Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
“The universe is not executed twice over, once as reality and once as a copy in the mind. Whether we say the Earth rotates on its axis, or the Earth is at rest and the whole universe rotates around it, the two statements describe the same physical facts.” Mach, E. (1883) The Science of Mechanics. (Reprinted 1919, Chicago: Open Court Publishing).
“We cannot say the Earth rotates ‘relative to space.’ We can only say it rotates relative to the fixed stars. If the stars were to rotate around the Earth, the centrifugal forces and the optical effects [star trails] would be identical.” Barbour, J. (1889) Absolute or Relative Motion? Vol. 1: The Discovery of Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cosmo boy comes over for a visit. It is night time. He takes your iPhone or Android. He sets it on your desk which has a view of the heavens. Energised by Youtube videos and with a magnificent arm wave and a confident voice Cosmo boy declares, “Chud, here is definitive proof that the Earth spins and rotates while singing Largo al Factotum. I am going to turn on your iPhone’s camera, point it Polaris and take time-stamped photos over the next 12 hours. You will see swirling moving stars Chuddy. Twirling and dancing. Case closed on the stationary Earth. It is the science Chud.” Grinning widely and showing imperfect teeth Cosmo boy launches himself into your wine and popcorn and turns on yet another Star Trek re-run.
In related ‘science’ I sat a child on a merry-go-round, took long exposure photos and with great conviction declared that the universe rotates around the ride.
Cosmo boy has committed a fallacy. His iPhone claim is the classic ‘Optical Misinterpretation’ with a pre-determined, tautological claim which of course, proves nothing (Assis 1999). What he has happily identified, surprising himself, is a ‘Star Trail’ photograph or pattern. He is right in that if you leave your iPhone camera on a long exposure (or use an app) pointed at Polaris, the resulting image will show the stars moving in perfect concentric circles around the North Star. Nice one. So, what? This tells Chud precisely nothing.
The Standard Model preaches ‘Relativity’ and relative motion. They do this to avoid absolutes and the fact that light interference experiments do not find a motion of this planet, but they do find an aetheric wind. The aether is anathema to ‘The Science’, given it destroys modern physics and cosmology - especially its foundational and quite mutilated mathematics.
In any mechanical system involving two objects, in this case the Earth and the celestial sphere, if we have ‘relative motion’, it is simply impossible to determine which object is moving based on sight alone.
Cosmo Boy: “The Earth is spinning at 1,000 mph, making the stars look like they are moving.” This is tautological. Your iPhone photos have not proven that this planet is the object in motion.
Counter claim: “The aetheric deck which contains the stars, is rotating above a stationary Earth.” (Sungenis, Bennett, 2014). There is nothing illogical in this claim and this is what the evidence may support.
Evidence: The iPhone captures the exact same celestial image in both scenarios. Use Einstein’s ‘thought experiment’ analogy. Imagine a photo of a moving train taken from a platform which looks identical to a photo of what appears to be a moving platform taken from a train. It is obvious that an image is not a proof of cause. Remember the Corona plandemic cry when people died after being stabbinated, “Correlation is not Causation.” Sounds sciency.
But there is more to it for Cosmo Boy. In fact, his very ‘proof’ is most likely a disproof of his theory that the Earth is twirling around in tights and singing baritone. More here
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” (Arthur Schopenhauer)
“Scientists...are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty. All scientific knowledge is uncertain….Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation….Learn from science that you must doubt the experts…Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” (Richard Feynman, quantum physicist)
Feynman’s adjuration to understand and challenge the ignorance of ‘experts’ is rarely followed. The opposite exists in our world. Submission and compliance to any who profess scientistic divine powers is de facto. Mass deference and fear from Schopenhauer’s establishment ridicule and violence. On full display during the Corona Plandemic Medical Nazism. It should be noted that ‘Corona’ was the name of the US military surveillance and espionage project in the 1960s. They do like to have a laugh.
