and accidents and NOT for revenue is to be taken seriously, then action resulting from the following article, and the many that have preceded it, would be a police presence to attempt to slow traffic. Such presence is absent as the money rolls in so it makes it very difficult to accept government claims.

I support the ethic of ‘speed cameras’, if that’s all they are and not a surveillance eye on public movements around Britain of drivers generally or targeted vehicles specifically. If drivers cannot keep their speed legal then they should be treated accordingly. However, my distrust of government does lead me towards the inevitable conclusion: speed and safety is only the justification, the smokescreen, for these bright yellow eyes watching over us.

Not for safety, but for control.

Cynical isn't it? The bright yellow eyes among us and yet almost totally ignored. People are so used to them. And watching only cars? I expect so as we have the CCTV cameras everywhere else in urban areas to watch over pedestrians.

The following Guardian article has recently appeared:

Motorway roadworks speed camera nets £1.2m in 7 months.

Steven Morris and Helen Carter
Thursday September 7, 2006
The Guardian

Britain's most lucrative motorway roadworks speed camera netted more than £1m in just seven months, it was revealed yesterday. More than 20,000 motorists were caught out by the camera on the M5 near Bristol, costing them £1.2m in fines and more than 60,000 penalty points.

Campaigners against speed cameras, who claim the machines cause more accidents than they prevent, were furious at the statistics, released under the Freedom of Information Act. The revelations came as a man who blew up a speed camera in a futile effort to destroy evidence of him breaking the speed limit was jailed for four months. Craig Moore, 28, from Doncaster, said he had taken an explosive substance from his workplace at Vital Rail to sabotage the camera. The blast caused £11,700 damage to the camera in Hyde, Greater Manchester, which captured him speeding in August last year.

The court heard that his plan backfired because the photographs of his speeding and footage of him damaging the camera were stored in recording equipment in the machine's base, which was undamaged. He admitted damaging property.

More than 100 motorists were caught by the camera in Bristol every day between junctions 18 and 25, bringing in £260 an hour. Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership said it was disappointed, but not surprised so many people exceeded the 40mph limit.

Paul Smith, the founder of anti-speed camera group Safe Speed, said the haul was the latest example of "innocent" drivers being targeted. "I'm so angry to hear about this camera raking in so much money for the government, when scientific evidence shows us that fixed cameras like this one can increase accidents by up to 55%."

Nigel Humphries, of the Association of British Drivers, said fixed cameras forced drivers to concentrate on their speed limit, rather than the road ahead. "Cameras at roadworks force drivers to look down at the speedometers and not at their surroundings, which, it has now been proven, causes accidents.

"This whole mess is made by the Safety Camera Partnership, which is ripping off people in the name of safety."

Dave Gollicker, spokesman for the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, said the number of motorists caught was a fraction of the hundreds of thousands who used the motorway while the work was being done.

He denied speed cameras were simply a way of making money: "They are there to protect the workforce and the motorist."

The whole issue is being reduced to farce. Comments like "innocent" drivers being targeted are absurd. They are not innocent. But, if after 7 MONTHS action hasn't been attempted to enforce reduced speed, the only reasonable conclusion is that it is too profitable. All that bollocks about safety?

Cameras are mostly for surveillance, but have the bonus of making a shedload of money in the process.

Ethical behaviour

Documents obtained by the Guardian under The Freedom of Information legislation reveal that:

The world's biggest drug company, Pfizer, warned ministers that it could take its business elsewhere. "Pfizer ... noted that there is complacency in some quarters of Whitehall regarding their continued investment in the UK," the minutes of the meeting record.

Ministers later agreed to a special meeting where six companies could lobby for their drugs for Alzheimer's disease.

Two companies lobbied ministers for wider access by patients to their drugs, both of which were later turned down by Nice on the grounds that they were not effective enough and too expensive.

The pharmaceutical industry is a major contributor to the UK economy. Its total investment in research and development was more than £3.4bn in 2004, which, a Whitehall briefing note points out, "represents around a quarter of the UK's total manufacturing industry expenditure".

Decisions by Nice, set up seven years ago, are crucial for the companies. It decides whether a drug should be universally available to patients in the NHS. Chaired by Prof Sir Michael Rawlings, Nice draws on scientific experts and consults doctors, patients, drug companies and the Department of Health. The government invariably accepts its final recommendations. Although ministers say they cannot influence Nice, the documents reveal a constant stream of high-level visitors from drug companies.

Manufacturers, led by Pfizer, have been complaining to ministers about Nice's position on their controversial Alzheimer's drugs. Originally Nice decided to allow them, then it reversed its position, saying they should be used only for a minority of patients with moderate disease.

At a meeting in October with the minister, Pfizer executives made it clear they "were unhappy with the Nice decision ... and thought their processes were flawed". They requested a special meeting with ministers where all the companies making Alzheimer's drugs could put their case.

The documents prepared by civil servants for the Pfizer meeting outline the wealth and scale of the US company, which in 2004 had revenue of $52.5bn (£28bn) and a net income of over $11bn.

But, Pfizer executives warn the minister, it could always take its business elsewhere. "Pfizer ... noted that there is complacency in some quarters of Whitehall regarding their continued investment in the UK," the minutes record. "Pfizer asked for more public support from the government for a robust pharmaceutical industry in the UK and more consultation/dialogue with the government."

