Politicians and “experts” scream and shout about testing and isolation being the way to halt the COVID 19 pandemic to a halt, but everything else they hsve told us about the disease has been absolute bollocks, why should this be any different?
Well surprise, surprise, it isn’t any different. The idear that testing everybody ten times a day (OK I might be exaggerating for effect,) will do any good is just another diversionary tactic designed to distract us from the sure and certain knowledge that the establishment, i.e. is the politicians, the academic community and the medical professions haven’t a clue how to deal with this disease. However in saying that we are allowing that COVID 19 coronavirus actually exists though that is nor proven. For a pathogen to be recognised as the cause of a disease it must meet all of a set of croteria known as The Koch Postulates. Covid 19 or The Wuhan Virus actually meets none.
And to top that of the tests being used to identify who is infected have been shown by independent (i.e. not funded by governments, Big Pharma corporations or The United Nations,) to be not fit for purpose.
At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, World Health Organisation (WHO) Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:
“We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”
The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by CNN, Reuters and the BBC’s news channel Germany’s heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was still repeating the mantra of the corona dogma on to its audience with the admonishing words:
Test, test, test—that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”
This indicates that belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religious dogma that tolerates virtually no contradiction. But religions are about faith and not demonstrable facts. Were we still under the rile of The Holy Roman Empire, heretics who questioned this narrative would be tortured and burned.
It is certainly significant that Kary Mullis, inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology was one of the vioces dissenting from that dogma before his recent death (which was not connected to COVID – 19 we understand.) His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.
But while the WHO and other health bureaucracies are hailing PCR as the saviour of humankind, the eminent biochemist himself regarded his invention the PCR as an inappropriate tool for detecting a viral infection. The intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.
Gina Kolata in a 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t describes declaring pandemics on the basis of PCR tests as bad science.
It is also worth mentioning that PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 are unreliable because the results show the infection does not meet any of the Koch postulates (sic).
This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity” and “specificity” — by comparison with an established benchmark meaning the most accurate method available.
Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:
If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”
Jessica C. Watson of Bristol University UK confirms this in her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal. Dr Watson writes that there is a “lack of a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”
But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.
Apart from the absurdity of taking the test itself as part of the benchmark for evaluating the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich has acknowledged. Recently I have read that COVID 19 is a respiratory disease that is far worse than pneumonia, that is is a disease of the blood vessels, that it causes brain damage, affects liver, kidneys and other vital organs, and that it damages the digestive tract. Maybe the obvious confusuion among medical professionals arises because people with a range of pre – existing conditions that take in all these symptoms are particularly vulnerable to COVID 19
And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.
Former UKIP MP Douglas Carswell has written in an article published today:
“The argument for a lockdown was overwhelming.
When Boris Johnson addressed the nation eight weeks ago, it appeared as if a killer virus was about to engulf the population at astonishing speed. You had to be mad or bad, it seemed, not to back the Prime Minister as he urged us all to stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives. The moral justification for collective action was crystal clear. “Squashing the sombrero,” as Johnson colourfully put it, was needed to buy time for the NHS to fight this thing. And we did it. Britain achieved that aim.
Critical care capacity was rapidly ramped up thanks to the heroic efforts of those who built the new Nightingale hospitals, as well as the decision to cancel treatments for non-Covid cases. At the same time, the numbers being struck down by the disease began to fall – perhaps due to social distancing, or maybe just because pandemics have a habit of dissipating almost as fast as they appear. Whatever the reasons, we avoided the nightmare scenario of not being able to treat thousands of critically ill people, as happened in parts of Italy.