The Church of Science is full of pharisees, sadducees, wizards and sorcerers who will convince you that dead RNA or bacteria detritus from a bat will kill you; injected poisons are health; plant food has deranged climate; testes are ovaries; and bacteria became you; and the universe is infinite in age and size and ours is one of dozens of such universes. Never question the narratives. When you do, expect to be censored, debarred, ostracised, debanked, perhaps imprisoned, murdered or crucified. Thriving democracy, free speech and all that. This post follows on from an earlier one on issues with the Standard Cosmological Model.
There are many issues with the ‘Standard Model’ of astrophysics and cosmology as outlined on this substack. We will summarise some key areas in this post. Anyone with an open and curious mind, regardless of background or education, can understand that ‘The Science’ in many domains is unsettled, distorted, distended and discordant with reality. So too with physics and cosmology.
The ‘Standard Model’ is not standardised on ‘science’.
It is built on Copernican philosophy and Copernicus and Galileo offered nothing new, no evidence, no observational facts, just philosophy,
Unproven geometrical and ontological demands of Relativities (there are many),
Ad hoc theories with no proof (dark matter, dark energy, endless time) and,
Tautological apriori conclusions and assumptions when viewing and interpreting data to fit a ‘Big Bang’ event model, itself a theory promulgated by a Belgian Catholic priest and astrophysicist (Le Maitre, or ‘the master’).
Most of what is offered is unproven and guesswork. It is almost wholly mathematical.
In short physics, astro-physics and cosmology is a metaphysical-ontological mess, not a ‘model’ of anything. It resembles the cat’s breakfast, not a well-constructed temple or church.
The electric-plasma-aether universe, the aether, the variance of light speed and about 100 other issues outlined on this substack destroy the Relativities (plural) and Big Bang. The ‘Standard Model’ and its components simply do not hold up to scrutiny or common-sense analysis. More here
Many are surprised to learn that Newton himself found the idea of ‘Action at a Distance’ or gravity traveling through a vacuum without a medium, to be a mechanical impossibility.
“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else... is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Newton, I. (1692) Letter to Richard Bentley, 25 February. Reprinted in: Turnbull, H.W. (ed.) (1961) The Correspondence of Isaac Newton. Vol 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 254.
Saint Isaac is saying that if you apply a ‘vacuum’ to space or our atmosphere you are irrational and anti-science. The author agrees.
In 1920 Eddington, Einstein’s English-speaking prophet and apostle who fraudulently helped ‘prove’ Einstein’s relativity in 1919 (an embarrassing and obvious deceit); admitted that ‘gravity’ is often just a name we give to the behaviour of the medium (the aether) rather than a property of the objects themselves.
“Force, energy, and momentum are not things that exist in the world... They are components of the curvature of the world. What we call the ‘force of gravitation’ is merely a name for the fact that a body does not move in a straight line when there is nothing to stop it.” Eddington, A.S. (1920) Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 95.
(Note: While Eddington used the term ‘curvature’, those of us still living in reality recognise this as a Pressure Gradient of the aetheric vortex. See below.)
More here
“The dielectric [the insulation] is the seat of the electrical action... The particles of the dielectric are in a state of polarised tension (spinning around), and the induction is an action of those contiguous particles upon each other. The conductor is merely the limit of that action.” Faraday, M. (1839) Experimental Researches in Electricity, Vol. 1, Series XI, Section 1295.
“The velocity of the electromagnetic disturbance in a cable depends on the magnetic and electric capacities of the material surrounding the wire... It is the same medium through which light is propagated. The wire is but the axis of the wave.” Maxwell, J. C. (1865) ‘A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 155, p. 491.
Few if any have read or heard of the two quotes above. They emanate from practical men who experimented and knew what they were talking about.
The proofs generated by such men are not taught, except by people like the author, who have a great deal of faith and belief in engineers and farmers and zero trust in the quackademic-Scientistic establishment. If you want to ‘reform’ politics or ‘science’, put real people with real practical skills in charge. Get rid of the degree holders and the grinning parasites often confused with comedians and actors.
The author has led simple experiments which confirm the last few posts on electromagnetic energy, how waves and electrical energy are formed and transmitted and why energy is in the medium not the wire. It does not take much effort to prove Faraday and Maxwell correct in an aetheric context. In fact, the 3 experiments cited below would take about 2 hours to perform.