The subsequent meeting with all the companies took place in December. The minister, Jane Kennedy, was confronted by eight managing directors, vice-presidents and senior executives from six drug companies. The executives lobbied hard for the Nice ruling to be overturned by the government.

A memo reports the summing-up of Johnson & Johnson's vice-president David Brickwood: "Nice should take into account what the companies see as the overwhelming views of patients, carers and clinicians on the efficacy of the drugs."

In a statement, Pfizer said it "regularly meets with key stakeholders, including government ministers, to keep them up to date with issues relating to our business". A variety of topics were discussed, it said.

"Nice and health technology assessment remains a topical issue coupled with the proposed ban on medicines for mild Alzheimer's disease. We believe this is the wrong decision and have appealed along with other manufacturers of anti-dementia medicines."

In February, Eli Lilly lobbied hard for its drug Alimta, designed to treat the asbestos-linked cancer mesothelioma. Its executives gave a presentation to Ms Kennedy, incorporating newspaper cuttings claiming that cancer victims were dying for want of the drug. The minister agreed that there should be a high-level meeting between her ministry and the Department for Work and Pensions.

But in June, Nice said there was insufficient evidence to show that Alimta was better than other cheaper treatments, recommending that the NHS should not use it. A Lilly spokesman said it was legitimate for the company to make representations to the DoH but it was not seeking to undermine Nice. "We are fully engaged and committed to the Nice process," he said

Pressure was brought to bear on ministers by another company, Johnson & Johnson, over its bone cancer drug Velcade. A briefing for Ms Kennedy before a meeting with the company's executives in November says: "Johnson & Johnson have written to the Department of Health numerous times over the past 12 months about Velcade." The company wanted its drug fast-tracked for approval by Nice.

Velcade was one of the five drugs Nice was asked by ministers to handle through its new fast-track procedure. But Nice's appraisal committee has given a preliminary opinion that it is not suitable for use in the NHS.

A Johnson and Johnson spokesman said the company was not trying to "unduly influence" Nice but it was legitimate to seek to persuade ministers to speed up the appraisal of Velcade. The company did not want to comment on its lobbying over Alzheimer's drugs.

In May, the health minister Andy Burnham met Peter Dolan, then chief executive of Bristol-Myers Squibb and chairman of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the powerful industry body in the US, which has been highly critical of Nice.

Richard Marsh, director of external affairs at Bristol-Myers Squibb, who also attended the meeting, told the Guardian that his company had wanted to raise a number of issues, including Nice, with the minister.

"Companies have a legitimate interest in getting the best for their products and getting a positive appraisal by Nice. Where they have an opportunity to raise issues with ministers, they can do that ... It may be that Nice has genuinely got a blind spot about something and a legitimate point can be made to ministers. I don't think the Nice process is necessarily undermined. It is up to the minister what they do with that information." He added that companies wanted to invest in countries with a "favourable environment".

20 Damning Facts About Voting In The USA

By Angry Girl of


Did you know.... I didn't, but I'm not surprised.

1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S.
http://en.wikipedia org/wiki/Diebold

2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry.

3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.

4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.

6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee.

7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates.

8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.

9. Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.

10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.

11. Diebold is based in Ohio.

12. Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as consultants and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states.,2645,61640,00.html

13. Jeff Dean was Senior Vice-President of Global Election Systems when it was bought by Diebold. Even though he had been convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree, Jeff Dean was retained as a consultant by Diebold and was largely responsible for programming the optical scanning software now used in most of the United States.

14. Diebold consultant Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years.

15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.

16. California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold's claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it!

(See the movie here:,2645,63298,00.html

17. 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail.

18. All -- not some -- but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates.,2645,65757,00.html

19. The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President's brother.

20. Serious voting anomalies in Florida -- again always favoring Bush -- have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.,10801,97614,00.html


1 in 5 Americans believe the elections were fraudulent.

That's over 41 Million Americans.

You are NOT alone!

New Mexico, Aspartame, Bush and the FDA

New Mexico State Senator Tells
Bush - Pull The Plug On Aspartame

President George Walker Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C. 20500

Dear President Bush:

We request that you order FDA Commissioner nominee, Andrew Von Eschenbach M.D., to rescind the FDA approval for the artificial sweetener, Aspartame. Its approval was forced through the FDA in 1981, and the USA has had 25 years to observe the incontrovertible medical effects from Aspartame, which derive from its being metabolized as methanol and formaldehyde, and two unessential amino acids, one of which, phenylalanine is neurotoxic lowering the seizure threshold and depleting serotonin and the other aspartic acid, an excitotoxin. The molecule breaks down to a proven brain tumor causing agent, diketopiperazine. Aspartame is now found in 6000 USA food products and more than 500 medications.

There is a excellent precedent for this: the fact that Richard Nixon in 1969 ordered that the FDA rescind the approval for another proven carcinogenic artificial sweetener, Cyclamates. The incidence of neurodegenerative diseases in the USA like Multiple Sclerosis and Lou Gehrigs Disease have increased substantially since 1981. We think that given the evidence that has accrued thus far concerning Aspartame's harm, its effects as a teratogen, causing birth defects and chromosomal damage; its being the most complained about chemical on the market, according to FDA statistics (FDA stopped taking complaints on Aspartame in 1995); and because of our concern for protecting the health of Americans, as well as the health of the many nations which subsequently approved it for general use as a result of the US FDA approval, we ask that you order Aspartame rescinded by the FDA Commissioner nominee as soon as possible.