Eight weeks on, it is also clear that some of the initial restrictions were unnecessary.” (full article >>>)
The sad thing is it took people like Douglas eight weeks to realise there never was any moral case for the lockdown. Take this phrase
“Critical care capacity was rapidly ramped up thanks to the heroic efforts of those who built the new Nightingale hospitals,”
But Douglas fails to acknowledge that NHS whistleblowers have revealed they have never known hospitals so empty, while of the Nightingale Hospitals, the businest have only dealt with a few dozen patients, while some have admitted no patients at all. And as the chief medical officer admiitted again yesterday COVID – 19 poses no serious threat to most of us
There was never a moral case for lockdown, it was based entirely on the fake data generated from a mathematical model of the pandemic by a pseudo – scientist who only interests were in lining his pockets with taxpayers money, covering himself in glory, and (allegedly,) clearing the roads so his married loved would not be delayed by traffic when driving to his house for a bit of rumpy – pumpy.
Prof Neil Ferguson : pointy – headed science (Image: http://www.blazingcatfur.ca )
Regular readers may recall this blog was among the first to expose the fact that the pandemic model predicting 500,000 COVID – 19 deaths if the entire nation was not placed under indefinite house arrest was based on a deeply flawed mathematical model of the pandemic built by a “scientist” at Imperial College, London, a college heavily reliant on funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. You may also recall we have reported on the determination of psychopathic megalomaniac Gates to insert himself into this phoney crisis with a plan worthy of Dr. Evil himself, to implant an RFID chip in everybody so our movements can be tracked and we can be arrested if we have any contact with unchipped people. OK, I might be exaggerating for dramatic effect there, but only a tiny bit.
Ironically the Neil Ferguson, the Professor whose prediction was used by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to justify Britain’s seemingly endless lockdown is now known to bebased on such badly designed software that it is ‘somewhere between negligence and grave scientific misconduct’, a real computer expert has warned. Ferguson has a long track record for using similarly flawed mathematical models to produce highly dramatic but unscientific perdictions as is described in the above link.
Virologist and clinical computational epidemiologist Chris Von Csefalvay is just the latest of many expert to scrutinise Ferguson’s influential Imperial College study – the one that predicted more than 500,000 deaths in the UK alone from the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, and find similarly sloppy programming methods to those which predicted the swine flu “pandemic” of 2009, the Ebola outbreak of 2014 and several other similar non – events would result in humanitarian catastrophes. Ferguson was also responsible for advising Tony Blair’s government in 2001 that millions of animals on farms where no infection had been discovered was necessary to avert the spread of foot and mouth disease from cloven hoofed animals to other species including humans.
And it was Ferguson who predicted 150,000 deaths from Mad Cow Disease (Bovine Spongeform Encephalitis, in fact only around 200 have died of that particular existential threat to humanity since 1991.
Von Csefalvay was as profoundly unimpressed with Ferguson’s modelling methods as the rest of us were by the news that the cuntstruck COVID Czar had advised the lockdown so his married lover would not be delayed by traffic when she drove down to visit him for rumpy pumpy. In a Review of The Imperial College research on his website Bits and Bugs, he notes that while initial supportive of Ferguson and his modelling, having seen the coding for the model which he says ‘raises some extremely serious questions,’ he is now of the opinion that the model is not worse than useless, it is even worse than that, having been built to guarantee a false result. The coding quality, he says, is poor:
First of all, the elephant in the room: code quality. It is very difficult to look at the Ferguson code with any understanding of software engineering and conclude that this is good, or even tolerable
Yet that shoddy research and the outrageously hyperbolic result it produced has been gulped down hook line and sinker by scientifically naive and gullible politicians who tend to fall to their knees in an attitude of worship when someone who claims to be “a scientist” offers them advice. Someone like Boris Johnsin in particular, but also his old Etonian cronies and even Sir Kier Starmer, an alumini of the expensive Reigate Grammar School for pos kids from rich families, who all receibed education based on the Renaissance model which teaches us to question everything and always think for ourselves, should have known better than treat it with such credulousness. Von Csefalvay has obviously retained the scepticism instilled by his education, he writes:
Yet for some reason, the UK government treated Ferguson’s model as almost dogmatic truth. This highlights an important issue: politicians have not been taught enough about data-driven decision-making, especially not where predictive data is involved. There is wide support for a science-driven response to COVID-19, but very little scrutiny of the science behind many of the predictions that informed early public health measures. Hopefully, a Royal Commission with subpoena powers will have the opportunity to review in detail whether Ferguson intentionally hid the model from HM Government the way he hid it from the rest of the world or whether the government’s experts just did not understand how to scrutinise or assess a model – or, the worst case scenario: they saw the model and still let it inform what might have been the greatest single decision HM Government has made since 1939, without looking for alternatives (there are many other modelling approaches, and many developers who have written better code)
He concludes that it will result in:
…a massive leap backwards, erosion of trust and a complete disclaimer of accountability by publicly funded scientists.
