ECONOMICAL WITH THE TRUTH

 

Dave Randle

The first time I heard the weasel term ‘economic migrant’ it was being used by Charlie Elphicke, Conservative weasel for Dover, as a PR tool to tar everyone trying to get into the port with the same broad brush, be they refugees or workers; a rebranding exercise for political purposes.

Classification is the bedrock of ‘divide and rule’ and the cornerstone of hatred. It overwhelms the diversity of reality with a solid one-dimensional symbol, so an individual ceases to be an individual and becomes a representative of a fictional undifferentiated mass.

Some people even feel the need to ‘identify’ themselves as something or other: ‘I’m a vegan’, ‘I’m a diabetic’. Actually and above all, you are a rounded and unique human being, who incidentally eats certain foods, or one that has a certain difficulty. You are not defined by your diet or what is wrong with a couple of internal organs, any more than you should be defined by race, creed or colour.

If it wasn’t a topical politically motivated PR term, economic migrant could apply to almost everybody who ever got up off their arse and went looking for work or a better standard of living for their partners and families; in the case of those in miserable, impoverished and war-torn places, the standard of living anywhere else would seem to be better.

It would apply to all the Irish and Jews who settled in America, and all the Europeans who got there before them. It would apply to all the Cornish miners who took their expertise to all parts of the world where it would be valued and rewarded, and it applied to the Auf Wiedersehn Pet type jobbing builders who set off to use their skills in the vital job of rebuilding Germany when the trade in the UK was in serious recession.

It applied during the popular music boom in the sixties, when top entertainers in Britain were paying 90% of their income in tax theft, so headed across the pond to where income was better and the tax was in more reasonable bounds. The ‘brain drain’ from the UK to the States was economic migration from the poverty of slaving for the NHS to gravy from sponsored US faculties.

In an earlier ‘brain drain’, Werner von Braun and a whole boiling of nasty Nazis grabbed America’s get-out-of-jail-cards with both hands and economically migrated from slopping out and smuggling smokes to palatial offices and fancy salaries, building up the arsenals of their ex-enemies, while living off the fat of the administration’s heads.

Britain economically migrated to all the once-pink areas of the globe and America has been doing it ever since to ensure that fuel migrates in the opposite direction and ‘regime change’ can keep the world safe for Macdonald’s and Microsoft.

These lines by Emma Lazarus adorned the Statue of Liberty when it was erected:

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

‘Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!’ cries she
With silent lips. ‘Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!’

Does it still say that now?

PAPERING OVER THE CRACKS

Dave Randle

As soon as you see the vacuous buzzwords on the wall of the meeting room at Whorlton Hall, you know the whole setup is a fraud.

Even supposing the place was run for any of the purposes trumpeted, none of them forms part of any of the statistics by which its torture chambers, revealed by the BBC’s Panorama, are actually judged.

The private company, which acquired it and others when previous private companies were found out, takes public money, theoretically earmarked for healthcare and the not-for-profit National Health Service, and converts it into profits for its own shareholders. That profit alone is its product and only something that endangers that product is sufficient to result in remedial action.

Its victims are muzzled and automatically denied credibility and many of its staff are, at least in that environment, sub human cretins.

But to find the real why on this kind of hellish enterprise, we need to go deeper.

Why is it that the best answer we have to people in distress or unable to conform to arbitrary norms is restraint, drugging and ridicule?

The short answer is because we and our lords and masters have bought a pig in a poke and, rather than be proved wrong, we go on supporting the pig. We believe anything wearing the poke bonnet of ‘science’ regardless of what kind of head the ornament is resting on.

So far, this has enabled much of the world to be poisoned and controlled by the very people who established and ran the concentration camps of the second world war to maintain fake and poisonous ‘healthcare’ scams on a colossal scale: scams which are so close to being found out that they are now being enforced upon well individuals by their venal profiteers.

But, if the medico-pharmaceutical monopoly is a top practical joke, it has nothing on psychiatry.

Medical goings on at least have a basis in some kind of scientific data, even if those data belong in an earlier century. The science moved on, although the practice remained largely barbaric.

Psychiatry never had any science. None whatsoever, unless you count classifying, generalising about and labelling certain behaviours to no good purpose.

