tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36396609139396120972024-03-19T01:48:09.531-07:00Building UtopiaThoughts and ideas for social progressAndrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.comBlogger202125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-19493155298821380682023-09-15T20:45:00.032-07:002023-11-06T23:23:03.076-08:00 To Vax or not to Vax?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX3I1hr8C9-m9k6U0g3BvSw6e4Pot0YCVDk_8b1DgXgomb_NZ3WYcL0PegUFoxLfmzXa4gu-boZa3i8JR2MIZ-8kM_oUcfy31C7KAXP_jHzCq7H2RDkaOfejJU62gY462pWFRS-ew4gIUQvSYba0aVsSDW2Dxxpo0EOaQ2bXQFxu5gta5e3CxIE_84DIgj/s610/to%20vax%20or%20not%20to%20vax.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="373" data-original-width="610" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX3I1hr8C9-m9k6U0g3BvSw6e4Pot0YCVDk_8b1DgXgomb_NZ3WYcL0PegUFoxLfmzXa4gu-boZa3i8JR2MIZ-8kM_oUcfy31C7KAXP_jHzCq7H2RDkaOfejJU62gY462pWFRS-ew4gIUQvSYba0aVsSDW2Dxxpo0EOaQ2bXQFxu5gta5e3CxIE_84DIgj/s320/to%20vax%20or%20not%20to%20vax.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>As it appears, people who do not want to vaccinate their children are...anti-vaxxers. </p><p>Ok. First, let's give the anti-vaxxers the benefit of the doubt, and celebrate them where it's due. </p><p>It's great for a child to have parents who care for their wellbeing, and know enough history to know that governments can't always be trusted - nor pharmaceutical companies, that are legally bound to conform to shareholder returns without compromise.</p><p>Of course vaccines should be objectively tested with the highest diligence, to determine their risks over benefits. And of course governments and commercial operations should be forever treated with wise suspicion. </p><p>Indeed, if any class should be laughed at, it's those who think the label 'anti-vaxxer' (which is code for: "backwards idiot conspiracy theorist") is good enough to close the debate. 'Anti-vaxxer' is a smear that's over-used, and brings question to professionals who too casually use it. A smear is not an argument.</p><p>Ok. So how do we break down the game? How do we convince people who don't trust vaccines and for whatever reason?</p><p>First, you address them with respect. No matter how wrong they might be, their concerns are at base founded. Anything injected circumvents your body's defenses and is therefore, potentially, extremely toxic or even lethal. No one is a fool to be worried about this.</p><p>Second, you spend a bit of money <i>properly</i> proving that the vaccines are safe. This is done by studying people who were and were not vaccinated over their lifetimes, using thousands of subjects. This is how you identify long-range effects that are otherwise hard to link back to the vaccine.</p><p>If vaccines do not contribute to autism, for example, then it should be easy enough to prove. Autism rates in vaccinated groups should be about the same as those in unvaccinated groups - if the vaccines are all good.</p><p>A comprehensive tax-payer funded study, conducted by those without bias, should put the [otherwise] anti-vaxxers minds at rest. </p><p><span style="color: #666666;"><i>(And note we must be careful here. If vaccines really are causing serious problems like autism, then there will be interests wanting to be sure we don't find out about it, especially if corruption or blatant failure of due process is identified).</i></span></p><p>Yet this is the problem. Penetrating, broad-scale studies are not being done, as it seems. According to Robert F Kennedy Jr. they've never been done (in America, at least). If he's right, then that alone would induce some vaccine resistance, would it not? Frankly it would spook me, as well. </p><p>Of all the things that so many billions of research dollars could get poured into, you would think the definitive proof for 'vaccine virtue'--where the pros clearly outweigh the cons--would be amongst the highest objectives on the list, for research projects. </p><p>And maybe this is the problem. We're not going out of our way to prove the suspicions of the anti-vaxxers wrong - yet obviously we should. And until we do it, I say 'we' are the ones who are at fault.</p><p>We can also put fluoride, EMF radiation, food additives, and funny chemicals alround, etc, on the to-do list for broad research. Why not? Indeed, as I'm sure the reader can gather, not doing this kind of research is a concern on its own. Pertinent research not being done becomes suspicious by its absence. </p><p>So please, let's get on with it.</p><p>-Andrew Atkin</p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-21400457610982309562023-08-13T19:54:00.072-07:002024-02-05T16:45:37.388-08:00Is the Western world in the Spiritual blues?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw3gqqkoWIB49iUSbYt3ljsHQs3oQFoGePXAMOT7afzqar12dd7VgrAb4vywHTSyR0bvkLCIzZFOGyAWRZaODp1DwWKKpcperY-hT1nJTGg7QQqc0bfxQMzoNsMZ-RM1KWDwxd1ujAroMMvJSiVz5E5Pj0_H276UXcW11Yqr5R4X9HvQIX00aPrTzq6Wcy/s1081/Church%201.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="713" data-original-width="1081" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw3gqqkoWIB49iUSbYt3ljsHQs3oQFoGePXAMOT7afzqar12dd7VgrAb4vywHTSyR0bvkLCIzZFOGyAWRZaODp1DwWKKpcperY-hT1nJTGg7QQqc0bfxQMzoNsMZ-RM1KWDwxd1ujAroMMvJSiVz5E5Pj0_H276UXcW11Yqr5R4X9HvQIX00aPrTzq6Wcy/s320/Church%201.png" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p>-Andrew Atkin<br /><br /><i>Religion--and spirituality--should be about opening minds, not closing them.</i></p><p><b>The terror of death:</b></p><p>There's an interesting man, Dr Michael Newton, who did hypnotic regressions on hundreds of people. He [supposedly] regressed people back to their life between incarnated lives. Anyway, one thing that he said that was of interest to me, was that Atheist-materialists repress their fear of death.</p><p>That they repress their fear is believable to me, not just because absolute death is unpalatable, but because of the way materialists seem to act. I've seen two kinds of "repression" from this camp...</p><p>People either become aggressive in response to the conversation on spiritualism (and death) and reject having to even talk about it--operating a "just don't go there" defense--or, they relate to it in an emotionally knocked-out way, where they become psychologically split from the meaning of what they believe. That 'split' type will listen to someone talk about spiritualism and death, but only with a kind of vague indifference. </p><p>The split type is the most defended, I believe. They're a lost cause to try and convert from their position, because they're unreachable (psychologically). The ones who can <i>potentially</i> reconsider are the more aggressive ones, who typically just say "don't go there!". Those guys can still, potentially, think about this stuff with sincere engagement - they just need to first take a deep breath.</p><p>And then there are the [apparently] religious people, namely the Western Christians. I believe these people are more afraid of death than they appear. In the Western world, religion is not what it used to be. There are few true believers. Why?</p><p>We've broken down religion by contradicting it with a simplistic representation of science. Religion in the West has become more of a soft tradition than a social-psychological foundation with teeth. Crudely, Christianity has gone from Jesus Christ to Santa Claus. It's not serious anymore.</p><p>Because of this, I think there's little true confidence in life after death in the modern Christian world. So the Christians are afraid too. The whole Western world is afraid. </p><p>Ok. So what's the effect of all this? It's a good question to ask because [real] religion is powerful stuff - and it's gone. I can only speak from my observation, but I will. I think our abandonment of religiosity has made the West weak - vulnerable to depression and fear.</p><p>People feel an ultimate meaninglessness behind everything. What does anything really matter if you're eternally dead after a few short decades? Nothing really. It's all just a lukewarm disco party at the end of the day, right?</p><p>So, our existential grief sucks the spark out of life, as that morbid cloud of doom is always there in the subconscious. </p><p>At worst, this 'existential crisis' can make us self-centered and ethically corrupt. You know...live for yourself, for today, because you have no tomorrow. And as the atheistic mind might assume, higher idealism for the brotherhood of man is just a trick of the mind - an emotional disturbance born from evolutionary pressure, that survival once decided to be useful.</p><p><b>Body and Soul:</b></p><p>Okay. Before you take the gun out of the draw, I have some good news. The consciousness (meaning, spirit) is not created by the brain. It can't be, has been [logically] shown not to be able to, and there's empirical evidence from multiple areas showing it almost certainly does not. Biological death is not conscious death. Biology is not the material of the mind...</p><p><span style="color: #444444;"><i>-This needs much further explanation, but I will say the following for sake of imprinting a basic picture: </i></span></p><p><i><span style="color: #444444;">The atomic world (meaning material world, as we experience it) is effectively an avatar structure born out of the field (aether) of which gives birth to the material (vibratory) world. Consciousness is much more likely based within the field directly, than matter itself - that's what everything points to. </span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: #444444;">When your computer dies you don't die with it. Same for the brain - which is just a computer, of course.</span></i></p><p>From my observation, scientists who claim otherwise typically have no idea about the evidence supporting the non-materialist case. Or more typically, they refuse to give the evidence the time of day as they see the supposition as inherently implausible. They would've never really tested their assumptions, and I notice they have a picture in their minds of what 'material' even is that's literally 100 years out of date. This, I think, is the essence of why they believe life after death is inherently implausible.</p><p><b>Religious rebirth:</b></p><p>Anyway, there's hope for a new kind of authentic religion (if you can call it that) in the West. But it won't be Christianity, Islam, or Jehovah's Witness, etc. Those old ideas are past their use-by date, and they're so full of corruptions, I believe, that they should be held at a cautious arms length in any circumstance (<a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2022/12/andrew-atkins-message-to-muslims.html" target="_blank">see here</a>).</p><p>Victorian science has given the fundamentalist faiths a lethal kick to the gonads. In turn, I don't believe there's any coming back to Christianity (and other) in the way it was in the past. But we do need a religious rebirth of sorts, or at least a major overhaul in the way we relate to our old dogmas. </p><p>The 'overhaul' must honour the scientific standard and be consistent with what we know to be fact. From there, we can likely get the West out of its spiritual morbidity, and into a faith that the modern mind can respect. Not a faith based on grand stretches and wild speculation, but a faith that can be believed-in with confidence.</p><p>What should that faith be? Well, it's already evolving in a way via research, insight and philosophy. There are a lot great conversations going on - but that goes beyond what I want to write here. (Explore the links below the page, if you will).</p><p>But one thing I would like to say, is that a modern 'great' religion, if it ever comes to be, would surely not be dictatorial or cultish. Its leaders, if any, would be more akin to ethical philosophers than authoritative priests who are above debate. And it would be a faith of inspiration - not intimidation (I hope).</p><p>--------------------------------------------------</p><p><b>Note: On the Near Death Experiencers:</b></p><p>The curious thing about people who've had an NDE, is that they have the same confidence in life after death that you and I have in the night turning to day. And their anticipation for their post-biological future is overwhelmingly positive.</p><p>As research on NDE people has made clear, the broad effect from their experience is that they become more spiritual yet less religious (in the institutional meaning of the word) and less materialistic. Money and position is generally only a means to an end, for them. They're less miserable and suicidal, yet also less risk-averse because they feel they can't ultimately lose. Death is seen not as a fearful end, but a natural transition.</p><p>With an intellectual update and 'faith' renaissance, people in general can come closer to the outlook enjoyed by those who've gone through an NDE. That is, they can come away from their spiritual blues. This belongs to all of us - if we can get past our fears and take the time to look and consider.</p><p><b>Note: The strength of the evidence:</b></p><p>Dr Jeffery Mishlove, a life long NDE (and other) researcher, made an important point on evidence in his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJgpoFa67L4" target="_blank">recent talk</a>.</p><p>He said that any isolated case on the NDE and Past lives recall, etc, can be rightly nit-picked and broken down with possible 'other' explanations, making the evidence from a singular case inconclusive... </p><p>That's true. It's hard to prove reincarnation and NDE cases, etc, to the point where the validity of a given case is conclusively undeniable. Creating laboratory-type conditions where there can be zero potential for contamination is virtually impossible, in practical terms. And that's what you may need for an inarguable proof that could satisfy the strictest of sceptics.</p><p>But what Mishlove also said, that was very true, was that the gravity behind the evidence is not the isolated cases as such, but the fact that we have <i>so many</i> robust cases....</p><p>Documented cases of children who remember past lives, for example, runs into the thousands. NDE cases run into the millions. There are also countless cases of out-of-body experiences (usually accompanying NDE's) where people in hospitals are reported to have explicitly seen and heard things that should have been <i>absolutely</i> impossible from their geographical position and debilitated state of mind.</p><p>It's the shear volume of cases, demonstrating consistency in the structure of the experiences, with validations, that gives the greatest weight to the evidence - moving in the direction of being able to declare 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the consciousness is not derivative of brain activity. There is a domain of what we can call 'spirit' outside what is immediately observable, in simplistic material terms. <br /><br />To be clear: When a single patient tells a doctor, word for word, what they said about them in another faraway room while they were totally unconscious, then that is freaky. When it happens thousands of times over, with all different people, and is formally documented then it's more than freaky. It demands serious attention. <i>This is where we are.</i></p><p>So, this is what people should appreciate if they are to look into this work. Look broadly, don't <i>just</i> nit-pick isolated cases. Develop perspective on the body of evidence.</p><p><b>Related links - my personal content:</b></p><p><a href="https://youtu.be/Z6j-RP2fb-0" target="_blank">My personal "religious" philosophy (video).</a></p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG84LFhJzRY&t=3s" target="_blank">Example (one of many) of how a brain cannot generate a consciousness (video).</a></p><p><a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-mechanical-argument-for-life-after.html" target="_blank">The mechanical argument for life after death.</a></p><p><a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-consciousness-model.html" target="_blank">The consciousness model.</a></p><p><a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-spiritual-revolution-we-need.html" target="_blank">The spiritual revolution we need.</a></p><p><a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-hand-of-god.html" target="_blank">The hand of God.</a></p><p><b>Outside links of interest:</b></p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBSi7VFCqi8" target="_blank">Leading researcher on NDE's</a> (video)</p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QYBhzi67NY" target="_blank">Mark Gober "the end of upside down thinking"</a> (video).</p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-5498983424633307872023-07-22T17:16:00.011-07:002024-01-14T00:05:12.230-08:00The Consciousness Model<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6D8IyF2V3WmERFaxeqfftsiWfd4cCXFD5jmjHQx2ilyB4-vs56paVQc2dzdig94O9FVOLO-lJfPbKj2qK-lWKyog0q6lDSRY3Da3x0wWI2XSZf8KoSGnsc9DT3cHxjoolQDvNDGFrUCVhvV5XJ4pS3_FouNW5-ggGXXmtgtmo35Ww9ySwA6q1gSRmUrsG/s612/brain.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="612" data-original-width="612" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6D8IyF2V3WmERFaxeqfftsiWfd4cCXFD5jmjHQx2ilyB4-vs56paVQc2dzdig94O9FVOLO-lJfPbKj2qK-lWKyog0q6lDSRY3Da3x0wWI2XSZf8KoSGnsc9DT3cHxjoolQDvNDGFrUCVhvV5XJ4pS3_FouNW5-ggGXXmtgtmo35Ww9ySwA6q1gSRmUrsG/w200-h200/brain.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><p></p><p>There are excellent (not flaky) reasons to believe that consciousness does not derive from <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG84LFhJzRY&t=2s" target="_blank">processes of the brain</a>. There are insurmountable logical problems with that idea. But to cut a long story short the alternative picture, popularly proposed, is that the consciousness is the 'first cause' to the material world. The idea being, that the consciousness(es) creates the material world as a kind of collective dream. Hence, the material world a simulation.</p><p>This is a speculative hypothesis that may or may not be right. It looks absurd on the immediate face of it, yet it's fair to say that it's no more radical than the idea of anything existing at all - and existence, from a strictly logical outlook, is self-evident yet mad...</p><p><i><span style="color: #666666;">The fact of existence suggests that something can give birth to itself out of nothing, which is more magic than magic. Magic at least respects some kind of [incomprehensible] cause-to-effect. Existence suggests an effect with no cause at all. Yet here it is - and here we are. That's "mad".</span></i></p><p>The popular assertion from people who assert that consciousness comes first and is the be-all, is that the brain does not create consciousness but filters it. Filters? This doesn't make good sense to me. I think what is more likely, is that the brain <i>focuses</i> consciousness. Think of it like this...</p><p>When you're watching a movie, you may be so absorbed in the screen that you forget where you are - you forget the room you are in. When you finish the movie, you then feel like you've "woken up" to the room you were always in. The movie had <i>focused</i> your conscious attention - not filtered it.</p><p>I suggest that this is how the brain/mind works. The consciousness is based in the field behind the brain <span style="color: #666666;">(to be clear, I'm talking about the same field responsible for magnetic forces, and [as best as we can know] the same field responsible for matter as we know it. Matter is a <a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-hand-of-god.html" target="_blank">vibration within the field</a>).