The key and essential point of demonstration to be confirmed is that so-called ‘empty space’ between objects, called the ‘vacuum’ by Scientism, possesses physical properties like Tension, Elasticity, and Pressure.
If those 3 properties exist in ‘space’ the Standard Model is rubbished. It is very telling that few in ‘academia’ pursue this rather obvious experimental proof. The output would demonstrate the falsity of their religion.
Below are three high-impact and very simple classroom audits that move the conversation from the realm of what ‘The Science’ loves and orgiastically embraces namely abstract maths, to mechanical reality.
“To Faraday, the Aether was the connective tissue of the universe. He could not imagine a force without a ‘carrier.’ His ‘lines of force’ were his way of mapping the internal stresses of the Aetheric ocean in which we all live and move.” Tyndall, J. (1868) Faraday as a Discoverer. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., p. 122.
“I have been trying to write Faraday into mathematics... I have therefore naturally been led to the conception of a medium in which the propagation takes place... The theory I propose may therefore be called a theory of the Electromagnetic Field, because it has to do with the space in the neighbourhood of the electric or magnetic bodies.” Maxwell, J. C. (1865) ‘A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 155, p. 459.
As we discussed in the last post, Faraday provided the ‘hardware’ which proved that the aether exists and generates electricity. Maxwell (1831–1879) provided the ‘software’ or mathematical logic to explain the process. In reality and with ‘real science’ this is the relationship. You invent, create then explain and notate. More here
“I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space... It is not a mere mathematical abstraction, but a physical reality [the Aether] which possesses the power of transmitting tension and motion from one point to another.” Faraday, M. (1852) ‘On the Physical Character of the Lines of Magnetic Force’, Philosophical Magazine, Series 4, Vol. 3, No. 20, p. 401.
“The Aether is not merely a vacuum, but a Plenum; it is the source of all electrical phenomena. When we speak of a body being ‘charged,’ we are describing a state of polarized tension in the surrounding medium. The current is but the collapse or ‘snap’ of that tension back to equilibrium.” Faraday, M. (1839) Experimental Researches in Electricity, Vol. 1, Series XI, Section 1295. (Forensic summary of the Aetheric Stress theory)
Faraday was a practical mechanic and engineer. He knew the aether existed. His entire corpus around battery power centres on the aether. As with Tesla he knew that the aetheric medium was a dynamic fluid full of energy which could be harnessed.
This is why the ‘education’ systems rarely teach Faraday or Tesla. ‘The Science’ will happily conflate its theology with Faraday’s battery and declare, ‘see “the science” invented battery energy’, whilst ignoring all the details and proofs provided by the inventor. This is how they operate. ‘The Science’ is a cult, not a disseminator of facts or truth. More here
“The phenomena of electromagnetism are due to the existence of a medium... the magnetic field is a state of angular momentum (vortex) in that medium, and the electric field is a state of radial tension (displacement). The motion of a conductor relative to these stationary vortices is what ‘pushes’ the electricity.” Maxwell, J.C. (1861) ‘On Physical Lines of Force’, Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 21, Part II.
“We must look upon the Aether as the ultimate foundation of all physical action... The Earth, whether in motion or at rest, is a ‘strained’ structure within this plenum. The magnetic field of a planet is not a ‘creation’ of its rotation, but a local manifestation of the Aetheric stress surrounding its mass.” Larmor, J. (1900) Aether and Matter: A Development of the Dynamical Relations of the Aether to Material Systems. Cambridge University Press, p. 162.
The two men above quite easily destroy modern ‘science’ as they give evidence based on mechanical observations describing how an aether, or ether, or the medium, generates EM. Rotation does not need to play a role in EM creation. Today both men, very capable intelligent engineers, would be burnt at the stake in the public square. They would be labelled ‘anti’ and a threat to the general welfare.
We have discussed why the aether has been covered up and buried. Thomas Kuhn in 1962 discussed ‘paradigms’ within ‘Science’. What he meant was the imposition of ‘Scientism’ or the creation of powerful institutions and processes, based on power and philosophies, which support non-science and falsified data to enforce worldviews and guarantee eternal governance and profits. This is where we are.