Its history goes back to exorcising demons and locking people who were distressed and or a nuisance up somewhere where they could be observed and ridiculed for money. For Bedlam read Whorlton Hall. Their only technology was restraint and torture. See a pattern emerging?

They soon became popular with relatives of the well-off, for whom their meaningless drivel and labels could do the service of neutering the well-off and transferring their dosh to the happy customers for a small contribution to the foundation.

Then the medical fraternity realised it had no knowledge, no speciality in mental (mind-related) matters. Psychiatry claimed some kind of knowledge about the brain - a bit like knowing how to drive a car by tripping over an exhaust manifold - and that was good enough for the pharmaceutical industry.

With a little massaging from the drug pushers a cottage industry could be turned into a mammoth combine with spurious credibility and the potential for unlimited profits. Forget dementia praecox and arachnophobia, let’s make everything a disorder! Then we can claim the same few drugs or the same many volts - modified violence and ridicule for the new technological age - are good for them.

The sickest suckers are, of course, the ones who believe any of this shit. But then, if it’s dressed up by the media and made to look real in soap operas and ‘medical dramas’ (the clue is in the classification), there is no shortage of suckers out there.

And no shortage of people and organisations ready to ride the gravy train. ‘Mental health’ is one of the biggest current buzz terms, especially among charity fund managers. Think about it. The ‘conditions’ can be made up, or selected from the ever-expanding ‘Diagnostic’ manual and some of the leavings from the monstrous profits from unscientific and often ‘off-label’ drugs will come their way.

So, if we go back to Whorlton Hall, the commercial management and the moronic staff are two sides of an empty enterprise. No wonder the staff go off their heads working in an unethical and unfocussed environment with no known purpose and no possible job satisfaction.

Like the industry they are part of, they take out their inability to help on the people they are covertly pretending to help. They can’t live with the institutional fraud. They can’t share the reality of the inmates or empathise with them, because  they think they don’t know the esoteric science of ‘mental health’.

Unable to do anything about the ‘madness’ of their charges, they go mad themselves.

If we had a government in anything but name, money intended to protect and help our citizens would not be given to a private concern to make the problem go away. If it has to be run privately or otherwise the process must be rewarded for positive outcomes only. It and its staff need clearly defined statistics regularly reported and reviewed, and those statistics would be based on the person getting well, or able to live more successfully, as well as pointing up any use of restraint, physically or chemically, or any signs of deterioration or distress. Both the company and its employees should be paid on the basis of positive results over and above a basic payment for turning up.

Like the ‘emperor’s new clothes’ or wallpapering a cracked wall, psychiatry’s ‘science’ is the genius of hiding nothing. It has no technology, no understanding and no science, but it’s done very nicely out of hiding the fact.

GETTING THE POINT

Why the all-fired rush to enforce vaccinations?

Dave Randle

The short, and encouraging, answer is that the jig is up. More and more people are getting wise to the fake science that has maintained the cash cow delivering millions to dishonest pharmaceutical racketeers for decades.

It’s clearly not in the interests of public health.

If the things worked, the vaccinated would be at no risk from the unvaccinated, so would be able to pass through them or play among them with confidence and self-satisfaction. But no, says Pharma, the unvaccinated are putting the vaccinated at risk. Ergo their products don’t do what they are claimed to do.

Once upon a time, there was, perhaps, a sort of logic to introducing something into a body in order to stimulate the production of antibodies that would proof the organism against an existing or possible threat. Now actual science knows better.

There are two ways to proof your child against childhood diseases. The first is to wait for an hour or so after birth before cutting or clamping the umbilical cord, so that the baby can download its mother’s immunity, especially if breastfeeding is not going to follow. And the other one is to let them catch them.

The worst thing you can do is pump them full of chemicals and bits of monkeys, pigs and human foetuses.

In the real world, the immune system does what it can to get the injected crud out of the organism, including by what is  known as viral shedding, in which the toxins are exuded through the skin, posing a greater risk of infection to others.

Even a healthy immune system has a hard job dealing with lead, mercury and other  ‘adjuvants’ added to force the product past it.