</span> So, for a given lifetime, we log on to our brain just like we log on to a TV to watch a movie...</p><p>The brain is, in effect, a read-write terminal that read-writes the outside material world <span style="color: #666666;">(and builds internal models of the outside world, that then allow us to run simulations. We call it thinking)</span> and also read-writes from the consciousness itself. So basically, the brain is an extremely sophisticated 2-way bio-electric eBook. But ultimately only a book.</p><p>It's interesting to note, that people who have near death experiences (NDE's) consistently report that when they die (temporarily) it's like waking up and 'going home' - and from their experiences they say that this life (this material life) is the comparative dream. It's like my example of 'waking up' from a movie you were absorbed in. NDE people also report having a "wider consciousness" and being far more capable of clear thought and lucid perception; again, just like waking up from a prior zone, immersed in your TV.</p><p>NDE people also suggest that incarnating (focusing) to a material brain leads to deep amnesia. This relates to the greater reality that we're supposedly more truly based in. Again, like when you're absorbed into a narrow focus on something, you can't remember outside things because your mind is zoned-out of all memory not associated with your current brain activity, that naturally holds you captive for the time. </p><p>To me, this is a more plausible model than claiming material is not really there and consciousness is primary. Though that might ultimately be the case, we can't know. For the sake of hypothesis though, I think it's better to see the consciousness as based within the field, and focused to the brain for a given lifetime. The model is robust and explains a lot, including much <a href="https://galileocommission.org/where-is-my-mind-podcast-with-mark-gober/" target="_blank">psychic phenomena</a>.</p><p>A final note. I have not explained the consciousness itself. That's because I can't - no one can. Though real, it's totally incomprehensible in itself. We can only observe its relationship to the brain - not understand what it actually is.</p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-67996832260409966072023-07-13T21:11:00.013-07:002023-07-13T21:41:01.742-07:00Security: A better argument for a World Government<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg80TaXZ7jMnEPAQ3xku49RDP560cADfAxKbXa1utfaMw9a8r2Bj5dbNM03Hj-58wO7WW8_5revVy2EufElB49CC3Z3fMWg8ctOs7eyVRg2GdtUAKuvt91_EtVbN_58CmrUjy3NbEnTaqCCzyFm_oo7o7Gn0t6gcSVxx6AMT2PRSvhHSFjaFWhUA6prwIlP/s696/T.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="618" data-original-width="696" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg80TaXZ7jMnEPAQ3xku49RDP560cADfAxKbXa1utfaMw9a8r2Bj5dbNM03Hj-58wO7WW8_5revVy2EufElB49CC3Z3fMWg8ctOs7eyVRg2GdtUAKuvt91_EtVbN_58CmrUjy3NbEnTaqCCzyFm_oo7o7Gn0t6gcSVxx6AMT2PRSvhHSFjaFWhUA6prwIlP/w200-h178/T.png" width="200" /></a></div><p></p><p>Robert F. Kennedy impressed me a short while ago, when he spoke about the threat of terrorist states in the modern technological age. He expressed that we can't afford to have dangerous rouge states in this modern world - which is true. But what he did not express was the fact that you don't, or soon won't, need a whole nation to build weapons of mass destruction.</p><p>Technical plans for fabricating atomic bombs, for example, can always be leaked and downloaded, and advanced malicious devices can be developed easily using virtual prototyping and 3d printing, etc.</p><p>Nuclear is just one demon. For example, there's biological and chemical potentials of course, and cheap auto-targeting laser technology that can destroy 100 eyeballs per-seconds. Add to this, tiny grenade-drones and EMP (electromagnetic pulse) bombs that can take any city back to the stoneage in a couple of hours overnight. And, everything and anything else that can be thought of and developed by a small collection of individuals.</p><p>My point is, the terror problem can only grow because technology will only get better - and cheaper. So we have to be realistic. It may only be a matter of time until a sub-extremist group, with a little money and godly dedication, does untold damage.</p><p>The only reason why Isis, for example, hadn't murdered millions with a nuke (or other) is because they couldn't. But this will change. Indeed, consider also if France's parliament becomes dominated over time by Muslim extremists. They would then inherit control of France's already established nuclear capacity. My point is, the vulnerabilities are great and can only grow. </p><p>I'm not scaremongering - it's just logical.</p><p>I argue this is one of the better reasons to embrace advanced (meaning intrusive, yes) global surveillance systems, and to maybe develop a global government to a degree, so to enforce it. </p><p>I believe we need to lay a powerful defensive foundation to resist the threat of terrorism. Our growing technological status demands this. Indeed, if we did not have our intelligence systems today, then we could only guess as to what kind of carnage we would be looking at already.</p><p>Has the ever-growing threat of technology-driven terror been realised by our military deep states? Of course it has. It's plain. Maybe this is why there's a shift on the political level towards a kind of global control system? Maybe the Pentagon's models have indicated that we simply must have these systems now? We can wonder.</p><p>Andrew Atkin - July, 2023</p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-88825573004178068412023-05-20T18:40:00.008-07:002023-08-18T05:02:54.232-07:00Tax: Are the rich really the heavy lifters?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgra_wz4cFbmIL_H93BJSnYEx7PIeFiGgy_RqC4qJmLXeZQyAs5ew5OOhA884QxKpLN4i1MxmhObm5g-M9nrZqQt_fUjr_h58eXIb-WBfLp7KDMGJxDqZOD3PnFJ9tCegMLIY63nbLO8-lUXgzGsglgpOwuOls93cjdkVr_VEmPZqQGhLwSfq2KtPhxog/s452/heavy%203.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="335" data-original-width="452" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgra_wz4cFbmIL_H93BJSnYEx7PIeFiGgy_RqC4qJmLXeZQyAs5ew5OOhA884QxKpLN4i1MxmhObm5g-M9nrZqQt_fUjr_h58eXIb-WBfLp7KDMGJxDqZOD3PnFJ9tCegMLIY63nbLO8-lUXgzGsglgpOwuOls93cjdkVr_VEmPZqQGhLwSfq2KtPhxog/s320/heavy%203.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p>Take this scenario. A rich man, John, who owns half the supermarkets in New Zealand is in despair, because his Australian counterpart, Harry, is still far richer than he is and it's making him feel inadequate.</p><p>John then comes up with an idea. He donates $10m each to the National, Act, Labour and Green parties, to ensure all parties are incentivised to do his bidding.</p><p>John then has some friendly talks with the leaders of the parties, to ensure they understand what he expects of them. Warm smiles within the club. All is well.</p><p>The result, is that immigration policy becomes discretely modified. It becomes very easy for John to import visa workers on a minimum wage, who will stock his shelves throughout the painful hours of the night.</p><p>Before the policy change, John had to employ Kiwi's in a relatively tight job market. He prior had to pay $32 per-hour for his graveyard workers, which cut deep into his profit margin. Now he only has to pay $20 per-hour, due to the freshly modified visa system.</p><p>With quadrupled profits, his wealth looks to be more in line with his Australian counterpart, Harry. He feels a little better, but alas not for long. He soon starts comparing himself to Elon Musk so he's back to losing sleep.</p><p>John then gets another idea to help him feel better. He grabs a soapbox, a powerful megaphone, and demands admiration and respect from his workers with a speech. The speech goes something like this....</p><p><i>"Behold! 80% of the governments tax-take comes from my wallet and people like me, because I'm the biggest income earner. I'm the reason you have free healthcare and an accommodation supplement. You guys pay virtually nothing in tax. I'm your Santa Claus - I'm your superman."</i></p><p>Most of the workers buy it, and weep with appreciation for John. Except one worker, Mike, who took a basic economics course when he was in school. He was hiding behind a counter praying for a better world. Mike understood that yes, of course, John and all the other big income earners were paying most of the tax. But he also understood who was making John's money in the first place - overwhelmingly, the low-paid workers underneath him.</p><p><b>The morals of the story:</b></p><p>1. To think straight on economic reality you must first observe raw production, and only second 'money's received'. That is, you need to think in terms of the "real economy" to avoid confusion. </p><p>No one gets rich on their own. You need an army beneath you, to do the bulk of the heavy lifting (producing).</p><p>2. Crony capitalism (which is what the story highlights) is the friend of socialism. It creates the very problem that justifies government intervention for wealth distribution (tax), ultimately leading to [virtual] socialism.</p><p>The truth is, if our economy were correctly balanced so markets were not irresponsibly manipulated, and we got rid of dis-optimised regulations, anti-competitive practices, irrational professional licencing, and every other bit of junk long driven into politics via the forever efforts of special interests, then over time we would hardly need to tax the populace at all. And we would all--from the bottom to the top of our society--be much more prosperous and progressive to the end of it.</p><p><b>The real solution?</b></p><p>Political decentralisation. Government needs to be close, and small, and on the peoples highly transparent leash. Otherwise, the slow-burning evolution to a bought-and-paid-for political machine becomes inevitable. And alas, it's already happened of course, in New Zealand and most of the Western world today.<br /><br />-Andrew Atkin, May, 2023</p>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-46551031973077934872023-04-11T16:48:00.003-07:002023-04-11T16:58:32.755-07:00Death and Rebirth of the Western family<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIx8NdiTlrvK1y48qLZNdkrAry4Gwo5__jb75_TWVct60Z_3CViRqz9Wa99GFIAJpHKUrr18KkHFcvxKZCHTz9MGcqhGoFcLinTFJXriQxl2jzDsFJb_nRQgPCT-w_sUWqvbMkXg186PhhqxdsojdMEjLq05cljbXpi2q0_RZB_oPhLqrK2qwRWNH0tg/s5872/JEAN_LOUIS_TH%C3%89ODORE_G%C3%89RICAULT_-_La_Balsa_de_la_Medusa_(Museo_del_Louvre,_1818-19).jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4008" data-original-width="5872" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIx8NdiTlrvK1y48qLZNdkrAry4Gwo5__jb75_TWVct60Z_3CViRqz9Wa99GFIAJpHKUrr18KkHFcvxKZCHTz9MGcqhGoFcLinTFJXriQxl2jzDsFJb_nRQgPCT-w_sUWqvbMkXg186PhhqxdsojdMEjLq05cljbXpi2q0_RZB_oPhLqrK2qwRWNH0tg/s320/JEAN_LOUIS_TH%C3%89ODORE_G%C3%89RICAULT_-_La_Balsa_de_la_Medusa_(Museo_del_Louvre,_1818-19).jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p><b>Family destruction:</b></p><p>The family structures in poor countries is different to Western countries. In large part the family is more than just a social union in poor countries, it's also a defence to dangerous poverty. So the pressure to stay together in the family is strong, as people are co-dependant to meet their most basic needs for safety and nutrition, etc.</p><p>In one way, this can look good as families in poorer countries appear strong through unity. But are they really so strong, if the people are only together out of a deep fear for what could happen to them if they separated? You could argue maybe not.</p><p>In the wealthy West, we see families fragmenting and separating all over the place, with members often rarely visiting each other and sometimes never visiting at all. This can seem sad, yet we can ask ourselves...Are modern Western families only exposing a deeper truth was always really there? Would people in poorer countries like to separate from much of their family, if only they felt it was safe enough to do so? The answer, is quite possibly.</p><p>Being genetically related to someone is only an abstraction in terms of its social meaning. Of course, related-links are no guarantee that you'll like someone, though it's true of course that growing up with people, and spending a lot of time with them, makes family a context where social bonds can and will obviously occur.</p><p><b>Suppressing family rebirth:</b></p><p>Though no needs are more fundamental than food, safety and shelter, the social need is obviously still very strong. The West, though largely abandoning traditional family structures, still has a drive to form some kind of "tribe" and develop friends of the type that are close, and even closer than their related family...</p><p>I think these kinds of friendships require two things. First the person must be "your kind of guy", and second there must be a considerable amount of time to socialise on a one-to-one level, where two people can speak freely in a context of trust. In this manner, friends can often become more of a family member, in substance, than related family members. This process can (theoretically) lead to the development of new families, and families based on social needs over survival needs.</p><p><span style="color: #999999;">Note: The picture I'm drawing is different to what you could call a gang. In a gang people are "groupies". They join together out of a need to create some kind of symbolic family that they never had in childhood, which is a way of fighting a kind of private desperation. You will notice that the members in a gang always socialise in large groupings, not devolving into much private social intercourse. A gang is no kind of natural family or 'tribe' and the conformity pressures tend to be acute, which suppresses individualism and likewise authentic attachment. You have to be able to be yourself to connect genuinely with others.</span></p><p>In my view, new and social-need based families would develop in Western society if the circumstances permitted it. That is, if government got out of the way so public demand could have its way.</p><p>Modern family fragmentation is maintained though scholastic and work pressures, that seem to work to keep the development of new unions inhibited. It's hard to get to know people as a real friend in the Western world. Westerners have lots of 'mates' but few real friends. As a society, I think we pay dearly for this.</p><p><b>Allowing for family rebirth:</b></p><p>I think we could allow for the development of new families in the West by giving more opportunity for young people to socialise - properly. Schools could help with this if they gave teenagers more time to broadly socialise as they see fit, and without the schools prescribing their social opportunities by choosing their classes and classmates. 'Free schools' of this type have long existed and they've been successful for decades. It's proven to work.</p><p>Another thing we can do is allow for the development of private communities, where there's more opportunity for people to group amongst their kind of people. It's not snobbish to wish to isolate people who make new unions difficult. It's natural. We all need to keep away from people we don't want to know, at times. Social privacy is vital for the development of real friendships.</p><p>Another thing I recommend is for people to try and keep their workload down to 30 hours a week - obviously you need time. This is easy to achieve in our technologically advanced world, at least if governments would allow it to happen. But alas, governments like to keep people working as much as possible for two reasons: One, is their financial backers are totally dependant on it. Two, they need your taxes to pay-off voters with election bribes. So it's doable in theory, yet hard in practice.</p><p>Regardless, a family rebirth based on social truth over the abstraction of biology could be a wonderful thing. There's no comparison in fun within groups of people who really know and like each other, as compared to people who are only trying to like each other because they feel they need to, to stay together and survive.</p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-13214572842981392622023-04-06T16:24:00.025-07:002023-04-15T18:25:04.678-07:00Were our politicians primed? - for mass vaccination<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguZqggfU25cJFViO19MGjFpU_qNqLKl5quhh9UwXzuZYODBq0YckYEJLnmoD5f1QcHZOvskJKYE3uDi8FQHfJdormuiO8VM_X3NnLrg64LM_RdGaSZatB_LSYNEum9E0wcHB4F1sz-kBuBPReiPxPSqdg3NNVoAxpixqg3y9zs9NHvPuaP4pm5NT6WTQ/s709/priming.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgruRmr9KkjicqMEbJ5LxmK7hnRdi0cECV6gXOwnuIJeJ1VEFb-chZjjXIo08kzIg_ukwUOMmrWY0faTdLhkaOwgt9yKbqeZ_4tGVi39SMSW4-Gv4aubra4NgwFbChmkkK9EvjQZ6gzvnFSvx1RndIFa_oKNC7vx7q9R9ikgOrh4CiPoSf-KVJ677UFWA/s280/primed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="280" data-original-width="243" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgruRmr9KkjicqMEbJ5LxmK7hnRdi0cECV6gXOwnuIJeJ1VEFb-chZjjXIo08kzIg_ukwUOMmrWY0faTdLhkaOwgt9yKbqeZ_4tGVi39SMSW4-Gv4aubra4NgwFbChmkkK9EvjQZ6gzvnFSvx1RndIFa_oKNC7vx7q9R9ikgOrh4CiPoSf-KVJ677UFWA/s1600/primed.jpg" width="243" /></a></div><p>Let's start with the simple facts of the matter. The Pfizer vaccines were:</p><p>1. Hardly even short-term tested, let alone medium and long-term tested.</p><p>2. Radical in their function, creating unsettling questions on their potential longer-range health impact.</p><p>3. Given direct approval for public use due to Covid's emergency status, of which quickly proved to be a gross over-reaction (Covid was a non-pandemic by historic measure), resulting in basic checks on vaccine safety being erroneously removed.</p><p>4. Dishonestly promoted in a manner so to resist even rational vaccine hesitancy.</p><p>5. Mandated into the public. Thousands of New Zealanders received the vaccine, in spite of the fact that they never really wanted it, which is a serious human rights concern. </p><p>That's all we need to know, to know that something strange happened to our politicians. The unanimous support for the mandates from our representatives was irrational - yet it happened. </p><p>So how could this happen? I can only speculate and will.</p><p>My assumption is that our political parties were carefully primed from the very beginning. Authoritative voices would have had long conversations with our politicians before the vaccine show hit. The advisors would've said to them something akin to...</p><p><i><span style="color: #6aa84f;">"You know, we have some incredible technology coming down the pike, using what's called mRNA. This technology can allow us to develop a vaccine in record time - not years, but months. Many medical professionals, including some quacks and anti-vaxxers, will oppose this technology if we try to use it. They will oppose it primary because they don't understand it. </span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: #6aa84f;">This is what worries me. It's not that their concerns will be entirely without argument, as it's true enough that no medication is 100% safe, but if they're given a platform they will scare millions out of taking the new vaccine. The result would be Covid body-bags reaching the height of the beehive. </span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Interfering with free speech and moving in the direction of mandates is not something we are comfortable with, but this is a pandemic we're fighting so we need to ask if those body-bags are acceptable. I believe a war against vaccine hesitancy is a war for life."