‘Modern’ science is equivalent to the Epstein network. It trafficks in false claims and underaged theories, assaulting and abusing its victims, and is deeply connected to the rich and powerful. Kuhn updated.
Electromagnetism (EM) and ‘models’
In the last post we travelled through Electromagnetism or EM in fairly simple, conceptual terms, to describe what exists in reality versus the claims of the ‘Standard Model’.
In this post we will debate how EM could be generated by the Allais-Brahe model of a static, stationary non-rotating Earth and by the Consoli model which advocates a rotating Earth through the aether. More here
“The two sentences ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves’ and ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest’ would simply mean two different conventions... could we not likewise as well suppose the Earth to be the center of all things?” Saint Albert of the Einstein (1938), Jewish Apostle to the Gentiles
“Life is not a chemical accident; it is an Electromagnetic Event. We are vortices of energy sustained by the high-pressure aetheric environment of the uniquely positioned Earth. If you ‘unplug’ the Electro-magnetic (EM) field, atoms lose their instructions and revert to dust. To understand life we need to understand that chemical soups cannot exist and form structure, and that EM energy through an aether is the ‘spark’ or ‘the breath’ of life which informs all matter and gives all life forms their divine source of existence.” Ferd Santos III, 2026.
In two previous posts we discussed experiments which disprove the Standard model of Physics and Cosmology and proved the aether. What we want to do over the next few posts is continue that discussion and go through the following:
1-In this post we travel through Electromagnetism or EM in simple, conceptual terms, to describe what exists in reality versus the claims of the ‘Standard Model’. We will take an axe to the claims of the Standard Model and EM. The reality of EM shatters the standard paradigm and narrative.
2-In a second post we will debate how the Allais-Brahe model of a static, stationary non-rotating Earth would operate (how would it generate energy which is necessary for life?), and how the Consoli model, which advocates a rotating Earth through the Aether, would function.
3-In a third post we will engage with Michael Faraday who built the first functioning battery and energy system and using mechanical experimentation, and proved that EM operated within an aether.
4-Lastly we will have a look at the work of J C Maxwell, the man who took Faraday’s work and created the mathematical equations to explain EM. Oddly ‘the science’ strips the aether, which is central to Maxwell’s equations, and invokes the non-existing vacuum. Logically this would mean that Maxwell’s equations would not work. By way of introduction, and by necessity, we will discuss some of Maxwell in this post.
The above will again disprove much of the standard model. Given that these issues are never considered let’s persist and see where we go. More here
“The historical interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment as a ‘null result’ is the product of a systemic oversight. When one audits the raw data without the bias of the vacuum-script, a persistent, small-scale anisotropy emerges. We have not been measuring ‘nothing’; we have been measuring a medium that is partially entrained by the Earth’s own bulk.” Consoli, M. & Pluchino, A. (2019). Michelson-Morley Experiments: An Alternative for the 21st Century. World Scientific, p. 54.
“Modern physics treats the vacuum as a ‘superfluid’ in its mathematical formulations of the Higgs Field and the Standard Model, yet it denies the physical reality of that very substrate. We are in the absurd position of an engineer who uses the equations of hydrodynamics to describe a pipe but insists that no water exists within it.” Consoli, M. (2009). “The Vacuum of the Standard Model as a Relativistic Superfluid.” Physical Review D, 80(8).
Author’s note: Higgs particle is a fraud, future post on this.
The aether of space exists.
A vacuum is anti-science and a fiction. All of modern physics, astrophysics and cosmology is based on a lie – ‘space is a vacuum’. In reality space operates within the reality of fluid dynamics and apparently in reality, a viscous substance needs a medium. However, without the ‘vacuum’ the maths of Newton, Einstein, Relativity (there are many, pick the one you like), and the Banging of the Biggest all fail. Every single component of the current ‘cosmological worldview’ is based on the fraud of the ‘vacuum’.
Into this debate enters another personality that no one has heard of – the effervescent Italian Maurice Consoli. Born in the 1950s Consoli is still active. He is a trained physicist from Catania University in Sicily and is a highly accomplished physics researcher for the Institute for Nuclear Physics or INFN. The authour has worked with Consoli (the author also highly recommends a visit to Catania including its wonderful open-air sea-food market and marvellous ecclesiastical buildings and of course Etna, beware the crazy driving).