As ever increasing numbers get hip to the fraud and propaganda that enables more than half of their products to be used off-label - i.e. for other ‘conditions’ that they were never intended for - many of which were approved on the basis of made up reports in the first place, Pharma and its shareholders are undoubtedly getting a bit twitchy.

So they’re ramping up the assault with the collusion of legislators, eugenicist population loonies, bought and paid for politicos and gullible victims.

These people have been sticking it to us for long enough, already.

The organism that is Planet Earth needs to develop a healthy immune system that will ultimately rid it of the cancer in its midst.

MOTORING: 

TRUMPED UP CHARGES

Dave Randle

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a lover of electric cars, either in principle or practice.

I’m old enough to remember milk floats and trolleybuses, both of which worked remarkably well in their dedicated urban environments, despite technology and infrastructure that was antedeluvian compared to today’s possibilities.

And I’ve driven Teslas and experienced the gods’ quantities of torque and acceleration on offer.

Trolley buses picked up their electricity from overhead cables. Milk floats returned to base at the end of the round and charged their batteries overnight.

But private cars don’t follow a fixed route or a daily routine. You might need yours to collect a takeaway or rush to the side of relatives across the country. How long will you have to wait for the thing to charge up sufficiently? And will the infrastructure exist on Dartmoor, the Lake District or the Highlands to get home again.

I don’t know about you, but the prospect of stopping even for half an hour at a time in today’s mostly ghastly and poisonous motorway service stations appeals to me not at all.

For all that - and regardless of my personal feelings - I feel it is right to get the situation with regard to the purported cleanliness and ‘zero emission’ claims for electric vehicles into proportion.

There has been a lot of comment on and sharing of the conclusions of Munich’s Department of Economic Research study that electric vehicles are more polluting than diesels. These results do not seem to be based on like for like.

The research takes into account the fossil fuels that produce most of the energy used to recharge electric cars, the toxicity of battery production and chemicals, and the environmental impact of the manufacturing process, in all cases set against the emission of CO2, which is not actually a pollutant, but the gas that feeds plants and thereby provides the oxygen people and animals need to survive.

The diesels on the other hand are reckoned only on emissions of CO2 from the cars themselves in use. But they, too, must be manufactured using power from coal fired power stations, their workforce has to drive to and from work, the paint shops, body presses, plastic formers and robots are also part of the entire environmental picture.

The greatest single diesel pollution event was engendered by legislators when huge numbers of cars with much of their useful life before them were prematurely scrapped, completely unbalancing the equation between manufacture and return and causing a spike in the inevitable emissions from destruction.

What the effects on the atmosphere of scrapping a Tesla and its batteries might be, I leave to your imagination.

What this study should have been based on is actual pollutants - hydrocarbons and electricity itself. We are ever more surrounded by electrical devices, wifi, ‘smart’ meters, microwaves, 5G - even common or garden electricity arcs through our lives - behold the flashes along the tunnel when the tube train is coming.

Ignored by the medical profession, power companies and regulators, electricity is a much more serious pollutant than carbon dioxide, and implicated in numerous health problems currently (pun intended) suppressed by drugs.

The Munich study is not a ‘science bombshell’ as some are claiming. The conclusion may well be correct, but too much of the ‘science’ is missing.

SUPERFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Dave Randle

Putting a lower case ‘i’ in front of something or labelling it as ‘smart’ doesn’t really denote the presence of actual intelligence.

That commodity isn’t limited to the shuffling of figures and data of which the contraption might be capable. It involves perception, consciousness, evaluation and understanding.

No machine is capable of any of these human attributes. If it ever seems to be, it is because we are endowing it with our own characteristics.

It is generally easier to recognise this in the written word than in voice synthesisers, satnavs, automated telephone messages and the frightful Alexa, in which we anthropomorphise anything that speaks our language.

I was on a car launch on which the route had been fed into satnavs. Although ours was triggered by the various road going stimuli which would normally cause it to say useful satnavvy things such as ‘turn half left,’ ‘follow the road,’ or ‘leave by the exit’, it said total non-sequiturs such as ‘The Quartermaster’s sergeant will accept delivery.’

Our own satnav has been updated a number of times since a new estate was built, but still doesn’t ‘know’ it’s there. A self driving, so called autonomous, car would have to be overridden by anyone living there who wanted to go home.