</span></i></p><p>Someone got into their heads. I think someone who talks like an impartial authority guided them over months, acting as a very believable "one source of truth".</p><p><span style="color: #999999;">Note, the observable propagandist will be propagandised themselves. It's hard to be believable if you don't believe what you're saying yourself. Nearly all of the Covid medical hierarchy would have been running on faith from above, just like our doctors were (er, that we were told to talk to...for "informed consent").</span></p><p>So that's my best bet. Our politicians were carefully primed by people who have themselves been carefully educated. The advisors had created parliamentary group-think on an impressive scale. Who else could have done it?</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrGtb8slqCngG7yxsMP1WzPKv5iU0_v0Fm1pCNVnXj5MsYe1ZhV8yvaN1QMLl8KbeylmJwZBZOVx5MAyH1j39UCjqBC6PfSkqYlMCgi541d0-tFV03dxM73Y1zkg_mDlF2ri5Etmnrpt3xBYkwmFuaZ66YQUF4AUo10mKCrcGZCcaLkgUHwKojQ-qKPw/s994/Seymour%20spelling%20it%20out.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="994" data-original-width="772" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrGtb8slqCngG7yxsMP1WzPKv5iU0_v0Fm1pCNVnXj5MsYe1ZhV8yvaN1QMLl8KbeylmJwZBZOVx5MAyH1j39UCjqBC6PfSkqYlMCgi541d0-tFV03dxM73Y1zkg_mDlF2ri5Etmnrpt3xBYkwmFuaZ66YQUF4AUo10mKCrcGZCcaLkgUHwKojQ-qKPw/s320/Seymour%20spelling%20it%20out.jpg" width="249" /></a></div><p>Ultimately, propaganda works by isolating alternative voices. Our politicians were taught to "know" that the critics were ignorants, even before they presented themselves. This is what priming does. It pre-conditions people's future responses. Our politicians laughed at the alternative voices even before they opened their mouths.</p><p><b>To conclude:</b></p><p>What was too obviously missing with the Covid show was authentic debate, otherwise holding the we-know-betters to account. If our politicians had made focused and sceptical investigations, the spell would've been broken. The mandates would then never have happened, or certainly not at the outrageous scale that we saw.</p><p>This is what makes the most obvious sense, to me. So, our political leaders, on a global scale, were played for fools by interests who have long learnt how to do it? I think so. Again, it's what makes sense to me. It's the only way this social and medical disaster could have happened.</p><p>And now the hole is dug. If the vaccines are proven to be more toxic than Covid itself (and it's looking that way) then our politicians and most of our medical establishment will be resistant to admitting it - or even knowing about it (people tend not to look for what they don't want to know). From here, they won't be second-guessing anything. The vaccines can then only be "all good".</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcK0gw1AfKDKq3WS5bQM9C7beegGMsD0qEnhPJO0ywRU8H0ZpxJ_SCzPEwLXc2-FCgV9HZfHSnL8piwlqVoNZPIT9owj7waUU_fvP1rk-z2cppeqRkAbRZt70gRnv5ZN31ziLxGOCIvI8WTOExO3matIVPCiGNfpeCB7xNBEF0D9A8v0fXdlAjJvQysA/s1484/C19_POLITICAL%20BIAS.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="988" data-original-width="1484" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcK0gw1AfKDKq3WS5bQM9C7beegGMsD0qEnhPJO0ywRU8H0ZpxJ_SCzPEwLXc2-FCgV9HZfHSnL8piwlqVoNZPIT9owj7waUU_fvP1rk-z2cppeqRkAbRZt70gRnv5ZN31ziLxGOCIvI8WTOExO3matIVPCiGNfpeCB7xNBEF0D9A8v0fXdlAjJvQysA/s320/C19_POLITICAL%20BIAS.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-71478605811292241032023-03-11T23:17:00.009-08:002023-03-12T14:10:58.429-07:00Can Online working create Paradise on Earth?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEB21-d4KqY369Asc1-rF3xKzVRUKDs6x-VkOp6u0rpzWLGy3ui9PB1R1ATctVhca-lvpILjofctkTUdXkiKRqo6cRDeXUge1xxVYDxHwkhiN6xIHKnIxyZft4ezr9GYhvrN5JdOYQtvHwlPDjUjcE1loe66h03UJt-lH6LDlG0PJgiAY_2DMow9yYNQ/s1286/Circuit%20of%20Growth.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1134" data-original-width="1286" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEB21-d4KqY369Asc1-rF3xKzVRUKDs6x-VkOp6u0rpzWLGy3ui9PB1R1ATctVhca-lvpILjofctkTUdXkiKRqo6cRDeXUge1xxVYDxHwkhiN6xIHKnIxyZft4ezr9GYhvrN5JdOYQtvHwlPDjUjcE1loe66h03UJt-lH6LDlG0PJgiAY_2DMow9yYNQ/s320/Circuit%20of%20Growth.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>New Zealand gives an interesting case in immigration. The country imports a large number of people from India and China, and those immigrants are almost invariably excellent people. Cultural differences between immigrants and NZ-borns are superficial, and immigrants from Asia are law-abiding and industrious. </p><p>New Zealand's Asians are gracious and unintimidating. To be simple, no one ever feels that the Asian guy could pull a knife on them. The complaints that people do have about Asian immigrants in New Zealand, tend to be more childish than substantial.</p><p>The reason for this is clear. New Zealand operates a strong filter. Asians don't come to New Zealand without a solid background check. Hence, New Zealand only sees the best of what Asia has to offer, and to its great benefit. There are immigrants who do come to New Zealand without the filter, due to some unusual immigration privileges, and contrasting this is where the country sees its biggest (real) social problems.</p><p>You can see the point. If a country or region wants to grow rapidly with people, and it's small, then it can operate a strong filter and cream the best of what the world has to offer. It can rapidly develop an unusually high concentration of intelligent and respectable people. </p><p>Of course, if you want to live in a place that feels good, then the people factor is overwhelming. No one's happy when they have to deal with gangsters and junkies, etc, begging in the street.</p><p>So this is the point. With the online world potentially supporting at least 50% of existing jobs, we have the practical foundation for mass-migration on a revolutionary scale. It's now a live-anywhere economy. So, I predict that we could see massive demographic shifts, in choice growth hotspots. To explain: </p><p>Small or highly independent districts, in nice locations with good weather, can choose to grow rapidly simply by importing young online workers with clean backgrounds. The more of those people you have - the more attractive your country becomes. </p><p>Not only would your location become richer with the higher concentration of industrious people, but the greater concentration of good people will make the country more attractive on social grounds alone... </p><p>This will drive snowball growth. The dependant and somewhat depressing parts of society will proportionally shrink, making the country ever more attractive. Ask, why should people tolerate massive social problems, and risk being voted into socialism (like Venezuela), when they can just walk away from those countries? </p><p>Conversely, bad countries will get worse, with the effect being a snowball to the bottom as they lose all their good people.</p><p>My prediction is that in time, soon enough, we will see the development of paradises on earth, or much closer to it. If you want to be part of these paradises, then I suggest taking care with your reputation. Don't do anything concerningly criminal or abusive - and keep the tattoos off your face, hands and neck. Otherwise the gatekeepers might not open the gate.</p><p>-Andrew Atkin</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WPQhZWcv5TY" width="320" youtube-src-id="WPQhZWcv5TY"></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-61312716911281962522023-02-18T01:19:00.002-08:002023-02-18T01:19:20.875-08:00The New Zealand Decentralisation Movement<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQnZ__qw_3yeocOtreC54h_dGyl01X6CrNXuFY9D7GH6XH9qDGAn7gD8IEOwb8O1VNOZfxygxeAlkTdwSwDrkqaapUMRJ0xHjcI56eEE8iA1udeSN3C-wVI8b1cy3hjZ2ZUkj0aXaH9TCfrlKasiUg3ND1W_V_m_rSfGDVFC0bFvga50N8-ao_n6BhMg/s544/Decentralisation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="272" data-original-width="544" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQnZ__qw_3yeocOtreC54h_dGyl01X6CrNXuFY9D7GH6XH9qDGAn7gD8IEOwb8O1VNOZfxygxeAlkTdwSwDrkqaapUMRJ0xHjcI56eEE8iA1udeSN3C-wVI8b1cy3hjZ2ZUkj0aXaH9TCfrlKasiUg3ND1W_V_m_rSfGDVFC0bFvga50N8-ao_n6BhMg/w400-h200/Decentralisation.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p>Maybe you think National can save the day, in 2023? Yet how can they? Labour will be back again after do-nothing-National gives us a couple of years to breathe.</p><p>Same people. Same games. Same objectives. Same motivations. Same media. Same special interests. Nothing real changes and we know what our government can do.</p><p>We came close to outright forced vaccinations in New Zealand - with no conversation on human rights. The anti-mandate protesters tried to force that issue open, yet the only answer replied was riot police.</p><p>We need to break the back of government as we know it - before it breaks ours. It has gone much too rogue and it's getting late.</p><p>The only robust solution to the dangers of serious government overreach is extreme political decentralisation. Only decentralisation can sustainably resist corruption.</p><p><b>We need a political system similar to what we see in Switzerland.</b></p><p>Switzerland is amongst the most socially stable and prosperous countries in the world. Yet their central government is virtually irrelevant compared to ours. The body of nearly all their politics is local.</p><p>A decentralisation movement needs to push for local autonomy, with strict protections against government overreach. We need a real constitution that protects us. New Zealand's current constitution is not even legally binding. It is a joke.</p><p>We should also push for the freedom for people to develop autonomous new-build villages, and townships, that can be as independent from government as a cruise ship is today. Like in your home, this means nearly no external bureaucracy, regulation or tax. Can you imagine the efficiency?</p><p>Understand that totalitarianism is associated with the centralisation of power - freedom with the opposite.</p><p>The longer we procrastinate, the more centralised we will become, so the harder it will be to reclaim our freedom. Look at China today. We don't ever want to go there, yet we will with the next apparent crisis (i.e excuse).</p><p>This is a real political war now - and we need to fight it.</p><p>-Andrew Atkin</p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-22896229576887832942023-01-07T01:46:00.032-08:002023-03-07T17:56:12.979-08:00Why Klaus Schwab should focus on the Octopus - not Humans<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPU7sZJisPXRlx9cBgmhstx_3bXPfxXXx91FABVEPJntyuvIW6X3s0ppgc2rQGnDMFYAtYaFTVUTlsIF8_WYiQFfY_-ePnNj0TFuQvNdQoTc816lk-J4EFzurlZFbBEHPFvMPBTLfLa2OoXcyV7ofivgdoKVsu0QUexWr4F15JQG0EHPLVgn6cMVy3Yg/s769/octopus.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="419" data-original-width="769" height="174" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPU7sZJisPXRlx9cBgmhstx_3bXPfxXXx91FABVEPJntyuvIW6X3s0ppgc2rQGnDMFYAtYaFTVUTlsIF8_WYiQFfY_-ePnNj0TFuQvNdQoTc816lk-J4EFzurlZFbBEHPFvMPBTLfLa2OoXcyV7ofivgdoKVsu0QUexWr4F15JQG0EHPLVgn6cMVy3Yg/s320/octopus.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p><b>Transhumanism:</b></p><p>Well, the king of Internationalist agendas, Klaus Schwab, wants to take us to the amazing new world of Transhumanism. Crudely, this means augmenting the human brain directly to the internet. </p><p>Kind of like...<i>"Just close your eyes and you will have a cellphone appear in front of you. You can press the icons via your will alone"</i>.</p><p>The theory's not unsound. It is in fact partly demonstrated. There have been successful experiments where monkeys have learnt to manipulate images on a screen, quite accurately, with their thoughts alone. How it works: The computer reads the monkeys brainwaves, which then achieves the actuation. The monkey learns to control its brainwaves (though unconsciously, of course) and therefore develops an interactive 'language' with the computer.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2rXrGH52aoM" width="320" youtube-src-id="2rXrGH52aoM"></iframe></div><p>Ok. The problem with brain-to-machine interfaces that use only brainwaves, is they're extremely low-fidelity - they have a huge noise-to-signal ratio. So, there's no promise for making brainwave-based interfaces more efficient than communicating traditionally, via your fingers or tongue. But that can change. If we install a biologically-friendly electrode into your brain, loaded with hundreds of hairy nanowires, then the signal-to-noise ratio can increase incomparably. And indeed, you should expect the brain to rapidly learn to communicate via the electrode interface, especially if the brain is young. In a highly plastic (baby) brain, neural clusters should quickly grow around the electrode, making the link intensely automatic.</p><p>The result? Let's put it this way. If you wanted a McDonalds coffee sent to you via a driverless micro-car, then you wouldn't need to talk with imagined words as commands (Note, words are not thoughts, they're only expressions of thought). The electrode can read your thoughts <i>directly</i>. Hence, you can just <i>will</i> a McCoffee be posted to your door, and it's done. Slobtopia? Yes.</p><p><span style="color: #999999;">To clarify: This is the same kind of communication people report on, who go through a near death experience (NDE). Like in an NDE, we can just communicate by thought alone. Using</span><span style="color: #999999;"> electrodes and an internet, there's no reason why the human brain can't learn to do this and bypass a spoken language. Our brains, if implanted from birth, would learn an automatic code via associative learning that can do away with the need for a conscious language. Our brains could also learn to manipulate robotic machinery as effortlessly as we manipulate our legs and arms. Indeed, in this model the internet</span><span style="color: #999999;"> becomes a direct extension of our nervous systems.</span></p><p>Is there a catch? Yep. A hole in your head, and almost certainly unintended consequences from so diabolically contradicting natures way. It might just make us all mad, especially if big brother overrides the off-switch. Exotic experiments like this can be a great idea for quadriplegics and the like, but I think the rest of us should be asking that they "keep it in the lab". It's not like we really need this technology just now. We're already a little too sedentary, don't you think?</p><p><b>Biological replacements:</b></p><p>Nature throws away anything she doesn't need. Every organism is stripped back to only what is needed for its optimal survival. In humans, we can see the progression clearly with a simple example. When humans mastered the ability to make clothing we lost our fur, and this provided some substancial advantages. It meant less lice, disease, and most valuable of all it gave us efficient temperature control.</p><p>Ok. Now look at modern technology and where it's taken us. Already we can see that we no longer need a mouth as we know it. Like a baby, we can survive by sucking on smoothies alone. So, in principle we should throw away our toothy mouths, and enjoy the reduced infection risk and absence of tooth decay. Our mouths should become a mere nostril for a straw, with no jaw, and we can chirp like a bird to communicate.</p><p>But that's just the beginning. Obviously we don't need legs anymore, so we should be rid of those silly things too. In fact, we don't even need our arms in the age of mobile robotics.</p><p>So how far can we actually go, given our technological status? Well, we could almost go to the level of a floating brain. And that's just it. The creature that's closest to that 'ideal' is not a human, but an octopus. The octopus has a huge brain in proportion to its size, with masses of neurons that run down its tentacles, and it is in fact an amazingly <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFP_AjJeP-M" target="_blank">clever animal.</a></p><p>The octopus is a perfect candidate to evolve (with our help) to become a co-dominant species of this earth. It also has the perfect physical structure for space travel, which is its greatest value. Its biological needs are very humble and it can float in a perfectly protective liquid, supported from virtually anywhere. Its ultra-dextrous tentacles can seamlessly integrate with an army of mechatronic controllers, to manipulate the outer world/s with ease. Humans, by comparison, are a ridiculous and expensive mess to support and maintain.</p><p>So hear me, Klaus. With a touch of genetic engineering so to mix some human genes into the octopus, you would be better off leaving us humans alone and instead focusing on building Superpus: An octopus with human-like mechanical intelligence, that can then help manage and develop our planet and beyond. You'll get better results. Shrinking humans to their brain would take too long and the politics is awkward.</p><p>Humans can still be the gods of superpus. Superpus would be no threat. We can install a kill-switch into the superpusies brains to be sure they forever remain our anxious slaves. And then from there, life on earth can expand to the heavens via a millions-strong army of superpus-managed robots, that can terraform inter-planetary geologies and engineer new life to meet the demands of vastly different environments. And us traditional humans can go back to dreaming without the cellphones stuck in our heads.</p><p>-Andrew Atkin</p>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-72344724381275031442022-12-18T22:23:00.039-08:002024-02-05T16:50:09.468-08:00 Andrew Atkin's message to Muslim's<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9da-aKaR1sK9whBE790ya-BdgXEacGLE9BDqN9Ow4gOPNGYgi67J27gLKa_9YX2tL46YMZuZQygdvsjAess_fndHTTbTVSuXGtIkYPb1CQAjzZoN8Gmp4Cavu788pXWxk3Ep6VNbV0WSFPmOzYj3amCWORqjHLuDl8enMdFppZbrJPydfb307PCen8g/s1500/plant.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1000" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9da-aKaR1sK9whBE790ya-BdgXEacGLE9BDqN9Ow4gOPNGYgi67J27gLKa_9YX2tL46YMZuZQygdvsjAess_fndHTTbTVSuXGtIkYPb1CQAjzZoN8Gmp4Cavu788pXWxk3Ep6VNbV0WSFPmOzYj3amCWORqjHLuDl8enMdFppZbrJPydfb307PCen8g/s320/plant.jpg" width="213" /></a></div><p>All religions have been written by man. They've been either imagined by man, partly or wholly, or divinely inspired.</p><p>I can respect the possibility of divine inspiration because we see this process in action today, with literally millions of people who've gone through a near death experience (NDE). Their messages on retuning from what seems to be a spiritual realm, have been curiously consistent - and positive and simple.</p><p>NDE's have been known to occur for thousands of years, and they've been documented. However, today they're particularly common because medical technology has brought so many back from clinical death (learn <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+gober+bruce+greyson&rlz=1C1CHBF_enNZ852NZ852&hl=en&sxsrf=ALiCzsY7s8YMBqsjb8U4maI4_kXo4FyhXQ:1671431728338&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB87uziIX8AhVnsVYBHbOfAgwQ_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1097&bih=503&dpr=1.75#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:eaed0eb7,vid:-QYBhzi67NY" target="_blank">here</a>).