Consoli audited both Michelson-Morley and Miller. He confirmed that Miller, who reproduced the results of MM performing over 300.000 mechanics. More here
In the last post we discussed how French engineers and naturalists recovered and proved the wave theory of light within an aether. This is not an accident. Using the power and soapbox of the Royal Society Saint Newton of the Light Corpuscle and Gravity in the early 18th century, used his position as President of this body to crush opposition. He imposed the non-science of a ‘vacuum’ with light as billiard ball particles which resembled his view of the universe.
Newton’s models took precedence in all scientific domains. Anyone proposing an aether which annihilated Newton’s maths, or a wave theory of light which destroyed his billiard-ball prototype, was buried and professionally erased.
The modus operandi of using institutional authority to eviscerate dissent was replicated and has been imitated in every society since that time. It is with Newton that ‘Science’ becomes cojoined with ‘the State’. Today to criticise ‘The Science’ is to be a disloyal subject, a wayward Sheeple. In Newton’s reign, to criticise the ‘vacuum’, or ‘light corpuscles’ was to be ‘anti-science’. This might ring familiar to critics of government and ‘The Science’.
From the time of Newton onwards, it has not been uncommon for dissenters to be ‘de-lifed’, many have not only been financially and professionally destroyed, deregistered or censored, but physically attacked and killed. Newton personally sought to erase any physical legacy of his rivals including Robert Hooke, Christian Huygens and Gottfried Leibniz. He built the playbook to silence the malcontents.
We therefore witness a long history of Scientism. Cults which are as religious as ‘The Science’ do not engage in debate, transparency, mercy or tolerance. They don’t suffer heretics.
The proofs for an aether are quite obvious. We can start with taking a walk outside our door in the open air. Allais’ achievement is overwhelming and virtually unknown (see Munier 2010, on the suppression of Allais). It does not comport with Scientism or its underlying philosophy.
Maurice Allais (1911–2010) was a practical French physicist-engineer of the mid-20th century. An independent, critical thinker, Allais the mechanical savant, devised a proof of the aether that the cult of Scientism has never been able to explain away. His skill and capability match those of Georges Sagnac, Dayton Miller, Carl Anderson, Herbert Ives and many others who demonstrated the existence of an aether, practical engineers who are unknown to most PhD’s in Physics.
In 1954 the Nobel laureate and polymath Allais observed that during a solar eclipse his ‘paraconical pendulum’ would change its behaviour. This is important and we will get to why this observation is so paradigm-shattering. The ‘paraconical pendulum’ was a specialized version of the Foucault pendulum in Paris. More here
Saint Newton of the Corpuscles violently insisted that light was a stream of physical ‘bullet-ball’ particles. The theory is wrong (more below), but the most significant part of this story is that Saint Newton used his immense political power as Pope and President of the Royal Society to crush the ‘Wave Theory’ proposed by his rivals, Robert Hooke, and Christiaan Huygens (Shapin, Schaffer, 1985). Why is this important?
By crushing the ‘anti-corpuscularists’, Saint Isaac delayed the understanding of electromagnetism and ‘wave mechanics’ by 150 years. This delayed the creation of modern technology by generations. Thanks Apostle Isaac. In fact, the author would maintain that Saint Isaac permanently destroyed real physical science by denying the aether and using abstract and rather ridiculous geometry to justify his worldviews (heliocentricity, gravity at a distance).
Saint Isaac applied this historically important misdirection through his abuse of political power as President of the elitist, corrupt Royal Society, simply because a ‘particle’ was better aligned to fit his Newtonian-‘billiard ball’-universe better than a medium-based wave. This was a colossal and destructive act that still reverberates.
But of course, you know all of this! State education and the ‘science media’ discuss some criticisms. Or maybe not.
More here
In previous posts we have discussed aspects of Newtonian physics and the ‘laws’ of Saint Isaac, ‘axioms’ that must be remembered and regurgitated. There are many problems with Newton’s 3 main ‘postulates’ (laws). We will recapitulate these below. Newton is about celestial mechanics and has nothing to do with practical engineering.
