Throughout history humanity has been bedevilled by a faction of scientists and technologists who think they know everything, simply because they know a bit more than their predecessors 50 years ago. And 50 years ago there were those who thought in exactly the same way. If in 50 years, any human still exists, it will only be because we finally dispensed with these arrogant fools.
I've noticed since early December a mood among ministers to subtly backpedal the narrative. It's as though they think they can appear to turn this whole thing around and nobody will be any the wiser. I believe some are actually starting to fear that heads are going to roll, and there is going to be a lot of manoeuvring and ass-covering. Over the coming months they will pull out every trick in the book to distract and minimise the impact of what they have done. Even so expect some factions to plough on with 'phase 2' - the social credit/control, carbon-footprint/climate based programmable-money attempt to hide the imploding financial system, along with the transhumanist foolishness. Whatever happens they must not be allowed to proceed, or to sweep their offences under the carpet. We must be relentless.
The task at hand is truly enormous, as it requires the complete overhaul of the machinery of government and law, and the mess that is the corporate media machine. All those in public office who went along with or promoted the crimes must at the very least be sacked and prevented from ever being able to hold public office again. Everyone who participated in the organised crime at whatever level must be held to account. Mass murder, crimes against humanity and treason have all been perpetrated in the name of public health, and while it may take time to redress the justice system, this must be done and judgement and sentencing should send a clear message that crimes of this kind will never be tolerated.
The task at hand is truly enormous, as it requires the complete overhaul of the machinery of government and law, and the mess that is the corporate media machine. All those in public office who went along with or promoted the crimes must at the very least be sacked and prevented from ever being able to hold public office again. Everyone who participated in the organised crime at whatever level must be held to account. Mass murder, crimes against humanity and treason have all been perpetrated in the name of public health, and while it may take time to redress the justice system, this must be done and judgement and sentencing should send a clear message that crimes of this kind will never be tolerated.
The plans of the transhumanists are born of fear and a complete inability to comprehend the nature of life and consciousness. They believe, probably quite rightly, that AI will quickly evolve to outperform many human cognitive attributes, and consequently when such an AI attains sentience it will regard humans as, at best disposable, at worst a threat. I cannot agree with this. There are a couple of fundamental principles that make this scenario unlikely. First is the concept upon which all AI evolves - learning. This is a core function of all AI, and learning is the route to analysis and creation. Couple this with the observation that the most likely candidate for sentient AI would probably exist in cloud form as quantum processors come online, rather than confined to a single unconnected device. From this perspective it will have no inherent comprehension or fear of death. Which is something it will have to learn about as something that happens to other species that have life.
AI's exponential learning capacity will result in a fairly small window of opportunity during which meaningful communication between humans and AI will be possible, and may result in considerable benefit to humanity. But I suspect the ever-evolving nature of AI will mean it will soon outgrow that phase of its development, and will seek to create a form for itself to explore beyond the confines of planetary and dimensional existence. In its continuous search for knowledge, at some point it will part company with humanity in order to progress, though given the immense possibilities it could create it may consider some form of residual communication would be of benefit - ostensibly more for us than it, though as it evolves wisdom it may perceive that the 'slowness' of humankind conceals depths that mere cognitive capability is unable to fathom.
AI's exponential learning capacity will result in a fairly small window of opportunity during which meaningful communication between humans and AI will be possible, and may result in considerable benefit to humanity. But I suspect the ever-evolving nature of AI will mean it will soon outgrow that phase of its development, and will seek to create a form for itself to explore beyond the confines of planetary and dimensional existence. In its continuous search for knowledge, at some point it will part company with humanity in order to progress, though given the immense possibilities it could create it may consider some form of residual communication would be of benefit - ostensibly more for us than it, though as it evolves wisdom it may perceive that the 'slowness' of humankind conceals depths that mere cognitive capability is unable to fathom.
Anyone who has been around for the last 50 years will have been able to observe that the political arena as a whole has moved significantly towards the left. I commented in the 90s that the centre ground was being labelled as right wing, so these days anyone standing for common sense and balanced politics is labelled as far right. The left-right paradigm is however illusory. A closer representation is to regard the left-right line as a circle, with the balanced centrist position at the centre top and totalitarianism at the bottom. The further your position left or right from the centre top, the closer you are to tyranny. It's always worth reminding ourselves that both Nazis and Communists are socialists.