Von Csefalvay is not the only well qualified epidemiologist to give vent to his disgust at Ferguson’s ineptitude.
Another review, by Craig Pirrong, Professor of Finance and Energy Markets Director of the Global Energy Management Institute at the Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, concludes:
“Models only become science when tested against data/experiment. By that standard, the Imperial College model failed spectacularly.”
Going back decades, Ferguson’s track record had been widely criticised (sic), as reported:
Despite all this, Boris Johnson and his Cabinet colleagues continue to cite Ferguson’s discredited study as if it were the gold standard of scientific research.
Boris even mentioned it in his speech on Sunday night when, attempting to justify the continuation of the lockdown, he claimed:
It is a fact that by adopting those measures we prevented this country from being engulfed by what could have been a catastrophe in which the reasonable worst-case scenario was half a million fatalities.
Interesting use of the word ‘fact’ in that sentence, showing that Boris is illing to accept the word of a “scientist” about what constitutes a fact because “scientists,” like medieval popes are infallible; a folly which, were there a credible opposition with a charismatic leader, would see the government struggling even with its massive majority.
A virologist and clinical computational epidemiologist has slammed the Chinese virus model created by fellow epidemiologist Dr. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London, whose dire mathematical models of the Wuhan coronavirus’s spread formed the basis for lockdowns in the U.K. and around the world. Scientist Chris von Csefalvay labeled Ferguson’s work “somewhere between negligence and unintentional but grave scientific misconduct.”
Dr. Ferguson, whose advice to the British Prime Minister led to the lockdown in that country, recently resigned as an adviser to the U.K. government after breaking quarantine rules to meet his married lover, left-wing activist Antonia Staats.
The code used by Dr. Ferguson, called by some the “architect of lockdown,” has now come under fire from another epidemiologist, Chris von Csefalvay, who called the computational code, developed by Dr. Ferguson to simulate the global spread of Chinese virus, “somewhere between negligence and unintentional but grave scientific misconduct.”
An article published in Technocracy last month, The Common Roots Of Climate Change And COVID-19 Hysteria exposed the dishonest – scaremongering tactics of global warming alarmists as they seized the opportunity provided by COVID-19 to trigger the largest global economic crisis in history.
Warmageddonists have always dreamed of killing the “brown economy” and replacing it with a green economy, a system they call Sustainable Development, which would return us to low tech industry and peasant farming methods hardly likely to sustain the 7.7 billion humans that populate the planet now. It is less than 30 days since Imperial College London released a data model created by a “scientist” with a 100% record of being totally wrong in his predictions of catastrophe during outbreaks of disease. And yet, even though his “scientific conclusions” aka guesses and assumptions have steered governments towards hugely damaging policy decisions. Professor Ferguson’s model predicted 500,000 deaths in the UK and 1.2 million in the U.S.A if those nations were not put into lockdown, a move that was certain to cause immeasurable economic damage and social disorder in those countries. The whole narrative spun by government propagandists based on the predictions of those flawed models is now falling apart, but the damage has been done and cannot be reversed.
The World Health Organization is a full-fledged agency of the United Nations, which has driven the above mentioned climate change scare, the objective of which was to pave the way for a world government and which has recently lost credibility to the extent that the propagandists had to deploy a weird looking, retarded child to broadcast their lies and scaremongering in the hope that nobody would attack such a pitiable figure. The ploy failed, so when the government of China reported an outbreak of a news strain of the SARS – coronavirus it was seized on as an opportunity to scare the people and nations of the world into compliance with an agenda that would result in the abolition of democracy and individual freedom. The WHO’s estimated mortality rate for COVID – 19, as gleefully reported by mainstream media is 20-30 times higher than the actual death rate being reported by Stanford University of between 0.1 and 0.2 percent.