</p><p><b>So what is my assertion?</b></p><p>I believe the most reasonable assumption we can make is that all religions, though very possibly divinely inspired at first, have been corrupted to a given degree. As long as men in power have been able to stand between messengers and texts, it would be naïve to think that the texts would not have been manipulated.</p><p>In turn, I believe that the right thing to do with <i>any</i> religion is to hold it at arms length. Let it inspire you where it might, but don't let it be your dictator. If you find something in the teachings that doesn't agree with you, then you should not be afraid to reject it.</p><p>If we don't operate like this, and instead accept scripture as absolute, then this can make us dangerous. Blind obedience to any apparent authority can of course be dangerous.</p><p>However, if you are deeply religious then I can appreciate you might ask yourself: If my religion has been corrupted, why then would my God allow such a thing to happen?</p><p>I can only speculate, but I have a suggestion. I suggest that corruptions are clues. It can be healthy to see authority fail, because it reminds us to think for ourselves. Corruptions can remind us to not believe in something just because it's written down and endorsed by the powerful. Corruptions tell us we should first follow ourselves - authoritative scripture, second.</p><p>So, we shouldn't be afraid to disagree when we disagree. There's no evil in that. There's no evil in believing what may not ultimately be right, if our intentions are clean and so our mistakes are honest. Just do your best. <i>What more can be asked?</i></p><p><b>The most profound corruption?</b></p><p>This can only be my opinion, but I personally believe that the greatest corruption in our main religions is the idea of eternal damnation. Yet, the corruption is understandable...</p><p>The idea of hell was created in a time when our societies were typically savage. Strong deterrence was vital to hold things together. Hell was surely a scare tactic for social control - written by man, for man, and as I believe by no God. It was and is social engineering, not inspiration. </p><p>A process of rehabilitation (karma?) would make more sense over unimaginable and eternal vengeance, don't you think?</p><p><i>Note: I wanted to bring attention to the idea of damnation, because I don't believe that people can think straight on their faith with the threat of hell in their minds. The time for that ancient idea is over, I believe. We don't need it and it's shutting down thought. </i><i>And further, look at the insensibility of it: If you believe what you believe yet only because you're afraid not to believe it, then can you honestly say you believe it at all?</i></p>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-44543569679591138762022-10-03T00:11:00.009-07:002022-10-03T00:40:04.730-07:00The 3 Headed Monster: Breaking the Leftist Agenda<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid1WldCWxCPokUh-cwFko3KXZWGxFOORjrxHaHeOXxoGcXSMVA6l_awEklqrrTyjbZWT3992s53wik_VDka2RSvsZ_huwR40jk0ViTVYrRaGQz5dqDzHEbIYIfE13yypkK6TrfC4_r7Iy74sGQcMCpGAqQiTs_Ofxm6hUgfkKBwD30UHBdkoNCCDBXYw/s3000/3%20headed%20monster%202.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2283" data-original-width="3000" height="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid1WldCWxCPokUh-cwFko3KXZWGxFOORjrxHaHeOXxoGcXSMVA6l_awEklqrrTyjbZWT3992s53wik_VDka2RSvsZ_huwR40jk0ViTVYrRaGQz5dqDzHEbIYIfE13yypkK6TrfC4_r7Iy74sGQcMCpGAqQiTs_Ofxm6hUgfkKBwD30UHBdkoNCCDBXYw/s320/3%20headed%20monster%202.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p>The Leftist machine has three heads - The leftist political parties, the media, and the public service. Included in the public service is academia and now schools.</p><p>The monster is powerful because it needs to be. It drives for policy positions that, usually, could not survive honest debate. Leftist objectives are typically unpopular, and will continue to be unpopular until the schools get into the kids heads (it's a long-range game).</p><p>The more conservative, right-leaning political parties have been castrated. The best they can do today, is buy people a little breathing space. They can slow the monster down but they can't stop it. They can only superficially <i>and temporarily</i> reverse it. </p><p>A conservative government will be misled and even stonewalled by its public service. As well, the media will show no mercy should a conservative organisation prove to be a threat.</p><p>The monster is international at its base. We can see this by the alarming synchronicity in contentious political movements between western nations. We see the same agendas everywhere, driven by the same manipulations. </p><p>Our real heads of state are more like the World Economic Forum and other internationalist organisations, that clearly work together. This is not a conspiracy pondering. The coordination is beyond coincidence.</p><p><b>So where is the hope in the hopelessness?</b></p><p>The cancer is now so prolific and broad, that I believe we need to use the biggest guns. Secession movements. I say give up on trying to reform the irreformable, and instead break New Zealand up into its 16 independent regions. This is the same as sacking central government, outright.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgULp4wequwk2_Pb8x0ivwDrR1phgbc9YSNPx8gO-sxEEuVxS8EWntFPNFwKBQT3UT7i0yE5U28bE9oJQ01pkQhR-zCZNt3nkBsTYqTh_NHD98-mhA1ZA_OqZrFim2s6s0LIkrIqyYn6Q7k2_suMVNDNajXA55hVweJRQwujK32qH020_UEaYtfICD3UQ/s1069/3%20headed%20monster%201.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="568" data-original-width="1069" height="340" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgULp4wequwk2_Pb8x0ivwDrR1phgbc9YSNPx8gO-sxEEuVxS8EWntFPNFwKBQT3UT7i0yE5U28bE9oJQ01pkQhR-zCZNt3nkBsTYqTh_NHD98-mhA1ZA_OqZrFim2s6s0LIkrIqyYn6Q7k2_suMVNDNajXA55hVweJRQwujK32qH020_UEaYtfICD3UQ/w640-h340/3%20headed%20monster%201.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><br /><p><br /></p><p>A serious political movement today, needs to shift its focus away from central government and instead to the regions. Open the discussion for regions on why they should consider seceding. It's marketable. The advantages are vast and interesting, and can be easily communicated.</p><p>Succession has never been easier, in practical terms. </p><p>Most of the modern public service does as much harm as good, and is inefficient and unnecessary. For where it is desirable, any given system can be quickly imported and duplicated. You hardly even need office buildings anymore. Your modern public service can be based in cyberspace, though the practicals are a conversation for another day. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfsUDdivC-OL4T40sUsTa2-LpeCpP5d5Cb5lGTRBjZtKyC8rB6ER4-5atsZWPPaw7e182nMynoI7cm7XBhD2EDPC0AQSB6blbHPwBwpb-qm5-K73uZUuqsWZ9lKBbo118lp5kPZ3beeJS-2LHMXDGI03MYhu66-BH-u0by_D8U558eGgGdqLZHf0w9Cg/s1280/3%20headed%20monster%204.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="854" data-original-width="1280" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfsUDdivC-OL4T40sUsTa2-LpeCpP5d5Cb5lGTRBjZtKyC8rB6ER4-5atsZWPPaw7e182nMynoI7cm7XBhD2EDPC0AQSB6blbHPwBwpb-qm5-K73uZUuqsWZ9lKBbo118lp5kPZ3beeJS-2LHMXDGI03MYhu66-BH-u0by_D8U558eGgGdqLZHf0w9Cg/s320/3%20headed%20monster%204.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><b>The opposition:</b><p></p><p>The greatest threat to the leftist agenda is secession movements that prove highly successful. It only takes one good example to get the entire county--if not world--thinking about where central governments should begin and end. Naturally, the monster will oppose it with everything it's got. And it will play dirty to that end if we let it.</p><p>A good example is Catalonia, Spain. Catalonia tried to hold a popular referendum to secede. That was all it took for greater Spain to bring in riot police to beat people up for trying to vote. A modern secession movement will need precautionary defences. The left can be dark.</p><p><b>The monsters purpose:</b><br /><br />The purpose is to create an all-powerful world government: A government so powerful it can enforce vast one-child policies and the like, when and as it sees fit. </p><p>There are serious global concerns requiring strong management, but an unaccountable political monopoly is not the way to go. It's insanely dangerous for so many reasons, not least of which because the highest of places so often attract the lowest of people. </p><p>We need an accountable people's new world order. Not a globalists new world order. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><p><br /></p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-55851068563686657722022-05-21T00:34:00.034-07:002023-06-17T22:07:46.999-07:00The Spiritual Revolution We Need<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjylyDIs29_kZpMVUWctb1dMcb8j_o5PAPx2dAiDmQa9M6nssdRFHiG_-r6XoMDkQO_leJx2SkOk_uJ0AK76rnrZJqJGnhlkY_YbQ-T0Q9knp0-mPnhSssP4ox598-msu7SZQEEPUJXrmIEwGlBx8WZ0W-ctWo6br8C8VE6Jz-MSxm_rn58SLJgM8pwVQ/s468/The%20Spiritual%20Revolution%20We%20Need.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="283" data-original-width="468" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjylyDIs29_kZpMVUWctb1dMcb8j_o5PAPx2dAiDmQa9M6nssdRFHiG_-r6XoMDkQO_leJx2SkOk_uJ0AK76rnrZJqJGnhlkY_YbQ-T0Q9knp0-mPnhSssP4ox598-msu7SZQEEPUJXrmIEwGlBx8WZ0W-ctWo6br8C8VE6Jz-MSxm_rn58SLJgM8pwVQ/s320/The%20Spiritual%20Revolution%20We%20Need.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>Andrew Atkin - May, 2022</p><p>Why is it that I can be so comfortably objective about the need for fertility management, to the end of stopping the devastating cycle of mass child abuse, to the end of fighting dysgenic decay, and to the end of achieving long-range population stability?</p><p>The central reason is because I don't care - as such. If it's so that my genes are too rubbish to be rightly selected for breeding, and if it's so that I'm too psychologically damaged from child abuse to be a good parent myself, then all I will say to that is "so be it".</p><p>I have no ultimate ego in my physical and mental status. This is because of what you could call my spiritual position, which is that my body is not the ultimate 'me'. My body is simply the horse that I ride for this singular lifetime, which I believe (and for many <a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-mechanical-argument-for-life-after.html" target="_blank">reasons</a>) is only one ride, one horse, out of many more to come and maybe countless that have already been.</p><p>Ok. I will turn the page to create a clear and simple picture: </p><p>Take a look at that tragic beggar on the street. Poor health, low intelligence, and infested with psychological pain from chronic early abuse. Are you better than him? Well your body probably is, but look directly at the<i> substantial</i> difference.... I will further create the foundation picture: <br /><br />When you sleep and dream, your mind goes incredibly dumb because it gates conscious access to your neocortex, which is mostly inactive during sleep. Also, you're insane when you dream. You see things that aren't actually there, and believe in the moment of the dream that it's all real. But, when you dream you are still you - the exact same conscious entity. </p><p>You can see my point? Fundamentally, you're no different to that beggar on the street who rides a difficult and constricted horse. You're just riding an easier horse - for now. Indeed, if you reach a ripe old age your horse (meaning, your body) might well become more pitiful than that beggars. Alzheimer's and a wheelchair is a waiting potential for us all. </p><p>So why the vanity? Why care so much for the glory of your beautiful body, elite status, and high intelligence? Again - it really is just the horse you ride, for now. Ultimately your biological inheritance is worth nothing as such, other than the wellbeing it might provide for a few decades, and hopefully a positive legacy. And that horse you ride, though of course important in itself, is worth nothing compared to the consciousness (spirit) that rides it.</p><p>The picture I've created, I believe, is exactly how most people do <i>not</i> see themselves. They value their biological virtues deeply because it helps them to feel they're worthwhile, by feeling like they measure up.</p><p>Likewise, it's difficult for people to let their identifications go, for even when they're irrational, and especially when the emotional-driver behind their identity is rooted in repressed pain from childhood; that is, the pain from a childhood with parents who made them feel worthless, through neglect and heartless denigrations (this is so common it's a norm).</p><p>The result of our identities, I believe, is that we become afraid of considering fertility management, because we're loath to be told that we might be part of the [let's say?] 20% who are not 'good enough' to breed. That's the last thing our egos want to hear. And so, our spiritual position shuts down the conversations we need to have. And at worst, it opens the path to opaque government forces that may well make our fertility decisions for us (eg, China).</p><p>Hence, we need a spiritual revolution. I will say it crude but clear: <i>We can think like horse breeders only when we're not so identified with our horses.</i> A spiritual revolution could help get us there. It could one day make fertility management a comfortable topic - and it needs to be, one day at least. <br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z6j-RP2fb-0" width="320" youtube-src-id="Z6j-RP2fb-0"></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-53852566410027500112022-05-04T19:37:00.029-07:002023-01-23T01:12:58.727-08:00Where are we Going?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglErM5P-wK41Vjq5X1WqY7AX5i1RXdDTmAQxryz76HOAHTzTthzae5KsamB0ShpgXnmw_iy34o2s46woZrs6ueFXXXIZ5gnXWt7ubZG4k0BFggW5tEw7xhJTKjYV-1jgKDdGdO9nMcnqZbK_QZerBVz6W9D-2-Nq8yb-YkTbSEiKFUBfQr4OvFfZ-J8g/s908/where%20are%20we%20going.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="751" data-original-width="908" height="331" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglErM5P-wK41Vjq5X1WqY7AX5i1RXdDTmAQxryz76HOAHTzTthzae5KsamB0ShpgXnmw_iy34o2s46woZrs6ueFXXXIZ5gnXWt7ubZG4k0BFggW5tEw7xhJTKjYV-1jgKDdGdO9nMcnqZbK_QZerBVz6W9D-2-Nq8yb-YkTbSEiKFUBfQr4OvFfZ-J8g/w400-h331/where%20are%20we%20going.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p></p><p><b>The technological tidalwave:</b></p><p>Let me give a simple picture. When you pick up a cup of coffee on your desk, you likely do it automatically. But when the cup is structurally weird and placed in an off location, the feeling then tells your brain to focus on the cup and perform conscious override to pick it up, so picking up the coffee becomes less automatic as you then consciously do it.</p><p>This is exactly how mobile robotics will work. The robot will perform a function automatically until something out of uniform order comes up. The robot then immediately presents a visual feed of the task to a human online, and the human then actively controls the robot through the irregularity.</p><p>The human does this efficiently, because 5G internet reduces the digital latency between human-command and robot-reaction to about a hundredth of a second. As well, mobile robots use boundary-detection which makes it essentially impossible for human override to be clumsy and damage a boundary. The robot will only interface with its environment to perform an action, when the online controller gives the executive command for it to do so.</p><p>With this kind of operation, we will see that modern robots can do almost any job a human can do. </p><p>Robots will become ever more efficient, because once an action is performed it is then recorded. Files are uploaded online, with GPS-tags for easy searching. The human controller will, over time, only have to press the 'repeat' icon on his screen in many cases. Hence, the online controllers create cloud-based operational maps for the robots.</p><p>Another vital supporting technology is driverless cars, providing driverless platforms for mobile robots to reach their work points over significant distances. This technology is essentially here, today.</p><p><b>The economics:</b></p><p>It's not about the technology anymore, which is present and demonstrated. It's about deployment. Robots will not be deployed until they make economic sense. What we're waiting for is ubiquitous 5G and driverless platforms, because this is what we need for the economics to become clear.</p><p>Even if a standard, multi-purpose robot costs $1m (it won't), if it then replaces one human contractor and works 24/7, it will be employed. Competitive forces will dictate it because it's the most economical option.</p><p>There's no real risk in the investment, because usually the robots will be hired by any given company, not bought. This ensures they are utilised constantly, which is key to ensuring uptake.</p><p><b>So what does this mean?</b></p><p>It means you've created a world where there's no need for anyone to leave their home, except for recreation. Nearly all practical operations can be online-based.</p><p>Once everything is online, future movements in automation will only require a software upgrade (as such), so progressive automation will happen quickly. Of course, automation moves slowly when you have to develop hardware along with the software.</p><p>Also respect that human resource giants, such as India and China, are pushing out masses of computer programmers who will leave us with a programming army, that will make sophisticated software upgrades move forward rapidly.</p><p>Add to this machine learning, where we run simulations for robots to find the best way to action given movements, in any given context. Like animals, robots will experimentally simulate actions before they perform them, to maximise speed and efficiency. These simulations can be run online.</p><p>Software upgrades, driving rapid automation, applies to administrative automation as well. Again, it's about doing everything online. We will see the development of platforms that remove the need for today's relentless information-duplication, which will likewise drive ever more automation. Once we're all working from standardised apps, operational streamlining can become almost total.</p><p><i>For example:</i> Before you go the café to get your coffee, you can make a purchase from your phone app. Once you hit 'enter' the coffee machine in the café is then immediately programmed to make your custom coffee, with complete automation. That's ultimate streamlining. You can't get more efficient than that until you hook up your brain to a machine-to-brain interface, allowing you to order your coffee via a 'will' impulse alone (one of Klaus Schwab's geek fantasies...but we won't <a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2023/01/why-klaus-schwab-should-focus-on.html" target="_blank">go there</a>).</p><p><b>The social impact:</b></p><p>With this level of automation, you increase productive efficiency to such a degree that you can soon take a wage of, say, $50,000 per-year today, and presume it will be more like $500,000 per-year in one or two decades - that is, relating to real purchasing power. We will be very rich as a society via our bounty of robot 'slaves' and extreme streamlining efficiencies.