Regarding celestial models, what is rarely mentioned by hagiographers and gatekeepers is that Newton imbibed and indeed depended on Kepler’s maths and Kepler’s 3 laws (debunked earlier). In fact the whole point of Newton was to calcuate the critical ‘constant’ that rotted Kepler’s maths. That constant was ‘gravity’.
Disclosure: One reason why the author does not like Newton is that the Englishman supported and even propagated the myth of a ‘vacuum’, which was marketed because it made his gravitational maths work. Newton was wrong (more below). If you deny the aether, you are in denial of reality.
What then of gravity as a theory? Yes it exists, but Newton does not explain how it works, nor what it is. Yet his massive corpus of unintelligible maths (some say gibberish) is accepted as ‘the science’ and buried his critics and started the funeral of the concept of the aether.
As we elucidated in a previous post, Kepler’s maths are at best the level of a first-year university student and tautological. In fact, the author, rather deviously, has taken Kepler’s maths and sent them to ‘experts’ for comment without telling them the provenance, and the responses were the same – the equations are inexact and circular. You can try this yourself. What then of Saint Newton, Apostle of the Mechanical Universe? More here
“I confess that when Tycho died, I quickly took advantage of the absence, or lack of circumspection, of the heirs, by taking the observations under my care.” (Kepler, 1609)
In 1601, the German Kepler stole from Tycho Brahe’s laboratory what would have been a treasure trove of information. Brahe was the most formidable force in astronomy since Ptolemy. There is ample evidence that Kepler, who worked with Brahe before Tycho’s mysterious death, murdered the Danish astronomer to get his bloody hands on inimitably pure observational data.
Here we will discuss what ‘The Science’ never will. Saint Kepler is always referenced as a giant amongst the Apostles of ‘The ‘Science’, who saved the phenomena of Copernican theory with his mathematical ‘proofs’ of elliptical orbits. Is this really true?
Was Saint Johannes really an Apostle saving ‘science’ and the ‘truth’ of the church of Scientism from the toothless and shoeless ‘anti-science’ heathens and pagans?
Was he really a divine light of reason in a world of unbelieving darkness and ignorance?
Or was Kepler just another Sunworshipping quack and worse, a conniving criminal murderer? More here
Below is a summary table of ~100 rows which summarise many posts and issues with Apollo 11 and the Apollo ‘moon landing’ narrative. Many more can be added, this is just a skeleton.
When confronted by the Fanboys it can be used (and searched) for answers. This is a first step to creating a proper database, cloudifying it, and sharing it. When that is done, I will post the real database as well. Looking forward to the Artemis-Orion ‘moon fly by’, promised now for about 10 years and analyse that ‘flight’ against the data details presented.
In a previous post we discussed why Euclidean mathematics gives a completely different and far more ‘physical’ distance measurement. This post extends that view and includes the Moon. The distance to the Moon (~238.000 miles) is accurate in the author’s opinion (summary below).
Interestingly, this accurate Earth-Moon distance, shatters the Relativistic calculation used by the standard model to arrive at the Sun’s distance from this planet. We should acknowledge that the desire to place the Sun at 93 millions from this planet is a very recent and a rather incredible claim based on circular logic and Kepler’s ‘Laws’ which are debunked in the next post (Kepler’s manipulated maths eventually put the Sun at a distance of 52 million miles). Some historical calculations you are not told about:
The problem is obvious. More here
Niall Ferguson to his credit recognizes the role faith plays in both the development of reason, and of the political-economy and its social-environmental evolution. His comments are worth reading at some length. On page 264 he gets to the crux of the matter as to why the West is better than the Rest [to quote his own depiction]:
“Religions matter. In earlier chapters we saw how the 'stability ethic' of Confucianism played a part in imperial China's failure to develop the kind of competitive institutional framework that promoted innovation in Western Europe....But perhaps the biggest contribution of religion to the history of Western civilization was this. Protestantism made the West not only work, but also save and read. The Industrial Revolution was indeed a product of technological innovation and consumption.”