As you know, the Institute of Medicine has completed a recent report sharply critical of the FDA regarding the FDA's inability to ensure the safe and effective use of prescription drugs. Our concerns in this letter are not with drugs, but with the obvious need to overhaul the entire process of the FDA granting approval for food additives in general, which are often forced through the approval process based only on the strength of industry paid for studies. The USA needs independent objective source of truth in these processes.

You have a chance to do this as President, which is preferable to the United States Senate having to later make rescinding FDA approval for Aspartame and other deleterious and poisonous substances a condition upon which Dr. Von Eschenbach's nomination approval is contingent. Your concerns should not be with corporate objections and continued allegations that their products are safe. Many heads of state internationally will be grateful for your taking the correct action in this regard.


Gerald Ortiz y Pino

Members of the New Mexico Legislative Health and Human Services Committee

Senator Ortiz y Pino's earlier article 2/19/2006:

Aspartame Buys Time
By Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino

Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to the corrosive influence of money on our public policy. I'm not just talking about the shenanigans inside the beltway of our nation's capitol-that Congress is for sale to the highest bidder has unfortunately become a practically accepted tenet of the American belief system.

So accepted is it that the astounding arrogance and venality being revealed by the current Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff scandals in the District of Columbia scarcely produce raised eyebrows, let alone outrage.

But I'm not just talking about that.

Nor am I talking only about the way that moneyed interests are able to sway local government toward policies that benefit those interests; hey, we apparently prefer a system in which local elections go to the highest bidder and business-as-usual involves twisting contractors' arms to secure campaign contributions.

Instead, today I'd like to zero-in on the pressure applied to our third level of representative government, the carryings-on that occur in the halls of State Government ... in all its branches.

And from among at least a dozen recent, painful examples of how big business manages to protect itself from such wet-blanket considerations as the good of the public, I'd like to select one as a representative: the continued approval of the reliance by processed food and beverage manufacturers on the chemical aspartame.

As an artificial sweetener, one now being added to some 6,000 products, it is difficult for most Americans to not consume aspartame daily. Its safety (and clearing up any doubts about that safety) would seem to be of critical importance to millions of us. But any discussion of this topic has been postponed in New Mexico indefinitely-through influence exerted by representatives hired by the Japanese manufacturer of aspartame, the Ajinomoto Corporation.

Those well-connected hired hands managed, in December, to frighten the State Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) into backing off of the public hearings into aspartame's safety that they had originally agreed to conduct this coming summer. They managed this delay by challenging the authority of the State of New Mexico to review anything already approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by threatening to sue the state if we tried to do so.

Then those same hired hands resurfaced (augmented by the addition to their team roster of Butch Maki, a close confidant of Gov. Bill Richardson) in time to quash all attempts to discuss the matter during the just-concluded State Legislature.

There was one hearing on the subject and it drew significant numbers of the industry lobbyists, all of whom asserted the same party line: The substance is perfectly safe; the Federal Government has looked at it carefully and who the heck is New Mexico, anyway, to raise any questions about it?

The committee succumbed, and turned down the measure to ban aspartame 7-2.

That half-hour hearing was the total discussion of the matter this year in the public arena in New Mexico, unless the EIB board changes its mind and decides to call Ajinomoto's bluff by going ahead and holding a hearing.

The incredible spectacle of corporate hirelings exerting this kind of influence is, to our great shame, all too common in our state. The Legislature has resisted reforming campaign finance laws to inject some real muscle, which leaves the door wide open to the corporate powers to throw money around strategically, buying whatever access they need or blocking their opposition's access to the policymakers.

But no one should be surprised that Ajinomoto would rely on muscle to protect its profits from aspartame. The entire history of this product's approval by the FDA is rife with muscle flexing ... and very little in the way of science. Originally, it was a patent of the Searle Pharmaceutical Company. And beginning in the late '60s, the FDA repeatedly turned down Searle's submissions for approval, the results of its testings leaving serious doubts in the minds of FDA scientists.

All of that changed in 1981 when Ronald Reagan took the presidency. He listened to the then head of Searle, Donald Rumsfeld, (yes, that Donald Rumsfeld) who bypassed the scientists and went straight to the new Reagan appointee at FDA. Within weeks, the scientists were overruled and aspartame was approved. Several FDA scientists resigned in protest. They even alleged that Searle had fabricated results in the testing submitted.

Twenty-five years later, the evidence is mounting that our growing incidence of brain tumors, organ cancers and neurological diseases has followed the introduction of so many artificially created additives and chemicals in our food. It's only a matter of time until even Ajinomoto's money won't be able to block the unavoidable link between these unnecessary products and our decline in health.

When that happens, as it finally did to tobacco and lead and other heavy metals found in gasoline, we will act. The sad thing is that thousands of deaths and ruined lives will occur between now and then.

One of the cruel ironies to aspartame is that it was supposed to create sugar-free soft drinks for the benefit of diabetics. Since its introduction, the incidence of diabetes has soared. Some critics link the two. What is clear is that it ain't helping.