</p><p>Unemployment will be an issue for those who are not creative and exploratory, but ultimately I think this will prove to be a trivial concern. Recreational clubs of all different kinds will develop to help people pass their time. For most people, being isolated from work stress, and work boredom, will prove to be a welcome relief. Mobile robots means the removal of robotic jobs.</p><p>My presumption is we will need to develop some kind of universal basic income. In New Zealand, and many industrialised countries, we already have this in effect with a welfare system that is comprehensive and vast.</p><p><b>The politics:</b></p><p>There's going to be a 'great reset' no matter what. When half the planet's a millionaire and can work online, from anywhere in the world, then that can only be completely disruptive to traditional systems. </p><p>The things that allow us to make reasonable predictions, that otherwise keeps politics boring, will be turned on their heads. Everything will change. Does the World Economic Forum understand this? Of course, but I will speak out this later.</p><p>There are so many 'ups' to this evolution, but there are some serious downs as well.</p><p>The central problem of a super rich society, is that you can induce gross over-consumption. Especially if people have nothing better to do than 'consume'. Can we tolerate every man buying a mansion and at possibly great environmental impact? </p><p>The other problem with super-prosperity is you may induce a massive fertility spike, as the financial and practical barriers to having as many as 10 children per-woman will be removed. Will we be throwing giant sacks of rice at a rat plague? (so to speak!).</p><p>I doubt the middle and upper-working classes will choose to have big families in response to great prosperity, because for the most part they're already prosperous and tend not to go beyond the third child, by choice. However, the lower classes are much more prone to breeding heavily when they can. This is not necessarily for the best, because lower classes in the industrialised world are (sadly) associated with more severe child abuse and child neglect. Child abuse is the central driver behind virtually all transparent social problems that we understand today.</p><p>So this opens another question: Do we want to breed the underclass? Should great prosperity allow for the expansion of reckless fertility, even more than it has today? What will the far-reaching impact of this kind of social policy be on our evolving world? Do we need to think about direct fertility management and consumption controls?</p><p><b>Who runs the show?</b></p><p>I make an outsider of myself by talking about fertility management. The conversation is culturally taboo. But making fertility management taboo, as a topic, is ridiculous in principle. It's inescapable that the concerns I speak about must be dealt with. And because of this, those who do long-range planning will of course be looking at fertility. You can't pretend an issue is not an issue, when it is. Accurate long-range modelling dictates this.</p><p>Ok, so why haven't leading international organisation, such as the World Economic Forum, been talking about fertility and how it relates to that technological tidalwave on our doorstep? Obviously because they can't. We, the people, will call them Nazi's if they dared speak like I have, and that would in turn be the end of any political movement that associates with them. Political suicide.</p><p>This could explain why international politics, and international organisations, have been periodically manipulative. If the public won't accept certain truths that must nonetheless be confronted, then the public must be manipulated. Simply, internationalists will work around us - not with us. That means manipulation. Conspiracy, if you like.</p><p>That's all very well, but who then would be at the top of the power hierarchy, driving forward global management? I can only speculate, but the zenith of power is not so much facilitated by wealth, I believe, but ruthlessness. It doesn't matter how much money you have, you're still made of flesh. You will still be subservient to an organisation that can and will ultimately kill you, if you don't play ball. And when you're dealing with serious global problems, lethal force can be easily rationalised...</p><p>So what's my best guess? I speculate that global management may well have evolved from military super powers, in response to their extensive modelling relating to long-range global threats, including over-population threats. I would suggest the group that really runs this world is more likely to be found in the Pentagon than the Gates foundation. </p><p><b>So where are we going?</b></p><p>Again I can only guess, but I would bet we're going to a technologically advanced society with enough authoritarian-override to directly control fertility, block over-consumption, and manage the ever-growing threat of high-tech terrorism (meaning, a surveillance society). I guess this, because that is what the models will be telling us we need. It's logical, and many open signs are already pointing in this direction. </p><p>-------------------------------------------------</p><p><b><span style="color: #666666;">Extra note:</span></b></p><p><span style="color: #666666;">I've always been able to empathise with the need for global management, to meet certain ends that must be met. But what worries me, is the fact that the game is dominated by an intellectually isolated group or groups. Outsiders don't get to look at the models and criticise them. What the man on the street has to say is irrelevant. The peons are to be studied - not listened to.</span></p><p><span style="color: #666666;">Yet, elites are not elites because they are superior. They win their positions through a basic level of ability, of course, but also because of contacts, hyper-ambition, luck, and too often the ability to play dirty (ruthlessness) to get to the top...</span></p><p><span style="color: #666666;">None of those traits, other than basic intellectual competence, have anything to do with the kind of attributes </span><span style="color: #666666;">we should want to see in executive leadership. Indeed, the very best potential leaders will almost certainly be people you would have never heard of, nor ever will.</span></p><p><span style="color: #666666;">What's more, when an establishment becomes rotten it will filter for its own kind. For example, you can ask why hasn't the CCP internally reformed? The answer, is because it filters in the kind of people that will protect the status quo, and filters out those who could provoke an internal reform. This I believe is how corrupt organisations get steadily worse. The good guys leave in disgust - the bad guys stay and have a party.</span></p><p><span style="color: #666666;">Hence, this is why public scrutiny is so important for <u>any</u> public organisation. The latency towards serious corruption is forever prevalent and forever dangerous. This is what people need to wake up to, so we can develop a 'new world order' the way it should be developed. Political apathy, or childish political tribalism, might well one day ruin us.</span></p><p>My model <a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2019/12/beyond-2020working-towards-new-world.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-60810161795056205712022-02-26T17:01:00.042-08:002022-03-30T23:18:02.867-07:00Ultimate Political Synthesis<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhZFimJkgpiGtJ3C71tMXHocy9PMwlGvPKy4ReTWAh6tlwohJN9iknkx6huZmkEPdBVrcaeWavdtf7PY0yyGnf_FOPiIfvpkYiCfTfB70RNfycJ5mpozthR4nJNXTvI_Tfru2ym83Jmt7jsEMesoIoTFEPV3o9QOe5OhULrbP2o2BUFnS1BJ4F4U7kbBg=s610" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="553" data-original-width="610" height="290" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhZFimJkgpiGtJ3C71tMXHocy9PMwlGvPKy4ReTWAh6tlwohJN9iknkx6huZmkEPdBVrcaeWavdtf7PY0yyGnf_FOPiIfvpkYiCfTfB70RNfycJ5mpozthR4nJNXTvI_Tfru2ym83Jmt7jsEMesoIoTFEPV3o9QOe5OhULrbP2o2BUFnS1BJ4F4U7kbBg=s320" width="320" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p><b><i>Everyone's talking about global elites wanting more control, which is valid enough. Yet no one's talking about <u>why</u> they want more control.</i></b></p><p>Okay, so here are the four biggest social (political) global problems from a long-term focus today:</p><p>1. Lack of control for efficient (humane) population stability.</p><p>2. Lack of control for eugenics to fight dysgenic decay. [see <a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-eugenics-question.html" target="_blank">here</a>]</p><p>3. Lack of control to resist serious, technologically-driven terrorism.</p><p>4. Lack of control to securely resist steady environmental decay, especially from gross over-consumption.</p><p>I can talk about these issues in detail, and I have done so, but the point is we need to look at these concerns and deal with them. Yet we don't. We, the people, push them aside with sweeping rationalisations because we are uncomfortable with the topics. All we typically care about is the short term, believing that the long term will take care of itself or is somebody else's problem.</p><p><i>We also have the relentless preaching of "My freedoms, My rights!" which I empathise with. But guess what; survival trumps even libertarian ideals. Libertarianism must still exist within the boundaries of responsible global management. It's not as simple as letting the free market rip and giving people everything they want, though I wish it was.</i></p><p>The result, is that we have the World Economic Forum and other internationalist organisations doing our job for us, and [maybe rightly] ignoring the democratic process because we, the people, will not do our job.</p><p>So there's a split. We have an elite that takes care of long-term thinking, with the power of virtually limitless monies and considerable institutional control, treating us like sheep that won't look ahead because that, alas, is exactly how we act.</p><p>The ideal political syntheses is what will happen when the gap between elite thinking and public thinking is closed, so that both parties are rationally accountable to each other. Surely that's more healthy? At the least, it can give us more comfortable agreements - so more comfortable outcomes. </p><p><i>For example, forced urban intensification, which deliberately makes housing unaffordable and probably to the end of suppressing fertility, is a painful way of doing population stability. If we could accept direct caps on fertility (that are reasonable) then we could have our houses back, thanks.</i></p><p><b>How do we achieve this?</b></p><p>Jacinda Ardern, Justin Trudeau, Bill Gates, Vladimir Putin and others have attended the WEF young world leaders group. No doubt, in their political family they were taught to think about global problems like what I highlighted at the beginning of this article. So, these issues have almost certainly become a major part of their cognitive reality. Great. So why not present these 'grand problems' to youth in highschools, as well? Why not make these problems part of the publics reality, as well? Do we really want fallible people like Ardern having an in-house monopoly on the most important conversations of our time?</p><p>Extended article <a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2019/12/beyond-2020working-towards-new-world.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p>My related video [10 minutes]</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hbnVkmVHZTY" width="320" youtube-src-id="hbnVkmVHZTY"></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-85917003379206474532021-12-24T11:53:00.004-08:002021-12-24T16:12:17.485-08:00The people's New World Order<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj8YjSjifgv3ix2Y9Y74t5jawOmj8yA6FFlyhtTqGK42r1bjwyu2STytAYB5DiB4P8fQNmQ6pHXLLTc6XbPME2tTcT04TanMPU1PkFdOiZydG5Dm9gjBCRhleoxbJog9wA-rbaefdgFlMoRfjBsXrCtF5l0UDKnWUpLA7aFem4Noym_DkRL0sR4Ah3j0w=s1116" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1116" data-original-width="860" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj8YjSjifgv3ix2Y9Y74t5jawOmj8yA6FFlyhtTqGK42r1bjwyu2STytAYB5DiB4P8fQNmQ6pHXLLTc6XbPME2tTcT04TanMPU1PkFdOiZydG5Dm9gjBCRhleoxbJog9wA-rbaefdgFlMoRfjBsXrCtF5l0UDKnWUpLA7aFem4Noym_DkRL0sR4Ah3j0w=s320" width="247" /></a></div><p></p><p>The world economic forum has estimated that 50% of existing jobs will be automated in a decade. Within a couple of decades, I believe it could more likely be 80% or 90%. I will explain.</p><p>5G technology is allowing China to roll out driverless cars already. 5G removes the need for a safety driver, as a robotaxi can be remotely controlled by a human when it gets confused. Online human override bridges the gap, allowing robotics to do most of anything. Robotaxis are a critical example of this.</p><p>You only need to look at the robotics coming out of Boston Dynamics to see that robots can go wherever humans go, and do nearly whatever humans do due to their flexibility. [Example: <a href="https://youtu.be/tF4DML7FIWk" target="_blank">here</a>]</p><p>So, to model the situation, think of a flexible, general-purpose robot riding on a driverless platform to a work site, ready to take on any given job. And think of a human, online, cutting in to direct and help (like a supervisor) yet only when they're specifically required. When the human is not required, they're assisting a different robot, online. No dead time.</p><p>The result? The great majority of people will no longer need to leave their home to work or shop. Everything becomes online-based. This, in turn, allows for the rapid streamlining of all our operations. Countless jobs will quickly fall away with ongoing software upgrades.</p><p>I could go on, but you get the picture. The room for progressive automation becomes incredible in a heavily roboticised internet-based world, where most operations are governed online. Anything that conforms to a procedure can quickly be automated.</p><p><b>So what does this mean, from a political outlook?</b></p><p>Extreme automation would eventually lead to a tenfold reduction in the price of goods and services. This newfound wealth could well result in deleterious overconsumption, and the lower cost of raising children could lead to a rampaging baby-boom. Would this be ecologically sustainable? For how long?</p><p>International organisations seem to be asking these questions already, and their answers look akin to wanting to restrict human consumption directly. You've heard it: "You will own nothing - and be happy". Also noteworthy, the Bank of England has expressed that it wants to install a programmable cryptocurrency, which gives governments the power to directly control what people can and can't buy, for each individual. Hence, they're proposing a sophisticated block to avoid over-consumption.</p><p>If we ever go there, I think we'll know what the official excuse will be: Saving the world from CO2.</p><p>Regardless, we're going to move into a new world order. No matter the politics, the technological revolutions coming down the pike are so extreme that big questions will have to be asked. I hope we can ask those question for ourselves, and build (or should I say 'evolve') a world in the people's own image.</p><p>We, the people, need to do the thinking as far as designing our future goes, because if we don't the UN and other elite organisations will do the thinking for us. I argue that if we are not engaged in future planning, we'll end up with outside organisations doing the planning for us. The latter is not my ideal and I guess no one else's.</p><p>Yet sadly, so far, we refuse to even have these conversations.</p><p>-Extended article, <a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2021/11/do-we-need-democratic-elite.html">here</a>.<br /></p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-44875441623585221832021-11-30T15:33:00.010-08:002022-03-15T16:55:58.745-07:00Is the New Zealand government Evil?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CtCfsGRuLvM/Yaa1jPozLwI/AAAAAAAABwk/dAFPCNO0c_o2hVBJ3lJ67lBOkRWm_sGRQCLcBGAsYHQ/s772/Is%2Bthe%2Bnew%2Bzealand%2Bgovernment%2Bevil.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="428" data-original-width="772" height="355" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CtCfsGRuLvM/Yaa1jPozLwI/AAAAAAAABwk/dAFPCNO0c_o2hVBJ3lJ67lBOkRWm_sGRQCLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h355/Is%2Bthe%2Bnew%2Bzealand%2Bgovernment%2Bevil.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Note: This article was originally published in <i>The BFD</i>, under the editors title "<i><a href="https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/11/24/does-evil-lurk-behind-the-mask/" target="_blank">Does evil lurk behind the Mask</a></i>".<p></p><p><i><b>------------------------------------</b></i></p><p><b>[Audio version <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOymLl6gg8E" target="_blank">here</a>]</b></p><p>Under what circumstances can a government justify forcibly medicating people? It’s an extreme act. If a random man on the street force-injected you with something that he thought was for your own good, then obviously you would call the police. By default, it is a violation to force-medicate.</p><p>Therefore, if the government is to introduce forced vaccinations or coercive policy that leaves people with no other choice, then this can only be justified in the most desperate of circumstances. That is if we’re dealing with an event on the level of the Black Plague, and alternatives to forced medication cannot be found.</p><p>New Zealand today is light years from a black plague type event. The vast majority of people recover from Covid and hardly anyone dies. We know that the only people who have anything worth worrying about are the very old and highly vulnerable. What’s more, we now have alternatives to vaccinations. Early preventative treatments are proven, and cellphones allow us to communicate instantly to manage any outbreak of concern.</p><p>Yet what has the New Zealand government done? They have shamelessly bribed the media and openly suppressed all information that threatens to provoke vaccine hesitancy. Critics, no matter how qualified, are written off as misinformation agents instead of being duly debated. Doctors lose their licence if they do not push the pro-vaccination line. Preventative treatments are ignored and never discussed. Hard questions are not asked because ministers will never answer them.</p><p>By absolutely no reasonable measure can the government justify force-vaccinating people today – directly or indirectly. That should be clear. Vaccine coercion is evil. Indeed, if any of the coerced end up dying from their medication, then that is a case for manslaughter. When medication is forced on you then those who forced you are morally accountable for the consequences.</p><p>Our government should be doing everything it can to develop and respond to any option other than forced medication, especially when the treatment is controversial. Instead, the opposite is being played out. Alternatives are suppressed – vaccinations are coerced. This is not blind stupidity because no one is this stupid unless they want to be.</p><p>I have no idea what’s really going on behind closed political doors. No one does. But again, we know enough to see evil.