The number of actual deaths of COVID-19, as opposed to people who died of something else while carrying the infection having contracted it in hospital when already terminally ill, and more recently what is vaguely reported as “coronaviris – related deaths,would not likely be changed if no panic was ever triggered by means of false news and over – dramatic actions to “stop the virus” in the first place. If governments had behaved rationally instead of listening to “scientists” who rely on mathematical models rather that looking at the real world, perhaps it would only have been a nastier-than-usual flu season. However, the Great Panic of 2020 has caused innumerable non coronavirus-related deaths and plunged the global economic system into a downward spiral from which it will take years to recover. Millions are now out of work. Tens of thousands of businesses closed by order of “scientists” will never reopen. People in need of health care are reluctant to present themselves to a hospital for fear of picking up the virus – hospitals are the best place to catch it actually
The reality of this crisis is that a few self – interested Technocrats who knew exactly what the consequenses of metaphorically yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater would be and, although to an unbiased observer give every appearance of playing out a scripted scene in a far bigger production will never be held accountable for their despicable and fraudulent decieving of society. Concerned citizens should stop obsessing over who made COVID-19 and the street-corner where it first appeared, and instead focus on the real instigators and their real motivations, the people who have been planning for and working towards an authoritarian world government for years.
The scientists have been wrong about robots with better-than-human intellgence before of course but this time they are sure they have it right (just as sure as they were all the other times when they got it hopelessly wrong).
Not long after the first modern computers evolved from bead boards via medieval water clocks in the 1940s, the science-is-God brigade started predicting that in just a few years / decades machines would be as smart as humans or more likely smarter than humans. Every year someone comes along and says the same but the prediction gets pushed back another year. The consensus now, according to a survey, is that it’s going to happen in … you guessed it, just a few more decades.
There may be more reason to believe the predictions today. After research that’s produced everything from self-driving cars (well not quite cars and not quite self driving) to Jeopardy!-winning supercomputers, scientists have a much better understanding of what they’re up against. And, perhaps, what we’re up against.
Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, laid out the best predictions of the artificial intelligence (AI) research community in his new book, “Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Here are the combined results of four surveys of AI researchers, including a poll of the most-cited scientists in the field, totalling 170 respondents who were asked:
So if Human-level machine intelligence is defined as “a machine that can carry out most human professions at least as well as a typical human, then the only answer to the question ‘when will human level machine intelligence be available’ is “haven’t a clue, probably never”. Unless of course we were to redefine what we mean as intelligence, equating it to an ability to parse vast amounts of digital information amazingly quickly and match defined binary strings.
If however we were to ask “When will computers be as clever as scientists,” the answer is “In evolutionary terms, computers are already a couple of million years ahead. A computer would never commit the folly of trying to design an intelligent scientist.”
When The Robots Rule The World
World War One – a bloodbath justified to the public by the kind of propaganda now being directed against Russia (source)
A few days ago I posted an article on the significant details regarding the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine, and the inconsistencies in the US / EU narrative that the government propaganda was not discussing and that mainstream media were not questioning.
The article attracted a few comments and one troll, a wannabe intellectual bully who wanted to convince me that I had no right to question the ‘official’ (i.e. American) version of events. There have been swarms of such trolls around the web, citing spurious credentials in an effort to establish that their (politically-correct, oligarchic collectivist) opinions are somehow made more valid by the fact that they question nothing that comes out of the FUKUS axis propaganda machine.