With all that money and muscle behind it, aspartame has evaded its comeuppance for another year. But the final reckoning can only be postponed, not avoided.

Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino -
Stephen Fox - 505 983 2002 (petitioned EIB and Board of Pharmacy for ban)
Dr. Kenneth Stoller - 505 955 - 8560 or (petitioned Board of Pharmacy ­ New Mexico Aspartame Detox Center)

Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder
Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
770 242-2599 and
Aspartame Toxicity Center,
Aspartame Documentary: Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, or Barnes & Noble

Applause for Bliar - 9 minutes???


Why do you imagine that Blair got a nine minute applause at that sycophantic crawler bash in Manchester? No one dared to be the first to stop clapping, of course. The first one eventually stopped because of fatigue and the physical pain of smacking hands together. It's that obvious.

It's sickening. These people are small 'arseholes' supporting 'bigger' 'arseholes' in their bid to start climbing up inside. It must be dark, but the blind do not see.

And that appalling stench of following up behind? It's the price for the 'arse' licker

The deaf don't hear the lies and the stupid couldn't understand them anyway. To be deaf, stupid and blind?

To be a Bliar supporter.

Supported by all those heads up his 'arse'.

And he's always smiling.


Do you know (of) anybody who meets the following criteria?
  • "I am rich. I have a 'fast', heavy and powerful car that drinks huge amounts of petrol (a petrolic?). I, therefore, have a special right to fuck the planet and all the people who live on it."
  • "I have zero self-control."
  • "I can also fuck myself."
  • "I am a complete tosser."

The Exploitation of People

Apparently, according to the newspapers(!) we all creep over the speed limit from time to time and getting caught will provide a heavy fine, penalty points, increased insurance premiums or, for persistent offenders, loss of licence altogether. The main reason for having road laws is to make money.

Something to look forward to, then.

According to the advertising "the road safety myth" goes something like this: enforcement of motoring laws often has little or nothing to do with road safety. It's all about money, money, money.

This from the co-author (retired traffic police officer) of a book implying that speeding is OK. This author is not attempting to make money, just promote road safety, of course. Maybe it's more profitable working on behalf of the offender than trying to stop people offending. But it's all about government making money, not about making roads safer on the ever increasingly crowded British roads.

A full page advert in a Sunday paper doesn't come cheap.

Such laudable altruism.

This whole issue highlights one major problem. The shit attitude of some British drivers. That they actually think it's morally acceptable to speed. Speed limits are imposed for a reason. If you exceed that limit then you should expect to get caught. If you use the roads, it is your responsibility to know the speed limit for the zone in which you are driving.

The 'logic', however, seems to argue that speeding nearby to schools, across the zebra crossing, down a highstreet, along any road that has both parked cars and pedestrians (a known hazard), minor roads joining major roads (any junction, in fact) is all about money and not safety.

I consider these great motivators to make people aware of speed. If you believe you can 'creep' over a speed limit, then impose a lesser limit on yourself: 27mph in a 30mph zone, 37 mph in a 40mph zone for just a couple of instances.

Though I appreciate rocket science like that is difficult for some.

If you're not sure about a speed limit then assume it's 30mph. If it's 40mph there is frequent signage. If it's 50mph there's frequent signage. Maybe even BIG numbers painted in the road. Otherwise, 60mph unless on a dual carriageway or motorway where it's 70mph. That's it. The maximum anywhere on British roads is 70mph.

Is this rocket science really difficult to follow?

Drivers make an easy target, even when speeding. It actually equates shoplifting with speeding in a lethal vehicle. Any car at any speed is potentially lethal. Shoplifting is wrong certainly, but it is not likely to endanger life. A shoplifter gets little more than a 'slap on the wrist' while a 'speeder' gets substantially more. It's so unfair.

If there is a real problem it is that the law is weak by loading the evidential proof required in death by dangerous driving, or even serious injury, so much that it favours the driver. It's almost a case of the pedestrian who 'hit my car at 46mph'. Joke? Pathetically, it is not.

Well, clearly discouraging driving shouldn't happen. The real source of money: keeping people driving, of course. Not preventing it. So, a drink driver is banned. More time to spend money drinking, maybe? Still spending money. Money. Money. To the exchequer. Gordon's (drinks) party fund.

On it goes: " you're being used as a source of easy money by the government and could be robbed of your means of transport."

Nothing, of course, to do with you. Just a poor sap going too fast who happened to get caught. So unfair.

But with insider information you can cheat! It actually suggests fighting back! That to me sounds like encouraging (inciting) you to break the law legally. Perverse? Absolutely.

It's all about how to cheat or beat the system after you've broken the law. It's not about encouraging a better attitude towards driving.

And it's not about making money. Bloody Hell! What a suggestion.

Example: how to avoid a crippling fine DOES NOT mention simply keeping your speed down. Just how to avoid the fine - afterwards.

What a load of bollocks.

And if you fall for it? You're obviously such a bright spark you should quickly amass enough points to 'lose' your licence.

Before you kill anyone, of course.

American leadership!

When it comes down to true leadership and to take forward the attitudes of the world, the USA, whatever that Administration thinks of itself, is patently NOT a true leader. It can show how to make money or plunder wealth. The values of the corrupt intelligence. The lead example is global warming. Even if a cyclical warming period (caused by precession) is inevitable that leads to climate change, pumping out billions of tons of CO2 isn't designed to help slow the inevitable. The USA sees progress in going backwards. Chasing money is in this direction. Back into the dark ages.