All true. Though Weber's Protestant read, work and save ethic, is indeed a prime source of European dynamism it must also be said that the Catholic Church saved Europe and should be given joint credit for its rise to dominance. The Roman church developed the economy, fought wars of liberation and defence against Islam [including the Crusades which bought Europe 500 years of time to develop]; stimulated the creation of schools, universities, enquiry and debate; and financed science and art. The balance sheet of the Catholic Church is usually taught as a negative. This is nonsense. Even with the sordid foibles, corruption and inquisitorial nature of the Church, its influence in European development is undeniably positive and decisive.
The 'Great Republic' is a book compiled from many essays which Churchill wrote about America, during his many years in politics. This book was formed and edited by his grandson, Winston S. Churchill who was also for a time, an MP in the British Parliament. The book makes for interesting reading because it covers all of American history, including the Revolution, the Civil War, slavery, America's role in two World Wars, and even the creation of Canada. One of the more interesting chapters is named 'The American Constitution'. It is a good read because it gives the reasons why America, and its key foundational text is so outstandingly unique.
One has to wonder what Churchill would say today of the American government's disregard for this document? What would be his reaction to the destruction of the rules of political engagement which allowed in very large part, the creation of the modern world and of American exceptionalism? The Federal government alone now consumes close to 30% of national income, with ownership of key sectors such as auto manufacturing and banking. One doubts very much, that Churchill would be impressed by the totalitarian pretensions of the unDemocratic or anti-Republican parties.
One of Churchill's strengths in his 66 year long political career, was his defense of both democracy; and of the Constitutional division of powers. He admired the US foundational texts as being unique in human history, and the bedrock of the Republican ideal. The US Constitution was not just an piece of parchment concocted by rich, white men, who owned slaves – but rather the apogee of genius, crafted by highly intelligent men, who were successful in life, and knew how a prosperous and well-functioning nation state should be developed.
“Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty.”
[Churchill May 14 1908, Dundee Hall speech].
This is little book a wonderful and new product for Churchilliana. The publishing firm, General Books, copied a number of Churchill's speeches between 1906 and 1912 using optical character recognition software. These full length reproductions were then turned into a book of some 138 pages. They are a fine compilation on Churchill's vision of 'Liberalism', or the establishment of what some might call welfare-capitalism, which merges aspects of socialism and communal responsibility, with trade, free[ish] markets, and aspects of capitalism.
These speeches formed the ideology and political convictions of Churchill the politician during the social-reforming era of 1906 to 1912. This was when the modern welfare state and its important components was created. Churchill became a minister of power during 2 governments serving as MP for Manchester North-West [1906-8], and Dundee [1908-22]. He entered the Cabinet in 1908 until 1910 as President of the Board of Trade and served as the Home Secretary from 1910 to 1911. These crucial 5 years from 1907 to 1912 were essential to restoring the communal health of Great Britain and the many 'have-nots'. Churchill's speeches make the argument as to why this is so and why a safety net of health, insurance, poor relief, and wage floors is necessary. Conservatives might be shocked but yes we do need a minimum welfare state.
The usual lament is that 'we don't build anything anymore' in advanced economies. This is not true. 15 % of GDP is in manufacturing and if one adds in software and technology development – which is a manufacturing process – the number is 30%. IT accounts for about 15% of US GDP making it the single most important industry. There are three factors about manufacturing which the mainstream media never reports.
Euro, soon to be a Zeuro. Europe has long been infected with the disease which first appeared with some force in the mid 19th century from the revolutionary slogans of 1848 to the mindlessness of Nietzsche's sad little writings which attempted to create 'supermen' out of a culture which was becoming socialist. All people, cultures, ideas and nations are equal. Fairness means everyone is the same. Equality is where all people and states are equally poor and miserable. Any 'gaps' in wealth, productivity, talent or initiative must be 'reduced' by government. If you try hard you are a criminally liable idiot, a threat to the state. Life is a large vacation punctuated by periods of unproductive, unsatisfying labour. The tenets of Christian civilization – rationality, gratitude, humility, hard-work, the reduction of the ego, the Golden Rule – are all relics of superstition and stupidity. Narcissism, self-absorption, 'free' benefits, TV and cults are the coveted idols of sophistication.