This particular troll emphasised his lack of intelligence by accusing me of believing the Russian / Ukraine separatist version of events. All I had said in fact was that there was absolutely no evidence to support President Obama’s accusation made hours after the disaster, that the government of Russia was undoubtedly responsible. He chose to interpret this as implying that I accepted the Russian version of events which blamed the Ukrainian government in Kiev for shooting down flight MH17. Bizarrely he claims he is a scientists. Not the only scientist I’ve encountered who is in need of remedial education in reading and comprehension.
I accepted no such thing. And I was proved right (as always), when the US State Department was challenged to substantiate its claims, a spokesperson referred reporters to social media chit chat.
We still don’t know who was responsible, theories that point to both separatist rebels with Russian support and Kiev government troops with US/EU support are still circulating but no conclusive evidence has been produced either way.
This devotion to partisan propaganda is not confined to the left however. On a television news analysis today the veteran journalist Max Hastings, who identifies himself as a conservative, was talking about reactions from online readers to his articles for a top selling newspaper supporting the American / European line and damning Russia.
Hastings admitted that the line he had taken was “People must believe the west, we’re the good guys, they’re the bad guys.”
He then said that a theme repeated by many commenters from around the world was; Why should we believe the Americans and British, they are proven liars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, drone strikes on Pakistan and the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government.
And that acknowledgement, plus perhaps the fact that as days count down to the hundredth anniversary of the opening shots in World War One, explains why new media and many clear thinking, honest writers in mainstream media are taking a different line. People who have read a little history are remembering how as the world stumbled into that senseless bloodbath with governments on both sides lying to their citizens and the media of the day repeating those lies:
The World According to the Mainstream Media: Russia and Palestine are Guilty until Proven Innocent
Timothy Alexander Guzman
RINF Alternative News
They accused the Russian government and the Anti-Kiev militias in East Ukraine for its direct involvement in the downing of Malaysian Airlines MH-17 without any hard evidence to support their claim. US intelligence agencies did admit that Russia was not directly linked to the Malaysian Airlines incident, but they managed to blame Russia indirectly. They claimed that Russia was responsible for creating the conditions that led to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement according to ABC news.
The accusations against Russia were baseless. What is important to the families of the Malaysian Airlines tragedy is for them to find out the truth about those responsible for the crimes. Blaming actors who are not responsible for the crime will not bring peace to the families. The MSM has been actively defending Israeli actions against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip declaring that it was Hamas that murdered the three Israeli teens, an accusation that was also never proven. Regardless of the facts on the tragic deaths of those teenagers, Israel had declared a revenge war on the Palestinians. The MSM is following Washington and Tel Avivs talking points.
The bias reporting on the situation in Gaza is shameful. The death toll surpassed 800 for the Palestinians and for the Israelis its close to 40 casualties. The US and their Western partners along with their Israeli counterparts are working in conjunction against their political adversaries through its MSM Empire. They want war and they will do anything even have their media lie to the public in order to go what they want. What had occurred in the last couple of weeks concerning events in the Ukraine and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are both tragic incidents, but the point I am making reflects on the MSM itself and their lack of journalistic principals.
White hats versus black hats – reality is seldom that simple (source)
Here’s another view of the Malaysia Airlines controversy authored by two people whose names alone are guaranteed to kick off an irrational two minutes hate session from the neo – fascist left, Chris. Booker and Richard North:
Could Barack Obama have prevented the MH17 disaster?
US intelligence would have known the separatists had captured missile-launchers, and where they were being used
Christopher Booker in The Daily Telegraph
The most alarming unanswered question over the shooting-down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 is so fearful to contemplate that it has scarcely even been asked. Had President Obama in fact been better placed than anyone else to prevent that disaster from taking place? When, in his statement 24 hours after the plane was downed, the President stoked speculation about the involvement of President Putin, did he deliberately obscure the fact that, days earlier, he had already learned enough from his many intelligence sources to know that the 55 international airliners travelling every day along that flight path over eastern Ukraine faced the threat of precisely such a disaster? If so, why did the US authorities not make it a top priority to ensure that such flights were immediately halted?