Try to feed a corpse. Not much will happen.

Obviously, the ultimate aim in space exploration is the hunt for wealth. True scientists certainly search for knowledge, but not those that control the 'real money'? It's the attainment of wealth. And then to use it for power. For control. Simple.

What is the use of money if you cannot spend it? Gain power over your own kind. Be rich. Rich. Rich. But forever condemned to remain in prison Earth with old ideals that will eventually destroy us all. Wealth is the key that will kill us all. The irony? It will murder the wealthy too.

If there's no air to breathe or a cool place to exist (there would be no air conditioning by default) then food will cease to exist. Water will remain in the air to a greater extent and not on the ground where it's needed. Air that is too wet is as problematic as air that is too dry when it comes to respiration. Breathing to live.

If the planet is not self-sustainable by recycling what we use, eventually all resources must run out. WHEN not IF.

"Bliar goes to another planet. Turned away."

This current Bliar Labour government will forever dream up more taxes to pay for (bail itself out, get out of jail FREE card...) the ludicrous policies it also dreams up. Failure follows failure follows failure.

Why dream up taxes? Dream up policies? Just for fun?

Maybe. Or something to do.

But: it's all about making money. 'Creating' wealth. There's no such concept actually. Move wealth around. That's more honest. A winners and losers game.

Where did the original wealth begin? That's an easy one: Earth's resources.

Consume and don't replace? Wealth doesn't grow. It declines. New sources of a known resource may be located or a different one altogether, but unless something is replaced it will all become exhausted.

Common sense only exists above the sand.

All this Bliar/Brown hostility. Really? Or just a sham to attempt to cover up the long term plan to fuck us all. Again. How many times now? I stopped counting at 50 times. Rape is being fucked against one's will. Gang rape is..?

A bunch of hopeless, inept wasters. And always have been. And why doesn't Bliar go yesterday? End of May? How many more freebies can his wife get in during these next few months. And all those vast payments for Human Rights court cases. Nepotism? It's not just about throwing up, but HOW FAR can you chunder? And she is NOT, NOT, NOT a fucking first lady. She is just a non-elected inidividual who happens to be the legal spouse of a prime minister.



Horrible, nasty people.

An old saying

"What the papers say"

What does this suggest?

Newspaper articles are written by a few people for a large readership. It is a method.

It is not what the papers say, of course. It is the (biased) message that is to be communicated only based on truth, but distorted to persuade.

Franz Kafka

The Trial by Franz Kafka:

"... it is an essential part of the justice dispensed here that you should be condemned not only in innocence but also in ignorance."

An old story

"It's time to tackle yobs".

Hasn't it always been "time to tackle yobs"?

Story in a local free paper.

Progress of greed

The power struggle is just more apparent today, but it's much the same as usual. Everybody with their snout in the trough, smelling rich pickings.

When does anything ever get achieved?

For the true benefit of all.

Conspiracy Theory: how it doesn't work

A problem with being regarded as a 'conspiracy theorist' demonstrates how effective misinformation can be. How it works to assist those wishing to hide something.

The perception is one of negative thinking rather than clear and highly objective thinking. The type of 'subjective' thinking that rarely gets supported by fact. Mostly innuendo. Suggestion.

Stating: "wrong".

The response shouldn't be one of why you think I am wrong (usually can't make an argument anyway), but why you think you are right.

Belief systems: why do you believe that Apollo happened? I am only putting forward a case to challenge it. I have no proof it didn't happen anymore than you could prove that it did. It all depends on your belief system. Mine exists within the confines of logic although I do think 'outside the box'. Consider all the likely alternatives and not be selective. I don't 'cherry pick' by selective argument.

So, when a rationale is expressed that does not conform to dogma, it is 'ridiculed' by those who pander to such dogma. The message is then one that is not well-received, even though the message may be accurate. People don't want to hear it because it is 'odd'. Not the right way of thinking. Not the accepted "toe-the-line" way.

Surprisingly, I've found, there are more people around than you are led to believe that do listen to properly argued information. There's the incredibly arrogant posturing that assumes everybody else is too stupid to understand any type of argument. It should be within the skill of the proposer to use language understood by all. To adapt argument to be understood. Not dress it up with jargon and complex phraseology to attempt to flummox someone of average intelligence. These are the very people to whom the viewpoint should be clearly explained. Not deliberately excluded and undermined.

Mostly, those who are such 'conspiracy theorists' provide supportive evidential facts that are interpreted as simply wrong without any counter argument to defend a rebuttal.

This could be regarded simply as misinformation disseminated by those who have an interest in rubbishing sensible comment. I am such 'an easy target'. It never ceases to fascinate me: this rejection based on nothing and a total disregard of the supportive evidence. Not even listening. Just rejection.

I can understand why 'dumming down' is encouraged so much today. It removes the need for the Orwellian 'thought police'. And makes it all the easier to control people by telling them how to think. If you fall into the trap of believing dogma, then your reward is that you are not considered a conspiracy theorist! Such reward!! And if you don't accept dogma you must be a conspiracy theorist. QED.

Who does seriously objectively 'read' the tabloid 'newspapers' like TDE? My experience is that the opinions of the day are most definitely created by these newspapers.