Such cars are not autonomous of course. The proprietor has merely abandoned his own autonomy to a programmer who has never driven in that place at that specific time.

The nearest analogy would be a headless cockroach, which continues to obey the last command given before it lost its head until it finally runs out of fuel.

In the course of a day’s real world driving, a person can spot when a child, a dog or a deer might run into the road. He or she can make allowances for foreign registered left hand drive lorries and cars, can make way for ambulances and other emergency vehicles, negotiate cyclists and motorcyclists, funeral cortèges, tractors, buggies, hedge-cutters and roadworks. His or her modern car might be bristling with sensors and processors, but the only awareness or intelligence present resides with the person.

He or she is able to perceive a problem right then in the present and conceive a solution to it. The machine can only respond to exigencies already programmed into it.

The same goes for ‘diagnostic’ machines, which electronically ‘pick a card’ from an available menu, where once a skilled doctor would use his or her experience.

Computers are great at a lot of things. Their main advantage is their variability. Where once Henry Ford had lines of identical black Model Ts coming off the production line, now different models can be programmed to come off the same line, one after the other, left or right hand drive, petrol or diesel, with just-in-time supply chains and stock control all communicating with each other. Robots can be trained by technicians to repeat certain tasks ad infinitum, until the last skilled trainers are gone.

But a lot of the impetus to do away with intelligence and humanity has to do with self-appointed people playing god. All around us are comic books, movies and TV shows showing weakly humans being terrorised by idiot machines, yet we seem to bow down before them and consent to being dumbed further down and made increasingly irrelevant in our own scheme of things.

The size of a brain is not a measure of intelligence. The brain is a router that passes stuff one way or the other, but it doesn’t need to know what it is.

People say things like ‘my brain is telling me’ this, that or the other. What they mean is they are telling themselves what they already know but going around the houses to do it.

So called ‘artificial intelligence’ is nothing more than sleight of hand. There is no intelligence in the true sense of the word. Just a superficial illusion of some other ‘entity’ than can be blamed.

CLIMATE OF FEAR

Dave Randle

Climate Change: The Facts (BBC1)

I’m always suspicious of ‘facts’.

A fact is a sort of congealed opinion; a conclusion designed to prevent further consideration or discussion.

If the purveyor of the fact feels the need to reinforce it with ‘science proves’ or ‘thousands of scientists all over the world say’ there is even more cause for suspicion. All these imagined authoritative entities are summoned to overwhelm and outrank you.

Mr Attenborough has plenty of authority all by himself. He tells people all sorts of stuff and adoring millions of them believe it without question. He’s even convinced half of his audience that there are too many of them and humanity should be culled to save the ‘natural world’

.

While we’re being ironic, without climate change, there would be no life on Earth.

The climate was changing long before the arrival of television - a medium specialising in illusion - and also long before there was machinery to monitor and record it.

‘Climate scientists’ didn’t exist until there was machinery to tell them what to find and what to conclude, so their ‘we’re all doomed’ prognostications are based on their subjugation to algorithms and digits, themselves based on little more than a century of records and projected into a future in which a billion possible variables are ignored.

The advent of television means that people all over the world can witness hurricanes, natural disasters, plagues and famines right there on the screen. The absence of mass media in previous eras doesn’t mean they weren’t occurring. Charles Fort’s ‘Book of the Damned’ catalogues numerous examples from previous centuries culled from local newspaper reports, and there was even a time before newspapers.

Tectonic plates have been dispersing across the planet surface for donkeys’ years, and the ice has been freezing and melting in cycles

.

Water is unusual in expanding when it turns from liquid to solid state - i.e. freezes. So, by my reckoning, if coastal ice melts, its volume will reduce and the coastline it was forming will recede, so the effect on global sea levels should be minimal. It will have gained some liquid water, but lost the weight of the iceberg. But, of course, I’m not a climate scientist.

Although any mention of the term intelligent design would cause his hair to stand on end, the great puppet master bandies others like ‘eco-system’ and ‘Mother Nature’ about like others of the Darwinian faith.