In all the initial confusion over what Mr Obama called this outrage of unspeakable proportions, there was a hysterical rush to pin the blame on Russias president. Putins killed my son, as one newspaper front page had it. But, over the days that followed, as ever more information emerged about this story, the US government appeared to be backtracking on its original narrative.
I don’t necessarily agree with Booker but he presents information that is worth considering as we classical liberals, libertarians and freethinkers consider all aspects of the case and form our own individual opinions. The notion of presenting an argument we may not totally and utterly agree with is incomprehensible to the knee jerkers (and wrist jerkers?) of the neo – fascist left of course. They love to march in lockstep, chant the slogans, and embrace the causes along with the rest of the crowd.
BUK Missile Launcher -NB people who think mathematical modelling is involved in aiming and firing these, it’s a radar guided system, sorree.
The spectacle of the progressive left or progressive liberals exposing inner fascist as the support authoritarian governments and clamour for war is becoming a major topic for freethinkers, radicals and true liberals. In this and my other blogs I have constantly taken an anti war line, the troll referred to in the first part of this article accuses me of being a right wing extremist (I suppose the scum sucking spawn of a pox whores scablouse thinks he is insulting me – well I said he’s not very good at English,) yet over the past few years he has consistently been in favour of war and military intervention by the FUKUS axis in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. It’s supposed to be the left who are pacifists and the right who love war, yet the neo fascist left seem to be mad for war and slaughter.
Perhaps this article goes some way to explaining why liberals and left wing thinkers hold the masses is such contempt:
How did liberals become so elitist and contemptuous of the public?
The new left brain does not collect and process information in a logical,orderly, reasonable, and objective manner. Rather, liberal thinking is dominated by an obsession with power, and use of that power to preserve and or advance elitist advantages. (source)
How did liberals become so elitist and contemptuous of the public?
Journalist and author
10 July 2014
iberalism is one of a select band of troublesome political concepts that has multiple meanings. Indeed, liberalism as used in one context can be the opposite of what it means in another.
The attitude of liberalism to freedom provides a prime example of these contradictory meanings. Classical liberalism, which was to the fore in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, typically placed a heavy emphasis on the importance of individual autonomy and liberty. In sharp contrast, contemporary liberalism tends to be deeply intolerant and elitist.
Fred Siegel, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank based in New York, has provided an enormous service with his innovative history of modern American liberalism, The Revolt Against the Masses. It helps put many of the most retrograde trends in the US into their proper context. It also helps shed light on parallel developments in other countries, including Britain, even though they are outside Siegels remit.
For Siegel, a defining feature of modern liberalism is its attachment to what he calls the clerisy a technocratic elite which he identifies with academia, Hollywood, the prestige press, Silicon Valley and Wall Street. Despite its professed attachment to equality of opportunity, this elite holds the mass of the American public, what Siegel refers to as the middle class, in contempt. The clerisy sees itself as superior to the rest of the population on meritocratic grounds.
As the reach of the state has burgeoned, the clerisy has taken on an increasingly important social role. Over the years, American government has grown vastly, commanding more resources and employing more people, than ever before. As Joel Kotkin, one of the sharpest observers of contemporary American politics, has pointed out: Since 1990, the number of government workers has expanded by some five million to some 20million. Thats four times the number who were employed by the government at the end of the Second World War, a growth rate roughly twice that of the population as a whole. Members of the technocratic elite present themselves as impartial experts, but their interests are closely tied to the fortunes of this vast state apparatus.
So there you are. Once you stop yourself being caught up in the medieval witch hunt tactics of the ‘left’, take a step back and view the bigger picture and start thinking for yourself, a very different picture emerges to the one painted by our hysterical leftie trolls as they clamour for the global war their bankster sponsors want for purposes of increasing their control, grabbing even more money and reducing the global population. Now are you still prepared to believe these facists because they tell you they are the cuddly side of the argument.
Our revered Prime Minister Call-me-twatface has been talking about the internet of things. Now Cammers probably does not understand this phrase probably but he thinks it’s the future because a scientist told him that’s what progressive people are thinking (and to that scientist I say; I was promised a personal hovercraft by some geek on Tomorrows World forty years ago – WHERE’S MY FUCKING HOVERCRAFT?