It seems to be a constant battle between the planted crowd-thinking mentality and independent thought.

A selection of The Daily E*****s articles

The following examples from TDE articles from 01.09.06 are really good scare stories. May be they are based on fact, but it is the selection as a group that is revealing:

a) Green Tories to tax drivers

Motorists and short-haul air travellers will be hammered by higher taxes under a Tory government. Inflation busting rises on petrol duty... Higher prices within UQ for flights - to encourage use of train.

No doubt just prior to rail ticket price hike. Squeezed between that rock and the hard place. Even before any election, the picture of hopelessness continues to be filled in. This 'paper' attempts to create scenes of despair.

Shadow Chancellor, George Osbourne:

"Instead of a tax system that penalises hard work and enterprise, I want to move towards more effective and fair taxes on pollution. I want the proportion of tax revenue raised by green taxes to rise."

Watch out for the mind game here: fair taxes, tax revenue raised, green taxes to rise.

When has a tax been anything but unfair? We are so conditioned to the term being repeated 'tax', 'tax', 'tax', that it can pass you by almost unnoticed. Be aware: a tax is still a tax. Government getting its grubby hands on your money. For what?
Make no mistake Cameron's Crowd is the party that stands for the continuation in tax rises, but only associates itself with the colour green. Nothing else. Osbourne has said that's what "I want".

And fuck you? You decide.

A high-speed rail system (MagLev). Have you heard of this before? Or has it been waiting in the wings to be rolled out... soon? But you are being conditioned to its name, whatever this technical achievement might be. No doubt it will require several £billions to develop it. Just like the 'magic' cure around the corner for some new disease. Needs £billions spent on it though.

Do you ever see the accounts? No. Neither do I. Never will either. Just be told it will cost £billions and £billions.

Yeah. Sure.

If they say so. Would lie to me, eh?

Consider this: the money you have is really only that proportion that you're allowed to keep. As time goes on this amount gets less and less, justified as tax rises. As the wealth continues to be redistributed (yes it is, taken from you and ending up with the wealthy making them even richer).

The Midas society is coming where all the rich will have to eat is gold. And that's a limited supply, like oil. Black gold. Well, drink that you fuckers. So blinded by riches that they don't see the inevitable. Pathetic. It really is. And very sad for all the rest of us. Those that are considered the lowly slaves by the deluded rich. Just like the plebeians in Roman times. Nero fiddled as Rome burned, but today 'leaders' plunder as Earth burns. Money and riches stay on Earth along with bones and all their rotted stinking flesh. And they think they are special. Strange logic there. Somewhere.

b) Is your street the fattest in the country?

(Shortish headline, but how can a street be fat?)

As a pioneering new survey reveals Britain's obesity explosion...

Pioneering? Revelation?

'Scientists' have pinpointed for the first time which is the fattest street in Britain.

Survey conducted by research group Dr Foster Intelligence. Individual mentioned: Marc Farr, but no salutation. Later a health consultant at research group Experian, Emily Sparks, again no salutation.

And it goes on with alleged statistics. The residents of Oak Road, in Easington, County Durham, are apparently 22% more than the national average at risk of obesity.

But well-heeled inhabitants of St. Mary's Gate in the Kensington and Chelsea boroughs of west London have been identified as the slimmest at 11.5% below the average for obesity.

Data was extracted from 33,000 people. For a national average, the UQ population must be considered, currently around 60 millions. So, as population sample this represents 33,000/60,000,000 * 100 = 0.055%. Not very convincing to start with and then to extrapolate to the whole of Britain.

It's clear that less wealthy communities can more likely afford low quality food stuffs - low protein, high fat. The crap food. It's not food really, just a filler. Fast foods packed with chemicals churned out to make high profit. Lifestyles that do not allow attention to be made to self. It's existing.

What actually does this 'reveal'? It shows that poorer communities are fed with crap food and the rich are fed well. Rocket science stuff. Nothing else really, except it seems that affluent Londoners for some reason are 'on average' slimmer. Any average always means many above and many below the median. I'm sure that if you look just a little harder, like open your eyes for example, you will find a number of thin northerners and many 'fat' Londoners. An affluent society often has members that over indulge in all things 'good' and so it is not realistic to believe that fat Londoners do not exist. This article is trying to suggest that they don't. But they do in the north. This type of reporting sets out to find a particular conclusion and then find the 'facts' to support it. It distorts and is reporting of the worst kind.

Maybe it's what I have just done! Perhaps I should write for TDE.

c) Car Insurance Up 40%

Millions of honest motorists face a sharp rise in the cost of car insurance to pay for selfish drivers who flout the law.

[Incidentally, this 'paper' supports a campaign against the existence of speed cameras that enable motorists to flout the law. An inconsistent and hypocritical stance. So what? It's only a newspaper!]

Increases of up to 40% have been announced by Norwich Union, apparently.

This is to pay the costs incurred by 2 million uninsured drivers (£500m = £250 on average/driver). If the figure is definitely known then the identities of these drivers is known. If not known, how can this estimate be made? It also suggests that Norwich Union is making all its customers pay for this problem. Actually it insures 1 in 7 drivers.