An eco-system is not merely a combination of scientific nomenclatures, but all life working toward persistence. There are already reported signs of brown areas of the planet ‘greening up’ to take advantage of the ready supply of CO2.

It was notable from this production that most of the climate science types believe that a stick rather than a carrot is the way to herd us cats. Penalise the punter for buying a super economical diesel and get him to stump up for an uncertain electric thing that charges up with power generated from fossil fuels.

The power industry is there to be an industry. That’s why nobody listened to Nikola Tesla.

A science that is ‘settled’ is a dead science or no science at all. When a science becomes an industry, it does so to serve itself, as in the case of the pharmaceutical industry, whose science was ‘settled’ before anyone found out about the immune system. They promised salvation and delivered ‘scientific’ crimes against humanity and life in general.

But the poison industries are already starting to feel it where it hurts and more people are communicating with each other across national and political boundaries than ever before. As this goes forward, the grip of the propagandist mainstream media loosens and peace might even eventually break out.

We must work for more understanding and become better custodians of our planet, but we can certainly achieve that without the doom and gloom and hogwash.

LEARNING LANES

Until now, just about all of the people driving on British motorways have not been specifically trained for the purpose. As of now, the plan is that ‘learners’ will be allowed access to the motorway system, so their first venture down a sliproad won’t be a journey into the unknown.

Interest groups have been campaigning for this for decades, so the decision must be good news, mustn’t it?

I’m not so sure.

There’s a hell of a lot of theory involved in getting a licence to drive these days. Theory is all very well in theory, but believing what should occur theoretically is the quickest way to wind up in the soup.

A woman in a white Kia ahead of me on the M25 yesterday knew the theory of mirror, signal, manoeuvre, but she didn’t know the law of physics that says two white Kias cannot occupy the same space, so almost collided with the one passing her at  the time.

Another one in a Honda Jazz doggedly held on to the inside lane despite the fact that a homicidal lunatic in an articulated low loader was driving less than a car length behind her.

A bloke in a Toyota Land Cruiser simply stopped dead in front of me on the M20 slip road. A BMW made all its lane changes at forty-five degrees to the carriagway and a self-righteous dolt in a Mondeo cut across me to prove that I have no right to decide which lane to be in, before braking sharply to avoid running up the back of the lorry the rest of us knew was there.

Somebody told him you should always hew to the left hand lane and return to it as soon as you have passed something slower moving. This is largely nonsensical, and also dangerous.

The principle of motorways and dual carriageways is that everything is oriented in the same direction. If everyone is going forward at a similar rate, nothing too serious can occur.

But, if someone stops and those behind him or her have not left sufficient reaction space, the principle falls down.

And it doesn’t apply at all in lane changing, when the vehicle is moving at an angle to the direction of flow, and this is by far the most potentially dangerous factor in motorway driving.

Which is why you should keep lane changes to a minimum. If you can see that you will need to come out to pass another lorry a few hundred yards ahead, stay where you are until you can safely move back into the left hand lane and stay there.

It’s also why lane changing should be gradual, keeping the vehicle as close to the straight-ahead as possible, so that you flow with the traffic and maintain your space on the road.

It seems to have eluded the self-righteous that all the vehicles on the motorway at any one time will not fit in a single lane. That’s why the roads have several of them.

As it is, the nearside lane gets by far the most punishment because it is full of lorries.

If there are general rules for safety and good order, they are:

1. If a police car, an ambulance or a Belgian is coming up behind you at high velocity, get out of their way. If there’s no one anywhere behind you and the left lane is full of lorries, pick a lane you like and use that one.

2. Don’t leave it too late to overtake. If you know you’re going to have to do it, do it smoothly and early, and allow for those who habitually do leave it too late, so you can let them out or move out to another lane until they have passed and you can safely return.

It’s also no help to anyone if you’re in the nearside lane at a junction. Where the cost is justified, the Highways people designate the nearside lane as a sliproad extension. That’s because it’s a good idea and helps keep the flow going. If everyone who isn’t getting off moves out to lane two until both the off and on sliproads are cleared, it is best for all.

Yes, it’s important that drivers should experience the workings of motorways, but I would suggest that someone already experienced should take them out the first few times, so they can see the reality of what can happen, rather than someone’s theory of what should.