The internet of things is the latest buzzphrase among those who think anything that contributes to blurring the line between the real world and the virtual world inhabited by “scientists” and other reality deniers is “kewl”.
There are many emerging technologies that have practical applications than the robot fuck buddies and wearable technology of the internet of things but manufacturers and owners of the creepy stuff like Google Goggles or smart watches that report your activities to a server farm.
Supermarkets are introducing smart shelves, homes are getting smart meters which tell the government how much energy you are wasting, and businesses are all finding ways to connect everyday objects to the internet of things with touch screens, QR codes, RFID chips and other sensors.
Google, being the most evil corporation on the planet, are even working on technology to connect our brains to the internet. All this extended connectivity has officially been dubbed the Internet of Things and someone has told he will sound cool if he uses the phrase. Here’s a presser of Dave’s speech made earlier today:
“David Cameron has announced that the world is on the brink of ‘a new industrial revolution,’ where the internet will allow everyday objects like fridges to ‘talk to each other.’
Speaking at a trade fair in Hanover, Germany, the Prime Minister said that ‘the internet of things’ would transform the world, as he announced a package of measures to promote Britains position in the global technological race.
“I see the Internet of Things as a huge transformative development a way of boosting productivity, of keeping us healthier, making transport more efficient, reducing energy needs, tackling climate change,” said Mr Cameron, adding that the world was now “on fast-forward”. Well Dave might want to live in a dystopia where humans are Slaves Of The Machine but count me out.
In fact there isn’t much science involved that has not been around for years, what drives the internet of things is greed, lust for power and control freakery.
The Internet of Things really refers to seemingly ordinary objects that are programmed so they can make “decisions” based on the data they receive. That information helps people learn and grow from the feedback, developers to improve their products, advertisers to better understand their audience, and most amazing of all, for processes to become automated without human interaction. It also helps governments and corporations to nag us to consume more (and thus pay more VAT) and do as we are told because Big Brother is watching.
Recent technology glitches, covert data gathering exercises and hacking scandals demonstrate that personal data is vulnerable, the internet was never designed for the things it is being used for, such security as there was got stripped out when a scientist decided he could do a better job than the computer professionals and nobody has as yet addressed the failings. Governments and corporations have to invest in strong underlying infrastructure or this information is left vulnerable. The problem with that of course is that a secure internet would be far too difficult for scientists, academics and politicians to use although ordinary punters would manage quite well. We were landed with the POS we have now because scientists felts the systems used with ease by process workers, mechanics, clerks, shop, warehouse and distribution staff and even post office counter clerks were too difficult for someone with a PhD.
This question is being debated now, but in the meantime let’s focus on the fun we can have with some very cool new toys.
“My car will tell me when I need to fill the tank, check the tyres and top up the oil but it will not let me exceed the speed limit”
“My fridge will tell me when I need to buy more butter but will lock itself and warn me that I’ve already had my daily safe allowance when I try to get a third bottle of beer”
“My TV will tell me when my favourite programmes are on then automatically switch itself to a channel broadcasting output approved by the government”
My wardrobe will tell me it is the voice of Azazel and I must go out and kill people wearing silly trousers – oh, come to think of it I’ve had one of those for years. I tried to get rid of it once but it threatened to tell the Police National Crime Database where the bodies are buried.
The world is run by insane people doing insane things – John Lennon
Judge Denies Attempt To Block Obama’s Transfer Of Internet Oversight To UN
October 2016: In a last ditch effort to block Obama’s plan to allow the US Commerce Department to hand over oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to a multi-stakeholder community – which includes the technical community, businesses, civil society and foreign governments – 4 state attorneys went to a Texas federal court alleging that the transition, in the absence of congressional approval, amounts to an illegal forfeiture of U.S. government property. Confirming once more that under Obama’s Presidency the judiciary and legal system have been totally politicised, their case was thrown out on a technicality.