Is this simply preparing the way for increases that outstrip the actual costs? Another example of what is wanted? To make everything more expensive with knock-on effects? Always start at the top of the tree and allow to percolate downwards and infect everything on the way.

Becoming cloudy already?

This is a national problem that government does nothing about. Allows the citizens of Bliar UQ to sort out the mess by paying its way out.

But who created the problem in the first place?

But it's NOT sorting it out. The problem won't go away because it's not being dealt with. According to this article, of course.

The article also tries to link the 'compensation culture' with this national problem. An argument can be made that ever increasing insurance costs will create more uninsured drivers. This makes for less administration for these insurance companies as there are less customers and they are each paying more their insurance. Effectively, this is paying the insurers to downsize their company, yet make bigger profits. Overheads are less. The ever growing number of cars creates a healthy future for the insurance industry.

This has nothing to do with money, money and more money. It has everything to do with protecting their customers interests. Of course.

How much more COULD you pay? This has changed from WILL pay. Notice that?

Blantant scaremongering.

Examples given:

1: £280 -> £297 (£17, 2.8%)
2: £391 -> £465 (£74, 18.9%)
3: £5,200 -> £8000 (£2,800, 53.8%)

The last one is somewhat over the 40% increase claimed in the headline. This is for an 18 year old with a modified Peugeot 206 (modified exhaust system?) and parks on the road in central Nottingam. And has less that one year's driving experience. Probably, where the car is parked has more to do with this that anything else. I cannot see how a modified exhaust system has anything to do with this, unless it makes it more attractive to steal? From a road in central Nottingham. The insurance before is more than likely a hypothetical one 'on the books'. Who would or could afford to pay this, except the very wealthy and I doubt then it would be a Peugeot 206. Or parked on the road in central Nottingham. What would be the cost to a 45 year old man (second example) who drives the same car and lives in central Nottingham, parking on the raod? It wouldn't be costed in a few £hundreds! That's for sure.

A very mixed up article, designed to create confusion? I would say so. To create worry and fear. The problem of the uninsured is more of a concern. The cost is a symptom of the disease. And the disease is left untouched to get worse. And worse.

Shadow Transport Secretary Chris Grayling:

"It is hugely frustrating to see law-abiding motorists paying more because of those who flout the law."

Frustrating? Sure. Do anything about it? You are joking, aren't you?

But keep on speeding and using car phones while driving, though.

[Note: isn't it odd that a large insurer didn't know whether a speeding conviction should be reported to them. Almost as though speeding never happens. Makes we wonder is speeding such a real problem or simply exploited?

The illusion being created.

Then, of course what do these cameras really record? Gets more sinister, doesn't it.

Especially when TDE campaigns against them.

d) The battle of Drax (my blog heading)

Eco warriors held as they storm power plant (TDE headline)

[Remember: The Daily E*****s supports nuclear power, it being environmentally friendly with zero emission of carbon dioxide.]

Hundreds of eco-warriors failed [were not successful] in a bid to shut down Europe's largest coal-fired power station yesterday (31.08.06). Taking part in a 10-day protest against CO2 emissions and demanding cleaner power.

'Eco-warriors' are clearly the enemy. Caring for the planet is a bad thing, it seems, but sometimes requires desperate measures, especially when up against overwhelming opposition. Right or wrong doesn't matter. What is important is that actions are opposed to government plans.

I understood that 'cleaner' power has been forced through - nuclear power. Clean: no CO2. Environmentally friendly according to TDE and simply ignores radioactive waste. It is not a problem.

What about radioactive waste at the moment. The waste that already exists, not that which will be produced in the future.

Protesters claimed that Drax is obsolete and should be shut down. Drax provides 7% (according to TDE) of UQ's daily electricity (aka UK. Perhaps it ought to be UB = United Bliardom? But then even FB = Federal Bliardom?). Apparently, many of the estimated 600 protesters from the Camp for Climate Change had allegedly (TDE again) been given "civil disobedience training". Arrests were for possession of offensive weapons. I wonder how many of the 28 arrests involved offensive weapons?

Notice many is undefined: could be 500 or more or 10 or less? Unknown.

Deputy Chief Constable of North Yorkshire (no doubt very PC!): "This is a sad contrast to the sincere and law abiding intentions [spare me, please] of the majority."

The majority will always be right, even if they're wrong. They are a majority. Of right-thinking people. Government-think. Law abiding citizens.

The "hardcore" who see themselves rising above the law are also sincere and care about the planet and NOT today's share prices. Quite a courageous stance really when viewed as challenging state dogma. And when the government-controlled civil army (aka police) lays into them, arresting 28 out of 600 or so.

Why do you imagine we have police and army? It is to control US, of course. All States behave the same. Crush the people.

Many are prepared to break the law. This is only because the law makes reasonable challenge illegal.

According to management, the plant was an "important national asset", pointing out (thank you) that shutting all coal generation [of power] in the UK would be bad for the economy as there would be a chronic energy shortage. By the way, it isn't just the economy that would suffer, we all would. That's how global energy systems have been developed. Again, money is more important than human survival.

Too much money has blinded some people (those making the money) to the future.

One day, money will be worthless. Think Midas syndrome: eat that you rich bastard.

Anyway, Drax isn't all such power generation, but it is the largest.

e) '£100,000-a-minute scandal'

Do you notice how TDE "states" some things as fact and allows others to be "claimed".

f) Work permits for new EU migrants 'are just a sham'

The TSE (Sunday...) is at it too:


"... could soon be hit with a new tax"

h) And yet another burden on Middle England ...