When your society is built upon the foundations of Rousseau and modern cultural Marxism it is bound to fail. When a currency is created to 'hide the decline', and allow governments more unfettered access to printed money currency, regulations, taxation, and power, the end is only a matter of time. Of course European 'leaders' now 'demand' a fiscal union. That is after all the whole point of the Euro exercise. Create a monetary disaster which implodes fiscal reality, and then offer 'solutions' which involve more government centralization and unfettered power.
Fiat currencies will disappear at least in their current form. When Nixon abolished the Gold Standard in 1971 he did so for self-interested reasons. He was aping the failed but short term policy of Lincoln during the Civil War – print more money all the time – to fund the war effort. That lasted only 4 years, and the inflationary effects were real but eaten up within 5 years by a rebounding economy, growing large and powerful on a unified Continental sized market. Nixon's feat has endured 40 years with a huge increase in the printing of money aligned with zero interest rates in the past 10 years, guaranteeing some form of future financial destruction. There are laws of economics, and we can't ignore them, though the big brains which run the world often times do.
US debt took off post 1971, when the US dollar was decoupled from the Gold standard.
The ancient Greeks set up the Oracle of Delphi as a temple to Apollo the Sun and Music God. The high priestesses were stoned on Datura leaves and mumbled some nonsense to any who brought a question. They were revealing what the 'Earth Mother' forecast. But like Nostradumuses sayings, much of what these stoned women muttered was completely inane and incomprehensible. No matter. The Delphic cult believed. This is essential. Muslims believe they are the chosen ones destined by the moon deity for an after-life of pleasure and endless sex [at least for Muslim men]. Our new Earth Mother cult has to give the cult members a combination of Delphic surety and Islamic rewards. It must in other words, transcend mere paganism and take on the attributes of a religion. To this end I propose the establishment – with tax money – of Churches in every single urban center, with the name of 'Earth Mother Institute'. Thus they will not look like a 'normal church' and won't be vilified by really smart people or the media. We will teach that by following our cult, your life will be purified, you will be moral, you will be superior, and at some point, because you are 'one with nature', you will be rewarded in both this life and the next.
Climate Change is a mythical problem premised on grand lies and fraud. Witness some real world facts: Co2 Emissions today are at their 2nd lowest level in history.
During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm
Ice Ages are the norm:
“For ninety percent of the last million years, the normal state of the Earth's climate has been an ice age. Ice ages last about 100,000 years, and are punctuated by short periods of warm climate, or inter-glacials. The last ice age started about 114,000 years ago. It began instantaneously. For a hundred-thousand years, temperatures fell and sheets of ice a mile thick grew to envelop much of North America, Europe and Asia. The ice age ended nearly as abruptly as it began. Between about 12,000 and 10,000 years ago, the temperature in Greenland rose more than 50 °F.”
The UN IPCC scam
The fact that Co2 does not cause anything is a scientific fact. The Earth is not a greenhouse and ergo there can be no forcing of water vapour causing global cooling. There are over 1 million impact variables in the earth's convection system. The most common climate is an ice age – a reality completely divorced from Co2 levels or human activity. The sun has more to do with climate patterns than human activity.
No one from the Marxist-Globalist Globaloney Warming cult can explain the creation and the ending of the last ice age. Nor can they posit why Co2 levels which are at their 2nd lowest level in the last 2 million years have any ties to temperature, in spite of local climactic conditions and physical thermodynamics – both of which disprove 'global temperature' as utterly meaningless. The cult can't explain local variations or why the IPCC fraudulent data confirms that the earth is cooling, not warming. IPCC models [26 of them], have proven utterly futile at predicting any real world climate events or temperatures – a fact again left unexplained by the Eco Fascist cult.
Socialist reduction
Socialism always fails. States cannot afford socialized programs. If you deem health care to be a human right than nationalize food, housing, water bottle distribution, and clothing. Health care is no different than any other market. If a socialized system is truly necessary than we should at least have the rational intelligence to allow a functioning market to co-exist in which private insurances, care, and access are subject to price points and supply and demand factors. Not only would that alleviate the stress on state budgets it would improve the morality of the system by both decreasing costs and death rates. The modern dark-age mantra of 'socialism is good' is absurd. Time to move on.