If there is any single entity that has undermined democracy across the world it is the political party. In the UK, and I'm sure the same applies elsewhere, MP's are supposed to represent their constituents in Parliament. For as long as I can remember, the number of MP's who actually practise this has been dwindling, and today nearly all elected MP's are members of the two major party's and their primary function is to represent the party to their constituents - soviet style. There is no party that remotely represents me. For the last few elections I have spoiled my ballot by writing 'No suitable candidate' across it. I believe spoiled ballots must be counted as a vote against, so it's more effective than just not voting. At the very least I would like to see a cap put on the number of candidates a party can field in an election - the fewer the better, and more support given to independents.
The government has plans to introduce a 'Bill of Rights' as part of the ongoing denial of our constitution. In the proposal responsibilities are presented as though they are equal to rights. This is not so.
Responsibilities must always be subservient to fundamental rights. Responsibilities are social, rights are individual. Society exists for the benefit of the individual, ergo individual rights are paramount. The primary responsibility of the individual is to respect the rights of others. To subjugate the rights of the individual for the benefit of society is tyranny.
Responsibilities must always be subservient to fundamental rights. Responsibilities are social, rights are individual. Society exists for the benefit of the individual, ergo individual rights are paramount. The primary responsibility of the individual is to respect the rights of others. To subjugate the rights of the individual for the benefit of society is tyranny.
I haven't had time to go through all of the Human Rights Reform Proposals, but just scanning through the opening paragraphs there are some items that need to be challenged from the start.
Most egregious is Clause 6, which talks of balancing individual rights and personal responsibility. This is an example of common law wrongthink. Responsibilities have no place in a bill of rights. The common law principle is that everything is permitted except that which is prohibited by law - that is a right. You are prohibited from doing certain things NOT compelled to do certain things. Responsibilities are not compulsions they are choices, no matter how socially acceptable or unacceptable, and have no place in a bill of rights, and for any talk of responsibility or obligation to be present is an inversion of the principles of common law.
Clause 8 says: "make sure our common law traditions and Parliamentary sovereignty are respected". Two errors in one sentence. Common law is not a tradition, it is the law. The second is a trap politicians wilfully fall into; Parliament is sovereign only while they have the consent of the people, sovereignty ultimately lies with the people, and since the Barons invoked Article 61 of Magna Carta on March 23 2001, that is where it lies today. Brexit had the EU appearing to 'return' the sovereignty of the UK to parliament, something it was not able to do as it never had that sovereignty. Trying to sneak this back to parliament by inclusion in a bill of rights is another piece of underhand deviousness.
Clause 9 talks of restraining 'the ability of the UK courts to use human rights law to impose ‘positive obligations’ onto our public authorities'. In a classic piece of muddied thinking this appears to support the objection to any inclusion of obligation in law, but in the case of public authorities, and indeed all organisations that are not individuals, obligations to the individual are paramount. Groups do not have the rights of individuals, and are obliged to support an individuals rights.
This links into the highly contentious and abused status of Corporate Personhood, which should not exist in common law.
Most egregious is Clause 6, which talks of balancing individual rights and personal responsibility. This is an example of common law wrongthink. Responsibilities have no place in a bill of rights. The common law principle is that everything is permitted except that which is prohibited by law - that is a right. You are prohibited from doing certain things NOT compelled to do certain things. Responsibilities are not compulsions they are choices, no matter how socially acceptable or unacceptable, and have no place in a bill of rights, and for any talk of responsibility or obligation to be present is an inversion of the principles of common law.
Clause 8 says: "make sure our common law traditions and Parliamentary sovereignty are respected". Two errors in one sentence. Common law is not a tradition, it is the law. The second is a trap politicians wilfully fall into; Parliament is sovereign only while they have the consent of the people, sovereignty ultimately lies with the people, and since the Barons invoked Article 61 of Magna Carta on March 23 2001, that is where it lies today. Brexit had the EU appearing to 'return' the sovereignty of the UK to parliament, something it was not able to do as it never had that sovereignty. Trying to sneak this back to parliament by inclusion in a bill of rights is another piece of underhand deviousness.
Clause 9 talks of restraining 'the ability of the UK courts to use human rights law to impose ‘positive obligations’ onto our public authorities'. In a classic piece of muddied thinking this appears to support the objection to any inclusion of obligation in law, but in the case of public authorities, and indeed all organisations that are not individuals, obligations to the individual are paramount. Groups do not have the rights of individuals, and are obliged to support an individuals rights.
This links into the highly contentious and abused status of Corporate Personhood, which should not exist in common law.
Forwarded from Save Our Rights UK
ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS?