Law-abiding motorists to pay more for rogue drivers

"LAW-ABIDING motorists may be left to foot rogue drivers' bills as plans to tackle road tax evasion are axed."

i) Our children top allergy league table

Allergy 'expert' quote:

"We cannot identify what is causing the problem but one is the main theories is that we live in too clean an environment."

No mention again of chemicals in food or the very chemicals used to clean our domestic environment.

"We need to stop focusing on cures and looks at ways to eradicate the causes. Advances in technology are already making this possible."

"... Many areas have no allergy specialists and patients may not be treated properly."

Alan Jones, the 'expert', runs a company which manufactures products to reduce allergens in the air.

The legacy illusion

See how the illusion works?

The legacy: leave raised taxes, community 'charge' etc and all the unpopular changes behind and firmly in place for the next government. This one will make noises about change (which will never happen) and NOT be blamed for what has been introduced. The collusion that exists between governments is then never realised.

The creation of different political ideas is a screen that hides the true picture. Control. And all goverments work together at this without break. The illusion is that when a goverment ends, changes happen.

They appear to, but it's simply a continuation with more of the same. Occasionally, some insignificant issue can be removed. Unimportant, but does demonstrates undoing something. Real action of a most insignificant kind. Part of the cover. Appear to do something, but actually very, very little.

And it can happen quite fast.

But of no import.

Saturday, October 28, 2006


Can extreme poverty be eliminated? Almost certainly, but it will never be allowed to happen. If nobody is poor or starving or in some way dispossesed then control is lost by those who would use it. To make money.

But control of the masses creates a source to 'milk' until it dies. Such sources are always replaced. Promote a growing population. Promote growth of the source. Malnutrition causes disease. Pharmaceuticals, medicines, health industry. Also keeps up prices for those who can afford it. Governments (ie tax payers) sustain the 'needy'.

The 'cynical' spongers behave in no lesser way to the governments that create such misery.

Before the concept of money, what caused wars? Something was wanted and so was taken. No difference today except more effective in the taking with fewer 'soldiers'. But still have the same single 'commander' principle. At least that is the illusion.

Patronising intellect

Patronising those of lesser intellect than yourself can still be felt and 'understood' even though the action is not recognised for what it is.


What makes writers 'ghostwrite'? Would they not want their own identity to be associated with what they write? Or do they also write under their own or a penname? It sustains the lie that a well-known 'celebrity' can also be an author when clearly these 'famous' people don't have the ability or diction.

Maybe they do, so why does a publisher employ ghostwriters? If the well known 'name' attempted to write, it would almost certainly be a literary disaster. These first-time writer 'celebs' produce a 'bestseller' according to the publisher.

Well, I suppose they have to try and get something back for the financial risk involved.

Where does pain start or end?

Below the level of the neck, if a finger is severed then pain is felt. The rest of the body remains intact. If an arm is cut off this too is acknowledged by the brain. The receiver of the information. The brain senses the injury and essentially dispenses what we feel as pain. Above the neck, if an ear is lost this is recognised.

At neck level, if this is severed does the brain sense the injury, albeit for a very short time.

Until the oxygen in the blood has been exhausted, the brain is intact as it hasn't itself been injured. It simply cannot be supplied with everything the blood provides.

It's a macabre scenario.

Brain activity should be examined at a beheading. It is the only way this question could be answered.

Creating fear

To make the existence of security services acceptable to the state's own citizens, it is a good idea to foster fear. Currently by way of terrorism. The fact that these agencies exist becomes a way of life.

People are conditioned into the acceptance of fear.

The acceptance of fear and fear of fear itself

the RAND Corporation

According to the RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development) in 1994, a study claimed it is 23 times more cost-effective to treat heavy cocaine users than trying to cut the supply source, when it comes to reducing the consumption of drugs.

This is a useful study to refer to when making a case to sustain the drug trade.

Classic case of appearing to do something, but in effect doing nothing about the problem.

There are always long queues of desperate (drug free) new users coming through the door so that while diverting resources to treating the current stock of problems the new stock mounts up as the production and supply remains healthy.

Common sense dictates (to me) that kill the source, then deal with the problem. If, of course, a serious effort is made to kill this (highly profitable in terms of money and control) trade.

Deal with the root of a problem and the symptoms go away. Treat the symptoms and the problem will return. Probably worse (ie. more money, more control).

Wonderful stuff if I had an interest in making this evil trade grow and grow.

Inadequate rapist

Rape: any male who takes to penerative rape really does have a psychological hatred of women. Even those who would gang rape. There will be the gang 'leader' who exercises control by maybe not 'going first' or at all. But totally insist that his gang is directly involved. Some leaders can be ruthlessly clever.

Or they are just that little bit smarter than the stupid dumb shits who constitute the moronic gang. It's all relative. Not quite as pathetically stupid as the rest of the gang, perhaps. But still stupid.

Some, like the fictional Sherlock Holmes are mysogonists. Not women haters, just a kind of disdain. There can be respect, but never 'sexual desire' in any form, even to control.

Rapists can use the act for absolute control. Violently beating or raping are forms of the same deficit.

Mental instability.