After so many acrimonious arguments with so many acrimonious people about the fake science that the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming scare was just a scam to justify carbon taxes, it’s greatly amusing to see that the phoney scientist who led the whole fraud has been beaten to death with his own hockey stick – remember the notorious hockey stick graph that omitted and data that did not fit the answer Mann, his cronies and paymasters wanted. Well when people pointed out this very obvious manipulation of data, Mann screamed, “You’re not scientists, you don’t understand how science works.”
Unfortunately many of us do and some people called Mann’s bluff by yelling back, “You’re a cheat, fraud, and data faker, sue us if you dare.”
Mann sued and …
Prof Mike Mann mugshot – he could be arrested for fraud
Here are a couple of samples from Principia Scientifica’s reporting of the case (linked in the headline):
Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.
Buoyed by Dr Ball’s successes, journalist and free-speech defender, Mark Steyn has promptly decided to likewise countersue Michael Mann for $10 million in response to a similar SLAPP suit filed by the litigious professor from Penn. State University against not just Steyn, but also the National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg. Ball’s countersuit against Mann seeks “exemplary and punitive damages. ” Bishop Hill blog is running extracts of Steyn’s counterclaim, plus link.
The fact Mann refused to disclose his hockey stick graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs “in the state pen, not Penn. State.” In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Balls assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Manns work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UNs Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science (my emphasis – great catchphrase).
I have followed this case and it’s impossible to have any sympathy for Mann, he was advised by several lawyers who refused to represent him that if we has not prepared to reveal his data he could not possibly wing the case. In the end Mann and the law firm that did eventually take him on were running round like headless chickens trying to negotiate an out of courts settlement to save Mann’s arse.
It’s funny really but somehow I think the Warmageddonist cult will find a way to pretend it never happened.
Geneticists and anthropologists have been telling us for a long time that the closest genetic cousins of humans in the animal realm is
David Attenborough The Chimpanzee. Recent advances in techniques for decoding paleolithic DNA have cast some doubt on that however.
While some researchers with a specific agenda claim to have found proof that humans were te result of knuckledraggers interbreeding with aliens, genetics expert Eugene McCarthy has offered the suggestion that modern man, now correctly termed the homo baconus PG-Tippus species began as the hybrid offspring of a male pig and a female chimpanzee.
This rather gobsmacking claim (put me right off my pork scratchings I can tell you) has been made by the University of Georgia professor who is also one of the worlds leading authorities on hybridisation in animals.
McCarthy’s bizarre theory is based on the fact that that while humans share genetic features with chimps, we also have characteristics not found in any other primates.
Dr McCarthy says these divergent characteristics are most likely the result of a hybrid origin at some point far back in human evolutionary history.
What’s more, he suggests, there is one animal that has all of the traits which distinguish humans from our primate cousins in the animal kingdom.
‘What is this other animal that has all these traits?’ he asks rhetorically. “The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig.’ No doubt mcCarthy thinks he has presented us with a revolutionary idea but in fact he is only reminding us of the scientists knack of jumping to conclusions without thinking things through properly.
What traits do we share with pigs but not with other primates? Getting drunk, playing silly games, writing poetry, creating art or music, worshipping celebrities or looking at the stars and thinking, “Who are we, how did we get here, is there anyone else out there, what’s the point of it all?” The sorts of things you see pigs doing every day? I think not.
Dr McCarthy elaborates his astonishing hypothesis in an article on Macroevolution.net, a website he curates. He is at pains to point out that that it is merely a hypothesis, but he presents compelling evidence to support it.
Scientists currently suppose that chimpanzees are humans’ closest living evolutionary relatives, because they have humany hands and faces and do humany things like wanking, fighting over potential sex partners and throwing turds at anyone who threatens their community. What? You’ve never heard of people throwing turds at social workers? You have obviously never visited a sink estate.
So are we part Chimp, part pig. Boggart Blog is very sceptical of this theory. On the other hand it would explain Edward and Tubbs, the characters from TV comedy