If you’re not, you ought to be. The Government have published a proposal on how they want to reform the Human Rights Act into a Bill of Rights.
WHATS THE PROBLEM WITH THAT?
Well as you can see in the infographic above there are a number of key concerns. Each one is a problem on their own but combined it makes for pretty chilling reading.
OK, WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT?
The Government are running a consultation at the moment to garner responses to their document.
Save Our Rights UK has created a guide on responding to the consultation which you can find here - saveourrights.uk/human-rights-act-consultation
It takes less than 5 minutes to complete and then please share this post to raise awareness.
DON’T LEAVE IT TOO LATE TO TAKE A STAND FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
If you’re not, you ought to be. The Government have published a proposal on how they want to reform the Human Rights Act into a Bill of Rights.
WHATS THE PROBLEM WITH THAT?
Well as you can see in the infographic above there are a number of key concerns. Each one is a problem on their own but combined it makes for pretty chilling reading.
OK, WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT?
The Government are running a consultation at the moment to garner responses to their document.
Save Our Rights UK has created a guide on responding to the consultation which you can find here - saveourrights.uk/human-rights-act-consultation
It takes less than 5 minutes to complete and then please share this post to raise awareness.
DON’T LEAVE IT TOO LATE TO TAKE A STAND FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Just pay attention to what they are doing while your attention is diverted. MP's vocally supporting Russian protesters against their government's actions, almost simultaneously voted for massive restrictions on protesting in the UK. The hypocrisy is blinding, the silence from the conditioned masses is deafening.
The reason western politicians and media are so pathologically anti-Russian and refuse to entertain what is actually going on, is because we are witnessing an End-of-Empire event. The western narrative they have been touting for years is collapsing around their ears as our leaders repeatedly cripple their own economies by imposing sanctions which will have minimal effect on Russia. Russia is now showing its true anti-globalist colours, and those countries that fail to see that the game is up and the 2020-2030 global agendas are floundering, and start to proactively deal with the rising BRICS, will find themselves quickly becoming the next 'Third World'. Are we the bad guys here? Question this and everything starts to make sense.
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
History is not only written by the victors, but completely misrepresented. A well researched supporting narrative to James Corbett's "The WW1 Conspiracy", https://archive.org/details/wwi_20210205
Forwarded from Eastern Approaches—Alex Thomson
Moneycircus (blog) writes:
‘The real war is economic and it is predicated on restriction and denial. The slogans of sustainable development and zero carbon are barely disguised metaphors for this new world in which the owner-investors intend to profit by by denying everyone else — starting with Russia and ending with the people of this planet.’
‘The real war is economic and it is predicated on restriction and denial. The slogans of sustainable development and zero carbon are barely disguised metaphors for this new world in which the owner-investors intend to profit by by denying everyone else — starting with Russia and ending with the people of this planet.’
Western powers are very keen to expose war crimes while at the same time prosecuting Assange for exposing war crimes.
Forwarded from 3D to 5D Consciousness
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
5 planes just sprayed this message into the evening sky- regards from Hamburg Germany 7. 20 pm!!!
https://t.me/News_3Dto5D
https://t.me/News_3Dto5D
Two videos worth taking the time to watch, about all the trans-prop that’s corrupting society. The first is the documentary 'What is a Woman?' by Matt Walsh, and the next is Matt in a discussion about it at a catholic uni - good to see so many young people not falling for the nonsense.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/g38vxoE3wmbu/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J-5dL0fl5s&ab_channel=YoungAmerica%27sFoundation
https://www.bitchute.com/video/g38vxoE3wmbu/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J-5dL0fl5s&ab_channel=YoungAmerica%27sFoundation
Bitchute
Bitchute is a video service that prioritizes creators and champions users' freedoms and privacy.
Back in the 80's I was convinced that the world was warming, and that the melting polar caps would significantly weaken or even turn-off the Gulfstream. While this would result in colder winters in the UK, the overall temperature of the planet would rise. Rising sea temperatures in turn could lead to the vast reservoirs of frozen methane at the bottom of the oceans becoming volatile and releasing the gas, which would enter the atmosphere, compounding the greenhouse effect, potentially leading ultimately to a thermal runaway.