</p><p>If we find that these Pfizer vaccines kill people, or seriously damage them (which might well still happen over the long term) then we must hold those responsible to account. There must be a Nuremberg 2.0 because wilful ignorance will not cut it as a defence.</p><div>-Andrew Atkin</div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-72869062204374342912021-11-28T06:48:00.000-08:002021-11-28T06:48:08.764-08:00Do we need a Democratic Elite?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sCGrPRdvRik/YaOWLHPIB0I/AAAAAAAABvw/0Szuaq-ZhQgc9_ch6LrAOHyuuxWerFw_wCLcBGAsYHQ/s657/Do%2Bwe%2Bneed%2Ba%2Bdemocratic%2Belite.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="331" data-original-width="657" height="161" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sCGrPRdvRik/YaOWLHPIB0I/AAAAAAAABvw/0Szuaq-ZhQgc9_ch6LrAOHyuuxWerFw_wCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Do%2Bwe%2Bneed%2Ba%2Bdemocratic%2Belite.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">A great weakness of the common voter is his refusal to take long term planning seriously. Yet sustainability, in the broadest meaning of the word, demands long-range planning. Population control is a massive (though far from only) part of this, and it shows us the weakness of our existing democracies. Hence, I will focus on this to make my case.</div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">People presume that increases in wealth naturally lead to smaller families, so they think population is a non-issue. That idea is wrong. Observations in the relationship between wealth and fertility do not isolate for the impact of extended schooling, feminist movements (driving women to work), welfare systems and weakened religions, etc, all of which have dovetailed with the end of the western baby-boom. Industrialisation is only a part of what may be lowering fertility.</div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">This is the thing: Over-population cannot sanely be allowed to happen. Over-population means replacing the remaining forests with farms, and finally it means desperation leading to wars. People get ruthless when they can't eat. Obviously, this is not something we should wait for.</div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Ok. What I've talked about is realistic but it's a political football that no one has time for, and what no democratic politician dares touch. It relates to necessary long-term planning yet we don't want to know about it.</div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">However, our refusal to confront the eventual need for direct population control, is how you legitimise a non-democratic elite; that is, an elite who might well develop an attitude that can be described as...<i style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;">"Well, if these guys aren't going to manage themselves like they should, then we have to do it for them"</i>. And dare I say it, they could be right.</div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">In my view, we do need some kind of an elite, and an elite that will not turn its back on uncomfortable problems. But that elite should not be formed incidentally out of wealth, nor by childish politicians driven by a hunger for status. We want a democratic elite.</div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><b style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;">Forming a democratic elite:</b></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I suggest that everyone have the capacity to vote, but with conditions. To vote, we should have to do an online course on politics and economics, so we can demonstrate that we're prepared to be intelligently engaged.</div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">When we vote, we vote for policy that affects everyone - not just ourselves. Voting is a serious business and should be respected as such. Many people will not be bothered doing the course and they will in turn not vote. That would most likely be a good thing.</div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">We need to filter for people who are prepared to think long term, and people who are studious enough to not be so easily manipulated by the media.</div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">So, if we must have an elite, it should be the people's elite. Not a self-appointed elite.</div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></div><span style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I worry that if we turn our backs on the need for serious leadership, then we may only create a vacuum for others to fill. Maybe this has already happened? The UN and associated organisations already talk about our future as though it's their place to design it. No thank you. We can do better. We can run our world primarily from the ground-up, but again we need to specify how democracy works so to remove blatantly short-sighted thinking.</span><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></span></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">-Andrew Atkin</span></div><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: white;" /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-6547246028665323092021-11-13T21:52:00.038-08:002021-11-28T23:23:45.615-08:00We are at War, we have always been at war<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-V-vEiJYZ-Ms/YZRB07xuokI/AAAAAAAABvE/9hRKyC7FvskMBEGAxeOK4PCn0f-1A9UdgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1542/we%2Bare%2Bat%2Bwar.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="1542" height="150" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-V-vEiJYZ-Ms/YZRB07xuokI/AAAAAAAABvE/9hRKyC7FvskMBEGAxeOK4PCn0f-1A9UdgCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h150/we%2Bare%2Bat%2Bwar.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div><i>Audio version: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oouNGb7ONQA" target="_blank">here</a></i></div><div><br /></div><div>Islam and much of the communist world is expansionist. This means they'd force their civilisational code onto the rest us, if only they could. In their minds, they know what's best for the world. </div><p>Ok, sure, blood and butchery inside one or two generations if required is hideous and will hurt, but in the expansionists mind it's a small price to pay for an eternity within a communist or Islamic world paradise.</p><p>So why haven't the expansionists done it? Why haven't they overrun us for our own good? Obviously because they can't. The modern free(ish) world has a military might that only the suicidal could dream of challenging (well, head on at least). So the expansionists stay low, waiting, and if possible growing stronger.</p><p>Their latency which brews in the underground is what we in the West are at war with. We're too classy to just genocide them, so we keep them on a leash instead. </p><p><b>You're a soldier:</b></p><p>All of us work, in part, to maintain our standing army. Indeed, the only time any nation can say it's at peace is when their army is no longer required. Since the beginning of recorded history we have never been there - at least not for any appreciable period of time. </p><p>So the fight is on. The propaganda departments tell us we must work hard and be all that we can be. They even tell us that commercial success is the measure of the man. But why? Taxes. Dominant war machines cost money. </p><p>So when you go to work (often far beyond what the exertion is really worth) the government harvests your labour to maintain its war machine, directly or indirectly. You're an economic soldier. You are at war, living in a still-threatened reality. </p><p>But, guns aren't being fired and bombs aren't going off? So what. A hiatus is no peace. The latency is there and so is your army.</p><p><b>Golden ages:</b></p><p>Golden ages happen but they are inevitably short. They could be defined as a time of plenty, where no one's child has to starve. Golden ages are wonderful but temporary, and specifically because no one's child <i>is</i> starving... </p><p>Hence, population pressure quickly creeps in as successful fertility leads to scarcity. The tension builds, ruthless competition follows, and the periodic culling sprees (called wars) stabilise population to resources...</p><p>And then from there, neurosis from war trauma entrenches into the cultures. Goodbye golden age - hello Sparta. The warrior becomes the hero. Life, again, will be short and brutish. The poverty-line will be the norm. </p><p><b>Religious wars:</b></p><p>You might think that so many wars are religious, but I would argue otherwise. </p><p>A prosperous society always goes soft over time, which means less abuse and most critically less child abuse (child abuse is the mechanism by which humans turn their children into wilful warriors). The less neurotic and more placid the population, the less it can be controlled with religious dogma of the type that cannot survive a questioning mind. Religious dogmas are driven by fear, and non-neurotic people are less inclined to react to fear-triggers. Nonsensical ideologies do not survive - expansionist (war monger) religions then reform or die.</p><p>Hence, crude religion is only an outgrowth of waring and hardship, and later a rationalisation for it. Ultimately, prosperity (or lack of) is the principal driver of war.</p><p><b>Avoiding our waring future:</b></p><p>Current technological advancements will automate about 90% of jobs over the next decade or two. The world economic forum (WEF) have expressed this also. This means that we are about to move into another golden age, which will in turn lead to a massive baby-boom. Unless, that is, our governments--or more realistically the players behind our governments--continue to take some direct control of the human future (see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avZYOT-mP7c" target="_blank">here</a>). </p><p>The truth is, we can no longer afford an uncontrolled population explosion. The entire planet will end up being a farm (only) for a then mostly vegetarian 100-billion strong population, and within only a few generations. </p><p>And then, with unhampered fertility we will eventually have global wars, though they will be wars that we cannot afford to have because nuclear, or worse, will be too easily accessible to just about anyone soon enough. Who wants to be driven part-mad with hell on earth anyway? We've been there too many times already.</p><p>We must have active population control, like China, and on a global scale. We must also defend against gross over-consumption. We can't allow a grand mansion for every man, etc, just because he can afford it. The planet can't take that and it's stupid regardless. Glutenous over-consumption doesn't make people happier on a substantive level. If we want to see true wellbeing then the most important focus, by far, is child abuse and avoidable infantile damage. That is the real global poverty that needs to be dealt with.</p><p>Controlling for these problems will necessitate a given level of world government (see <a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2019/12/beyond-2020working-towards-new-world.html" target="_blank">here</a>) as a defence. </p><p>From here, and only here, we might pull it off: A sustainable warless golden age, albeit artificially regulated to avoid the demons that would otherwise come after it. </p><p>From here, the only thing missing is the toughest social-political problem of all - dysgenics. If natural selective pressure collapses, so might the strength of our gene pool. That too will require executive management (see <a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-eugenics-question.html" target="_blank">here</a>). </p><p>------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><b>Additional note: Thoughts on the Elite:</b><br /><br />Who are the elite? Well, it used to be the territory of conspiracy theorists to suggest that there are incredibly powerful and concentrated financial entities who own the mass-media, and countless infrastructures, and directly and indirectly control leading politicians. It looks like it's not so much of a conspiracy anymore? (good documentary <a href="https://youtu.be/UNg3Vnfu4Pk" target="_blank">here</a>)<br /><br />Ok. Without going too far into this, I will say that we can know that people like Bill Gates and organisations like the Rockefeller foundation take population control very seriously. They have made open speeches on this topic, and for good reason... </p><p>Are these players, and people akin to them, working their hand to manage the world so we don't become our own worst enemy? Maybe. I think I would if I were in their position. </p><p>The hard truth is that global humanity must directly confront the problems of population stability, sustainable resource consumption, and as I've said earlier even eugenics to fight dysgenics. But are we too precious to go there? If so, we've just legitimised a controlling elite. They can morally justify managing a humanity (non-democratically) if it refuses to manage itself.<br /><br /><b>A democratic elite?</b><br /><br />My personal ideal is not to have an elite whose thinking is run by in-house group-think, but instead to have a democratic system that is strictly controlled for merit. In short, this means every man and woman can vote but not without a licence.</p><p>The licence is obtained by doing a comprehensive (though interesting and accessible) online course on politics and economics, etc, that must be first mastered and passed within reasonable boundaries. If you're going to vote on policy that affects <i>everyone </i>then you have a responsibility to demonstrate that you are not entirely ignorant, and that you take the act of voting most seriously. </p><p>This, I believe, would be the most ideal system that rightly harnesses democracy yet with a strong focus on merit to vote. The people who can't be bothered doing the course will not vote. That's probably for the best.</p><p> -Andrew Atkin</p>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-8586564026430366902021-10-18T12:11:00.017-07:002021-11-03T17:51:54.957-07:00Why I will Lose my Job - and Accept it<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-M4QHbt75azU/YW3Cu-pl9WI/AAAAAAAABtw/D8LpgbEP4sgKijNK4oWQEPsLXHdHimGVwCLcBGAsYHQ/s760/Why%2BI%2Bwill%2BLose%2Bmy%2BJob%2B-%2Band%2BAccept%2Bit.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="405" data-original-width="760" height="171" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-M4QHbt75azU/YW3Cu-pl9WI/AAAAAAAABtw/D8LpgbEP4sgKijNK4oWQEPsLXHdHimGVwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Why%2BI%2Bwill%2BLose%2Bmy%2BJob%2B-%2Band%2BAccept%2Bit.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p><b>Forward:</b></p><p>I know almost certainly that I am about to lose my job, because I will refuse the current available Covid vaccination. The government is slowly and carefully moving towards progressive vaccination mandates. It will not stop at border workers, I know. I will be a close second.</p><p>I will not say who my employer is because it's irrelevant and I don't need to bring attention to them, and in no way do I want to leave them on a bad note.</p><p>When I lose my job it will be because of the government - not my employer. When the vaccination drama blows over I might well like to reapply for my current job. Hence I want to leave, when I do, on the best possible terms.</p><p><b>Why am I prepared to lose my job to avoid vaccination?</b></p><p>Firstly, because I can afford to. I have no debt, no mortgage, no kids, and no costly dependencies. I am lucky. Others will take the jab because they simply can't afford to lose their income. It's sad, but so be it.</p><p>I believe absolutely that no one should be receiving this vaccine if they do not believe it is safe, which is a sentiment shared by countless medical professionals. This is not what our government thinks and they've decided that they know best. I don't agree. </p><p><b>On health grounds:</b> It is factual that mRNA technology is highly novel in humans. It's invasive (not a topical cream) and still in an experimental stage of development. This means there's a substantial risk of nasty surprises being discovered over the next couple of years. No-one can logically deny this.</p><p>If the vaccine was new and essentially traditional, not novel, then I would be less concerned. But that is not what we're dealing with, with mRNA vaccines.</p><p>Already, independent researchers are sounding the alarm, and have asserted that their preliminary findings indicate that spike-proteins are damaging microcapillaries (the leaves on the body-tree, basically) which will (supposedly) raise blood pressure and could lead to serious long-term health problems, including death. There are also concerns with lipid-Nano particles undermining the negative charge of red blood cells, making them stick to each other in strange and dysfunctional ways. And more.</p><p>Substantiated or not, this is the point: We need to wait for long-term testing with any highly novel and invasive treatment. This is not 'hesitancy' - it's [now abandoned] standard practice. It's the reason why long-term testing was, and is, historically demanded. We simply have to wait to discover the surprises. </p><p>The absence of long-term testing is why mRNA vaccines are classed as experimental. They're only supposed to be used for when the health risk of catching Covid is more serious than the speculated risk of the vaccine itself. You know...<br /><i><br />"Well hey, if Covid is going to kill me when it comes, and it will, then I might as well take my chances with this radical vaccine".</i> Fair enough, but this only makes sense for the most vulnerable.</p><p>I am not a vulnerable person. I'm 46 years old and in excellent health. The risk of myself getting hospitalised is practically zero, going by our best statistics. A vaccinated motorcyclist might be around 100x more likely to take up an ICU bed than an unvaccinated me.</p><p><b>The ethical argument for coerced vaccination:</b></p><p>Firstly, we know that everyone will see Covid eventually. Ask any virologist. The spread can be slowed - not stopped. This means that you can get the vaccine to protect yourself, but you are protecting no one else - only you.</p><p>Also, research has shown that the vaccinated are about as contagious as the non-vaccinated. In fact, they may be even more contagious in practice because vaccination can give a false sense of confidence, leading to foolish behaviours.</p><p>-My understanding is that vaccinated people still get infected through the lungs, nose and throat and pass on the bug, because it takes a couple of days for the T-cell immune response to become active. So, if it's really about delaying infection in others, then we should not be talking about vaccinations as such, but saliva testing. With rapid-antigen tests we can detect contagiousness (viral load) quickly, no matter the vaccination status.</p><p><b>What about ICU (Intensive Care Unit) capacity?</b></p><p>If we have poor ICU capacity because the government refused to expand it (and they curiously have not expanded it, to date) then we can argue that there could be a strong push to get the vulnerable vaccinated to keep hospitalisations under control. But it's absurd to use the ICU issue as an excuse for vaccine coercion. Otherwise, we should also be coercing people to lose weight and not participate in dangerous activities, etc.</p><p>How should the health system work? Self-abuser pays? Ok. Let's have that conversation then - and only that conversation. We shouldn't play games with weak rationalisations to win public support for coerced vaccination.</p><p>If we go down this road of restricted access to ICU for the unvaccinated, then the government should at least give people like myself the option of a tax rebate so I can then pay for my own private health insurance. It will be a small payment because my risk is so small. That's fine.</p><p><b>The creep factor:</b></p><p>For too many reasons it has become clear, to me, that everything is pointing away from the issue of dealing with Covid itself, and instead it's about the vaccine. No, I will not be a conspiracy theorist, though I do keep certain possibilities in the back of my mind (long story).</p><p>Alterative approaches have been relentlessly ignored, undermined and even blocked. Medical professionals that dare say anything that might induce vaccine-hesitancy have been openly threatened with the loss of their licence; and the Covid scare, going by our own statistics, has been blown out of proportion to an outrageous degree. The government has even bribed the media to push the one-sided pro-vaccination line.</p><p>Further, the government has done everything it can to maximise and strategise mass-vaccination. I believe that severe coercion is coming because that's where all the pointers go. Maybe it will go all the way to outright forced vaccination? I'm worried.</p><p>I believe that if 90% of the nation becomes vaccinated, then half of that 90% will be apathetic to the rights of those who resist the vaccine, and the other half will be cheering government coercion on - and largely based on ignorance. This, quite possibly, is what our government is patiently waiting for - before they become ruthless.</p><p>The government is now threatening to hold the country's borders to ransom, based on the number of people vaccinated. If Jacinda Ardern declares she will not open the borders until, say, 99% of us are vaccinated, then this will work very powerfully towards getting the nation against those who refuse the vaccine. This would be a most shocking use of manipulated social pressure. Sadly I can see it coming.</p><p><i>Please Jacinda, before turning the unvaccinated into the new "Jews", at least give us the opportunity, with reasonable assistance, to leave this country. I will respectfully leave at your request. I would rather leave New Zealand than receive the Pfizer vaccine. It's all gone far too irrational and creepy for me now</i>.</p><p>Finally: There are so many red flag in this bizarre game that it's almost beyond the joke. I write more systematically on this <a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2021/07/a-rounded-view-of-new-zealands-covid.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p><span style="color: #666666;">Note: I do not believe our government is evil. I believe that on some level they are being seriously misled, and are most likely suffering from chronic group-think and, for political and typical personal reasons, will be finding it almost impossible to admit to their errors and likewise change their minds. Alas, monopolies of truth are intrinsically dangerous.</span></p><p><span><span style="color: #990000;">Addition: 21-10-2121:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: #666666;">Very concerning, if the government sets the standard of 95% (and later, no doubt 100%) vaccination before restrictions on travel are removed, then the last 5% of people who refuse the vaccine will be in danger. People will hate the unvaccinated for "wrecking their lives" by not letting them travel, and this will almost certainly lead to street attacks. </span></span></p><p><span><span style="color: #666666;">This technique that the government is using is akin to what schoolteachers used to do, to get kids to conform by getting the whole class against them, by making everyone suffer for their decision. Realistically, it's the same as inciting violence.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: #666666;">The media is to blame as well. Right now, media people have claimed that the last 5% of people who are unvaccinated will totally overwhelm our hospitals. That is an absolute lie, and has been corrected by opposition MP's, but most people will not see the correction.... </span></span></p><p><span><span style="color: #666666;">The media are even reporting that the unvaccinated are already clogging-up our hospitals today, which is crazy talk because we have 39 Covid cases in hospital (We used to have about 6,000 in hospital for the flu, each year. You will notice that scaremongers never provide perspective). Outright lying on this level is unforgivable and dangerous to the unvaccinated.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: #666666;">Maybe I will soon be forced to appeal to the government for refugee camps for the unvaccinated, ideally to the north of Auckland (warm). We can work online and live frugally for a couple of years, in what's basically a long camping holiday. It's better than being lynched on the street and it should satisfy any dangerous mob as we've been 'kicked out'.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #666666;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #666666;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #666666;"><br /></span></p>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-43232973053473381222021-10-08T20:50:00.012-07:002023-04-23T16:05:23.537-07:00The place for Socialism? <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-P9-5PKgZVr0/YWEOdJUT7GI/AAAAAAAABtI/H-Umh7iQBCI-VKGYOEUs49bfJX9tz1d5wCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/The%2Bplace%2Bfor%2Bsocialism.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRVGWPPcTb3XxqbCiMcc7FS-jQM6InvUnFbQhNYzrUvNOVtueyyAGGPKBfjJ8PRUEn052CG2mAOpKSrJa3JaJPtITf38U2crXBkZmL53G9wkU-g5IkiAXLXdgRGPo7qaUK3KmgilEHDgMzm9swqslp32sKP5F0yZkTq751sTILt_HRA6xLmvnhnYlkcA/s1151/socialism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="519" data-original-width="1151" height="144" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRVGWPPcTb3XxqbCiMcc7FS-jQM6InvUnFbQhNYzrUvNOVtueyyAGGPKBfjJ8PRUEn052CG2mAOpKSrJa3JaJPtITf38U2crXBkZmL53G9wkU-g5IkiAXLXdgRGPo7qaUK3KmgilEHDgMzm9swqslp32sKP5F0yZkTq751sTILt_HRA6xLmvnhnYlkcA/w320-h144/socialism.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>Everyone says socialism doesn't work, and for good reason. On the national scale it has thus far proven to be a disaster (I talk about this <a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2020/08/can-we-make-socialism-work.html" target="_blank">here</a>). </p><p>However, I believe there's a model of functional socialism that does work that we can look at today: Cruise ships.</p><p>Operationally, a cruise ship works as a private, small economy that's totally centralised. Cruise ships work well to the end of it, and I think it could be a good idea, basically, to build a kind of cruise ship on the land. The following model gives the key differences:</p><p>1. Low density and economical to build. </p><p>2. The people who live in it also own it. They own shares in the master structure, not just their personal house and land.</p><p>3. The residence are also the workers (usually).</p><p>4. It has its own currency. Like a casino, you buy and sell eChips via a phone app, which are then used for trade and payment within the development.</p><p>5. It's highly unregulated. Minimum wages, local taxes, and even building codes, etc, are set by the collective within the development. It's a private economy - the regulatory hand on the national level is light.</p><p>The socialist economy, like a cruise ship, would and should be strictly residential - not commercial. It cooks, cleans, educates and transports, etc, but for the most part it does not make and sell to the commercial economy, which I believe should be strictly free-market. The developments I propose have nothing directly to do with the wider free market. They're more like a collectivised extension of the home.</p><p><b>The effect?</b></p><p>Very cheap housing, life amongst your kind of people, practically no crime, relaxed living and a very low cost of living. </p><p>It also provides a protective barrier for the residence in case of economic problems in the wider (free market) society, which is one of the reasons why it can be a good idea to operate a private currency within the development. </p><p>If built from the ground up it can employ electric driverless technology (instead of traditional cars), which allows us to make unusually beautiful townships where everything is easily accessible, again like a cruise ship. Please expand the included image bellow to visualise this.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ngiTlFgWWLQ/YWEQXA95OWI/AAAAAAAABtQ/oatUdfjrB1MP-pkh_sH9OuVIfGr_JB50ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1794/Eliminating%2BFinancial%2BHardship.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1794" data-original-width="932" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ngiTlFgWWLQ/YWEQXA95OWI/AAAAAAAABtQ/oatUdfjrB1MP-pkh_sH9OuVIfGr_JB50ACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Eliminating%2BFinancial%2BHardship.jpg" width="166" /></a></div><p>Competition: A cruise ship is still subject to the forces of competition. If they're not efficient and don't give the customer what they want, they fail. And this is how it would be for land-based 'cruise ships' as well. They must compete with alternatives and this will keep them in check.</p><p>So how about that? A socialist base that ensures prosperity and comfort where it matters the most, and without the plastic commercialism, yet at the right scale so people can always see clearly what's going on to keep their 'machine' in check. </p><p>This I believe is where socialism can find its natural place. Small scale - and private. What about national socialism? Avoid it like the plague.<br /><br />Extended video <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPG5u5t4bzM" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p>------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><b>Libertarian note: </b>If our society were made up of private "cells" (as I like to call them), of about 2,000 to 10,000 persons strong, it would create an extremely powerful force to resist government overreach, on the national level. </p><p>On research, for example, the academic groups within the cells would do their homework on government policy, and communicate effectively within their group, naturally having the ear of the local people as they are more than strangers to them. This holds government policy to account. It is far, far harder to propagandise a strong private group over a fragmented mass. And also, it becomes extremely hard for national governments to create intrusive policy that really should be left to private groups. In my opinion, this is an important dynamic that we are sorely missing today in our industrialised socialites.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-66539382188156164252021-09-21T12:14:00.019-07:002021-10-01T02:47:06.856-07:00A different kind of political party?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IgPywVKvmCM/YUou_nGHsbI/AAAAAAAABsk/7urBeisLlSMcFxKK9IhuE70xOBdVW77KACLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/A%2Bdifferent%2Bkind%2Bof%2Bpolitical%2Bparty.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1124" data-original-width="2048" height="176" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IgPywVKvmCM/YUou_nGHsbI/AAAAAAAABsk/7urBeisLlSMcFxKK9IhuE70xOBdVW77KACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/A%2Bdifferent%2Bkind%2Bof%2Bpolitical%2Bparty.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p><b>The natural political situation:</b></p><p>I've come to the conclusion that the people who really run New Zealand are the media, schools, tertiary institutes, and Hollywood, etc - that is, the opinion makers and culture movers. Our politicians are really just political appointees that the media effectively installs for us. </p><p>The media can, and does, make and break whatever politician they want via their power to give exposure, or not, and their power to frame politicians (via the all-power post-edit) in whichever way they want. Let's face it - they run the show. As long as most people receive their information passively, as they do, the media will basically own their assumptions.</p><p>As I like to say, if the world of politics is a supermarket then the people we recognize as politicians are just the checkout girls, taking the public's [media manufactured] orders.</p><p>An excellent example of how our politicians are, and must be, puppets of public opinion can be seen with the ACT party. It went from 1% to 10% in just a couple of years. But how? In part the rise was driven by disillusioned National party voters who had nowhere else to go, but also I believe it was because the leader of the ACT party, David Seymour, became a clear 'sell out'... </p><p>Seymour never touches anything that might upset the media, and he never goes to controversial realities that his select voter-base does not want to hear. An example is in the way his party talks about treating mental sickness yet never, ever, talks about what causes it in the first place, which is overwhelmingly child abuse and infantile damage (which has been well understood for decades). He keeps his mouth shut because he knows no one wants to hear it. He sells out, basically... </p><p>But this doesn't mean that Seymour is a bad guy. He simply accepts that his job is to represent public opinion - not drive it. That's honourable enough, though it does mean our politicians are an empty force for change in themselves.</p><p>Really, politicians are just representatives that we insist on humiliating, because unlike a union rep' who can openly say <i>"well guys, I don't agree with this position myself but it's your call and my job is to do your bidding - as I will"</i>...we instead insist that our politicians pretend to agree with us, even when they don't...</p><p>That's a painful job, and it explains why our representatives tend to be shallow people. They have to play a game with themselves to compete. They have to pretend <i>to themselves</i> to agree with what they don't, to pull off "authenticity". That's our fault, not theirs, as we make such ridiculous demands on them.</p><p><b>So what should a political force look like, if it wants to have a real impact on public opinion?</b></p><p>I say forget parliamentary politics and go straight for public opinion. Compete with the self-appointed media for their throne. Change the minds that change the politicians.</p><p>What I'm thinking of is a political "party" that focuses directly on influencing public awareness: An intermediate organisation that stands between a good think-tank and an advertising body for public education. </p><p>To the end of achieving mass-public education, think-tanks are typically impotent. Their vanilla and over-academic communication style renders them meaningless except for a small few, which is heart-breaking when they so often do such good work. There needs to be a mid-ground. A political <i>retailer</i> for good policy.</p><p>The organisation I'm thinking of should recommend policy positions based on research and reason, and then crowdsource marketing campaigns to promote their arguments. People will be much happier to donate when they can see <i>exactly</i> what their money is going to. </p><p><i>-Muriel Newman had excellent success with this approach a few years back with Maori privilege issues, and we should learn from her example.</i></p><p>The organisation should maturely yet bluntly criticise political parties, and make public recommendations on who to vote for and what to vote for, based on good policy. It should not be inauthentically polite. People and organisations should win the reputations they deserve.</p><p>It should work on developing soundbites to get people alerted to the basic messages, because no-one's listening until they are first provoked. It needs to be clever more than 'intellectual'.</p><p>Note, the cellphone is a powerful tool today. People are getting used to using QR-codes which can work as an excellent extension for any public flyer, or billboard. Video material should be prioritised when appropriate. The QR-code allows people to look further immediately at the point where interest has been provoked (and not yet lost).</p><p>Flyers, flags, posters, billboards, Facebook backgrounds, online media shows, etc, can all serve to continuously thrust public awareness of the organisation out there, which allows the organisation to become a 'somebody' and in spite of mainstream media discretion.</p><p>An old saying is, if you're not copping flack then you're not on the target. An organisation like what I'm describing would get massive flack and exactly because it would be on target. If you're a threat then be ready to be abused. Don't be afraid of the media attacking you. If you're doing your job right then they certainly will. </p><p>So for those who want to see change for the better, and wish to do something real about gross public ignorance, and can see the impotence of parliamentary politics, then I suggest moving in this direction. </p><p>You could become more powerful than any other third party, by targeting the public mind directly.</p><p>And yes, it would have to be a voluntary organisation - with crowdsourcing campaigns. If you want money and an official political career then that's fair enough, but it's best that you join an establishment party to that end. That's not what I'm talking about with this idea.</p><p>Any thoughts?<br /><br />-Andrew Atkin</p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-5365855141852210792021-09-04T16:55:00.014-07:002023-02-18T00:47:15.828-08:00 The Hand of God?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-73QxXqktFvQ/YTQDhsWCJXI/AAAAAAAABsI/EoiHxXxAifoegubzE1MdWeBsOg9lNegCgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1028/the%2Bhand%2Bof%2Bgod.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="552" data-original-width="1028" height="172" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-73QxXqktFvQ/YTQDhsWCJXI/AAAAAAAABsI/EoiHxXxAifoegubzE1MdWeBsOg9lNegCgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/the%2Bhand%2Bof%2Bgod.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>Newton's cradle, as shown in the included image, could give us the most simple yet critically accurate expression of the fibre of the universe. Imagine a 'field' composed of trillions upon trillions of physical units, and a force within them driving the manifestation of what appears to us as matter - all subatomic particles.</p><p>The force within newtons cradle gives birth to the moving "particle" at the end of the line of balls. </p><p>Think with this analogy: Matter is forced into existence, as a wave action (observable matter <i>is</i> a wave action), driven by the force within the field. Like Newton's cradle, it resonates in and out of existence, as it moves from a kinetic action (making it transparent) then back into a pure force within the field, in a cyclic manner. Exactly like newtons cradle.</p><p>Indeed, if matter works this way (and it looks as though it does) it would explain the 'bizarre' phenomena of elections instantly disappearing and reappearing hap-hazardly, from point-location to point-location. Are electrons just excitations bouncing in and out of the field, with the field being the true <i>substance</i> of all matter? Probably.</p><p>Also, the static force within the field may conduct over distance exceedingly quickly. It could be incomparably faster than the speed of light - or even instantaneous. </p><p>Electric Universe theorists call the force within the field the <i>electric force</i>, and claim it must be at least 20 billion times faster than the speed of light, as required for the universe as we know it to even 'work'. Maybe they are right. If manifest matter is ultimately just a wave action, then the field is the true <i>uni</i>verse in terms of substance. </p><p>The field may also be the foundation of other 'emergent' universes, of which are derived from the same field that generates other wave-actions (particles), though at different frequency groups to the wave-actions that make up our own known universe, which may make them completely invisible (to us) because we simply don't react with them, in everyday life. </p><p><i>-It's the same thing as your radio only playing back the frequency it's tuned to. Your body and all matter is a 'radio' within the field, which in turn ignores all other wave-actions that it's not tuned to.</i></p><p>Within the field could be organised intelligence. Why not? If a comparatively crude brain can think, using chunky atoms and molecules, then a field could well support a 'thinker' and to an unimaginably superior extreme in terms of information processing potential. </p><p>If the intelligence of the field (if it exists) can <i>strategically </i>direct forces within the field, then that intelligence could create life, worlds and galaxies, and possibly in the instant. It could contain the developed template of all kinds of structures, including living structures. It could support one massive hard-drive, ready to download the next Cambrian explosion when a given planet is ready to receive it.</p><p>And what about consciousness? That could be based in the field, as well. In fact analysis of the non-locality of consciousness already suggests this. This would mean that when, and if, our manifest bodies decompose, then that would not mean our consciousness ends because of it, as our consciousness would have nothing specifically to do with our bodies, in the same way that the internet has nothing specifically to do with your PC. </p><p>However, we can think no further than the question of consciousness, because consciousness is as good as magic because it's absolutely impossible to conceptually understand. Though the field, as a force linking everything together, including all matter and knowable existence, can be described as the hand of God: All powerful, all intelligent, everywhere in immediate time and every<i>thing</i>.</p><p><i>--and hey guess what? I managed to say all of that without any refence to anything non-structural, or fancifully esoteric. It was a fair speculation that respects the status of both our knowledge and our ignorance.</i></p><p>I wrote further on this topic, <a href="https://andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-mechanical-argument-for-life-after.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-19191903307902646592021-07-28T18:58:00.045-07:002021-09-10T12:28:59.778-07:00A rounded view of New Zealand's Covid Saga<p></p><p><i>6,500 people were hospitalised for the flu in New Zealand, in 2019.</i></p><p><i>Flu deaths in New Zealand are typically 500 per-year.</i></p><p><i>Why weren't we terrified? Why didn't we demand ruthless lockdowns? Why didn't we cry out for experimental mRNA technology? </i></p><p></p><p><i>Alas, it's amazing what people might come to believe when the government becomes their one source of truth.</i></p><p><b>The following is a sequence of clear red flags:</b></p><div><b>1. </b>After designating 100 billion dollars for an elimination strategy, the government failed to seal the borders to protect that investment. Logic dictates that the military, or equivalent, should have been hunting for potential border leaks from day one to protect the investment. None of this happened. The borders leaked.</div><p></p><p><b>2.</b> After the lockdowns, the government later explained that elimination did not mean elimination, and that eradication meant elimination, and that eradication was not possible. They knew that the public did not know that elimination doesn't actually mean elimination. The government effectively lied to enhance public cooperation for their lockdown strategy. That's manipulation - not representation.</p><p><b>3.</b> The conversation on total costs and optimum health responses was ignored. Mental health issues, a badly damaged economy (which funds our health system), and quality of life and length of life issues, were all ignored as though Covid is the only principal concern. This is irrational and not standard practice for any health investment.</p><p><b>4.</b> The initial mass-lockdown response was motivated by Neil Fergusson's models which are proven to be wrong. Neil Ferguson had a history of creating bad models that predicted mass disasters that never eventuated. </p><p><b>5.</b> The most powerful defence against Covid or any other virus is the general health of the populace, and immune health specifically. There was no education programme or direct investment to encourage, and facilitate, people to have more time for sunshine and exercise, stress control, and other. This made no sense.</p><p><b>6.</b> Educated critics of the governments health response have been ignored, threatened and suppressed. This includes people with every imaginable credential. Note also, effective alternative medications, such as Ivermectin, have been omitted from the public conversation or government consideration.</p><p><b>7.</b> Collecting data on Covid has been more political than scientific. People who died <i>with</i> Covid were recorded as having died <i>from</i> Covid, even for where the co-morbidities were overwhelmingly causative. </p><p>The PCR tests were long known to deliver false positives, even over 90%, yet were still used to inflate apparent Covid case numbers. Government authorities have only recently admitted this.</p><p><b>8.</b> Vaccines that are currently available are based on highly novel mRNA technology, and have had no long-term testing in humans. This is why the vaccines are classed as experimental. The long-term effects of mRNA vaccines are not known, and of course can't be known for some years to come. Animal trials on mRNA vaccines have previously led to serious damage and death in the animals. </p><p><b>9.</b> Informed consent (a prior condition of any experimental treatment) has been ignored over aggressive and one-sided marketing, and fear mongering. People have been encouraged to get the jab as soon as possible irrespective of personal Covid risks. </p><p>Note, whether or not the current vaccines even reduce the spread of Covid is questionable.</p><p><b>10.</b> Governments world-over are beginning to use social pressure to drive mass-vaccination. People have been 'officially' demonised for questioning the vaccines. People who refuse the vaccines have often been degraded as ignorant, irresponsible and selfish, and typically described as anti-vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. </p><p><b>11.</b> Existing statistics indicate clearly that covid-19 is no more dangerous than the seasonal flu, the latter of which kills about 500 New Zealanders every year. Covid in New Zealand has so far killed 26 people (with co-morbidities).</p><p><b>12. </b>There is no clear evidence that masks work to suppress the transmission of Covid. (The airborne virus is miniscule compared to the weave of the masks fabric).</p><p><i><span style="color: #666666;">-To be fair, medical experts have long admitted that the masks are basically useless in themselves. However, they do serve the function of actioning a constant reminder of the lockdown levels, which in turn stops people from letting their guard slip on other levels, such as basic hygiene and social distancing.</span></i></p><p><b>13.</b> The governments insistence on periodically locking down the entire country, at massive financial, lifestyle, and health cost, as opposed to the normal pandemic response which is to only isolate the vulnerable, has never made sense.</p><p><b>14.</b> The government has not promoted (or ideally made mandatory) Bluetooth apps that allow for effortless, comprehensive and reliable mass contact-tracing. </p><p>They have not employed video-intercom apps that allow people to make an immediate call on their phones, for preliminary diagnosis of a possible infection. Early identification and early treatment essentially eliminates all notable risk (pandemic over). </p><p>Nor has the government employed rapid saliva testing at the borders so they can be safely opened for business and tourism. </p><p>In other words, the government has inexplicably failed to employ the obvious measures that are available to us, that can immediately remove the need for emergency status lockdowns and mass-vaccination. </p><p>Vaccination is unreliable to the end of controlling a pandemic. Evolving variants mean we are always playing catch-up. Herd immunity is practically impossible with vaccination, alone.</p><p><b>15. </b>The government tells us what they're going to do (at least just before it happens), but they do not tell us why they're going to do it. </p><p>The thinking and modelling behind the pandemic strategy has not been transparent, so intelligent and qualified [outside] experts, and innovators, have not been able to constructively criticise and contribute to the ongoing development of government policy, in any direct manner. </p><p>Secrecy makes sense when you're fighting a war - but not when you're fighting a pandemic. </p><p><b>16. </b>The government has previously outlawed antibody tests to see who has had Covid, and therefore who has natural immunity. Antibody tests are still not freely available in New Zealand. No one understands why.</p><p>The result, is that people are receiving experimental vaccinations who will gain nothing from them, because natural immunity is far superior to vaccination-induced immunity. This is nonsensical, like the government is more interested in pushing vaccines for their own sake, than neutralising Covid.</p><p><b>17. </b>The government has promoted mRNA vaccinations as the 'great solution' that can allow New Zealand to open its borders, while mostly ignoring more effective methods of pandemic management. This is a mistake.</p><p>Unlike natural immunity, vaccines are poorly variant-tolerant. Viruses survive by mutating and continuously generating variants. Hence we are forever playing catch-up with vaccines, just like with the seasonal flu. </p><p>It is well understood that everyone will eventually receive Covid, no matter the national vaccination levels. Vaccines, at best, will only slow the spread to the inevitable. Both Israel and Iceland have recently provided clear examples of this. These nations were heavily vaccinated yet still could not contain their Delta outbreaks.</p><p>In short, this means that if you receive a vaccine then you do it for your own protection - no one else's. Your vaccination status ultimately protects no one but yourself, at best.</p><p>In spite of this, again, the government is promoting mass-vaccination as <i>the</i> solution. They are even promoting vaccination as a social responsibility which, most concerning of all, is being used to promote forced-vaccination onto the public. </p><p>This is appalling, because not only are mRNA vaccines experimental (we don't know of the medium to long term risks. Only time can inform us) but there is no ethical argument for this move. Respect that when the government can force-medicate people against their will, or back them into a corner where they have no other practical choice, we have a serious human rights issue.</p><p>...and much more.</p><p>------------------------------------------------------</p><p>And now the government expects me and you to accept their experimental vaccines. They can ask me again in five years time. It will take at least that long to get to the science that has been too obviously politicised by a government(s) whose credibility is now shot. </p><p>I am not a conspiracy theorist - but my eyes are open.</p><p><b>Note:</b> I will progressively add interesting and important links in the comments section.<br /><br />-Andrew Atkin<br /></p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><i>Dr Peter McCullough is a world leading expert on Covid prevention. I thought this NZ-based interview was extremely interesting. I urge you to have a look.</i></p><p><a href="https://odysee.com/@voicesforfreedom:6/Dr-Peter-McCullough">https://odysee.com/@voicesforfreedom:6/Dr-Peter-McCullough</a></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wMaS-dUKJrA/YQIKXi7UNWI/AAAAAAAABqs/zJtRtXyh6rcDEBMymaQZLsRt93KMU51PwCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/Consider%2Bbefore%2Byou%2BJab_compressed.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1241" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wMaS-dUKJrA/YQIKXi7UNWI/AAAAAAAABqs/zJtRtXyh6rcDEBMymaQZLsRt93KMU51PwCLcBGAsYHQ/w388-h640/Consider%2Bbefore%2Byou%2BJab_compressed.jpg" width="388" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3639660913939612097.post-48196043173545687702021-07-02T15:17:00.025-07:002021-07-15T23:18:28.951-07:00New Zealand's Democratic Failure<p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wQa-aKErSi8/YN-MV-Dw7zI/AAAAAAAABos/PfZMqP74VcsvUoSKq62ijfGQ5FjO6VIhQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1121/John%2BAdams.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="582" data-original-width="1121" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wQa-aKErSi8/YN-MV-Dw7zI/AAAAAAAABos/PfZMqP74VcsvUoSKq62ijfGQ5FjO6VIhQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/John%2BAdams.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>We say democracy is power to the people, yet it is not. Technically, it's power to the majority. The other 49% does not have less power in a democracy - it has <i>no</i> power. </p><p>Add to this, the fact that the vote in a mass-democracy is largely blind or a personality contest, with severely limited electoral options, and we can see that democracy is as much power-to-the-propagandist as it is power to even the majority. </p><p>Democracy at its worst is a tragedy. This isn't news to those who have studied it. Indeed, this is why America, originally engineered as a <i>restricted</i> democracy, introduced a foundational constitution and the separation of powers (into legislative, executive and judicial), and constructed numerous independent states to facilitate the power of foot-voting. <br /><i><br />-Personally, I believe foot-voting is the most important power of all to the end of creating a free and prosperous society. [2 minute video <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxrIFMzqKTs" target="_blank">here</a>]</i></p><p>Yet even America is failing as a once well-engineered restricted democracy, because the separation of powers is no longer so separate. Parallel infiltration of all departments by Leftists, including the media, schooling and Hollywood, is slowly driving America towards socialism and childish extremist ideologies. Alas, the separation of powers is cosmetic when the pay-masters have their hands in all the puppets. </p><p><b>New Zealand:</b></p><p>For democracy to survive, especially if it's a pure democracy (like New Zealand), it needs to have a strong "moral constitution" within the culture of its people. To put it most crudely, the dominant 51% needs to be decent enough to vote above self interest, and in turn not vote to turn the other 49% into their personal slaves.</p><p>From here we can point to New Zealand's democratic failure. The clear majority - that is, those who own a home or have a mortgage - have functionally outlawed the construction of affordable housing, via oppressive government regulation [video explanation <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay8wGdbQElU" target="_blank">here</a>]. </p><p><i><span style="color: #999999;">Note: A new home normally costs about $200,000 to build on an urban fringe. However, New Zealand has artificially restricted land supply, so that a plot of raw land on the fringe has become inflated by the bidding-war from $20,000 to more like $500,000. Regulations on building materials, and other, have dramatically increased the cost of constructing a new house, as well. The cost of high-quality kit-set houses imported from China and elsewhere, would otherwise make a new 3-bedroom construction cost less than $100,000 - if only it were allowed to be that simple.</span></i></p><p>The majority will not vote for any political party that dares allow their personal house price to fall - and, of course, all major political parties have taken that order to protect their careers. </p><p>In New Zealand, the majority's lust for wealth has induced them to believe that the resale value of their homes <i>should</i> radically appreciate, as though others don't have to 'lose for something' while they 'win for nothing'.</p><p>To be clear: If a private cartel paid off our politicians to run a protectionist regime on food, designed to make the sale price of food three times higher than it otherwise would be, then the public would want that cartel hung, drawn and quartered for such corruption. Yet that is <u>exactly</u> what's going on in New Zealand's property market today, and with comparably devastating results. </p><p>The New Zealand property market gives a perfect example of a democratic breakdown. The majority has voted like pigs - not citizens. The far-reaching impact is now seen in both reduced and heavily delayed fertility, due to extreme mortgage and rent burdens. The New Zealand fertility rate is now below even replacement levels due to the perverse housing burden on youth. </p><p>Yet, it's never been easier for the retired to live the good life and go on overseas holidays, etc. </p><p>You will see that most retired people feel no need to think about the politically-engineered wealth transfer. The retired typically see their bonanza as a tax-rebate for a lifetime of hard work, and they embrace that rationalisation without testing their assumptions and putting things in perspective. In other words they just believe what they want to believe, as people so often do.</p><p>So we have a failure of democracy to do what's right, even on the most important levels. That is a failing state. A state that cannot even breed properly.</p><p>The hope for young New Zealanders will be in their ability to migrate to better places, where the political majority is more dedicated to doing the right thing. There are now great opportunities with the modern live-anywhere economy, so it will be interesting to see what kind of out-migration New Zealand suffers once the Covid-19 hype is over.</p><p>It will also be interesting to see how a "great replacement" affects New Zealand, over time. The nation might well fall into socialism, even dictatorial socialism, if New Zealand natives are replaced with, assumedly, more anxious migrants who care little for serious politics. The demographic changes could allow the power of propaganda to completely dominate the direction of the nation. We will see.</p><div><br /></div>Andrew D Atkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.com0