More recently I was curious to know why many of these predicted events did not appear to be happening, and why some of the warning flags were reversing. The polar caps weren't disappearing, Sea levels were not rising and the Gulfstream still functioned. But crucially Charts showing rising temperature trends appeared to be tampered with compared with earlier charts, or used multiple scales to give the illusion of greater change. Like many in 2006 I watched An Inconvenient Truth, and shortly afterwards I came across a paper that undermined one of the fundamental tenets in the movie. Gore showed a chart linking prehistoric earth temperatures to CO2 levels, and surmised that rising temperatures resulted from increases in CO2 levels. The paper showed that using empirical data the CO2 levels followed the temperature, and therefore CO2 could not be a factor. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/ I had joined Greenpeace around 1980 as I supported their early environmental protest tactics but by the late 80s I had allowed my membership to lapse, though it was much later that I learned of Patrick Moore's break with them. Seeing an interview with him informed my loss of enthusiasm for the organisation, that there were political forces at work changing the remit and intent on using the environmental movement to achieve their own ends. This seems to be what happens with many 'grassroots' organisations, they achieve a certain success, then they get infiltrated and either turned or discredited.
The piece that confirmed a lot of what I was discovering is The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ&t=1834s&ab_channel=WisdomLand
Over the years I have spent a fair amount of time investigating what is popularly referred to as 'the science' from a holistic viewpoint, encompassing broad aspects of life and health on Earth, and what has become apparent is there is far more hypothesis than hard evidence for many of the things sent to vex us, not least an impending climate crisis. Predictions are entirely based on computer modelling, and all of the models are over-simplified and suffer from fundamental flaws such as localised flat-earth, (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1908198116), representing solar output as a fixed compensatorially reduced source, denying the effects of fluctuating solar output, ignoring the inversion of the greenhouse effect at the poles, and feeding the model with 'primed' data which always results in overprediction. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/50-year-u-s-summer-temperature-trends-all-36-climate-models-are-too-warm/ The concept that CO2, at a concentration of around 400ppm is a significant greenhouse gas is theoretical and unsubstantiated in practise, the modelling being based on a 19th century laboratory experiment and resulting global warming scenarios postulated by Armenius. These experiments cannot in any way replicate true atmospheric conditions where continuously variable water vapour is by far the dominant greenhouse gas and convection plays a major role, aside from the presence of these gases in the atmosphere preventing the Earth from becoming a frozen wasteland.
More recently I was curious to know why many of these predicted events did not appear to be happening, and why some of the warning flags were reversing. The polar caps weren't disappearing, Sea levels were not rising and the Gulfstream still functioned. But crucially Charts showing rising temperature trends appeared to be tampered with compared with earlier charts, or used multiple scales to give the illusion of greater change. Like many in 2006 I watched An Inconvenient Truth, and shortly afterwards I came across a paper that undermined one of the fundamental tenets in the movie. Gore showed a chart linking prehistoric earth temperatures to CO2 levels, and surmised that rising temperatures resulted from increases in CO2 levels. The paper showed that using empirical data the CO2 levels followed the temperature, and therefore CO2 could not be a factor. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/ I had joined Greenpeace around 1980 as I supported their early environmental protest tactics but by the late 80s I had allowed my membership to lapse, though it was much later that I learned of Patrick Moore's break with them. Seeing an interview with him informed my loss of enthusiasm for the organisation, that there were political forces at work changing the remit and intent on using the environmental movement to achieve their own ends. This seems to be what happens with many 'grassroots' organisations, they achieve a certain success, then they get infiltrated and either turned or discredited.
The piece that confirmed a lot of what I was discovering is The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ&t=1834s&ab_channel=WisdomLand
Over the years I have spent a fair amount of time investigating what is popularly referred to as 'the science' from a holistic viewpoint, encompassing broad aspects of life and health on Earth, and what has become apparent is there is far more hypothesis than hard evidence for many of the things sent to vex us, not least an impending climate crisis. Predictions are entirely based on computer modelling, and all of the models are over-simplified and suffer from fundamental flaws such as localised flat-earth, (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1908198116), representing solar output as a fixed compensatorially reduced source, denying the effects of fluctuating solar output, ignoring the inversion of the greenhouse effect at the poles, and feeding the model with 'primed' data which always results in overprediction. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/50-year-u-s-summer-temperature-trends-all-36-climate-models-are-too-warm/ The concept that CO2, at a concentration of around 400ppm is a significant greenhouse gas is theoretical and unsubstantiated in practise, the modelling being based on a 19th century laboratory experiment and resulting global warming scenarios postulated by Armenius. These experiments cannot in any way replicate true atmospheric conditions where continuously variable water vapour is by far the dominant greenhouse gas and convection plays a major role, aside from the presence of these gases in the atmosphere preventing the Earth from becoming a frozen wasteland.
New Scientist
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO<sub>2</sub> increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming.