This Week Saw New Levels of Political Unreality

Back in 2011 I reported that for the first time it was possible to measure the amount of divergence from actual reality and the emergence of alternate realities.

Here's the report: Delphius' Debate: Scientists Attempt to Finally Prove Alternate Realities.

Back then the divergence was measured in FemtoBrowns with the occasional peak measured in MilliBrons.

The amount of political divergence has been increasing over past 14 years. The first divergence level of a whole Brown, was measured literally the week after Labour got into power.

However, scientists report that after passing the Brown barrier, political divergence with reality has increased exponentially. Something predicted in unreality theory, but not detected until the past 18 months.

Scientists say that the divergence from actual reality is at such a huge level that they are measuring Browns to several powers. We are now living in the era of the PetaBrown.

This week, after discussions, a new unit of measurement was quantified: the Reeves. 

The Reeves scale Starts of at The PicoReeves, which is equivalent to one PetaBrown allows scientists to quantify the huge disparity between Labour's reality and actual reality.

The announcements around this week's budget have already produced divergence measurements of several hundred PicoReeves. 

It's hoped that this new scale will allow scientists to quantify the divergence throughout Labour's political tenure, but some scientists are sceptical. 

The rate of divergence after Labour's win in the election has increased exponentially and sceptics are already looking for the next measurement scale just in case.

The Quiet Slide into Tyranny.

Labour are at it again. Whilst championing the rights of certain demographics, they are quietly eroding the rights of the majority.

Back in the Nineties, the Blair government removed double jeopardy, the rule that the State could only prosecute you for a crime once. It forced the CPS to make sure the case was airtight against a defendant. But the ineptitude of the Police in gathering irrefutable evidence forced the Government to end the one-shot deal of double jeopardy, so that if necessary, the Police could come back and prosecute you again for the same crime. The rule was there had to be new evidence, but several cases, the definition of new evidence has been pushed and pushed. 

In fact in some cases, there really is no new evidence and it's just the same evidence presented in a different way. But each time the defendant's wallet is challenged (if you can afford to successfully defend yourself). Many cases running until the defendant's resources have run out and they cannot afford a successful defence. 

Not the "beyond all reasonable doubt" standard we used to expect. 

Talking of evidence, the standard of evidence itself has deteriorated. We now have successful prosecutions based on circumstantial evidence. Based on nothing more than statistical data, Nurse Lucy Letby was jailed for life for the murder of babies under her care.

Again, far and away from "beyond all reasonable doubt".

Statistics can be manipulated to say anything. 

In the Letby case there was no hard evidence. Just that she had been on shift when these babies died. No smoking gun, no vial of poison found in her pocket, no video of her hanging over a baby administering a lethal injection. Just statistics, that in all probability, she murdered the kids. Probability, or the probable, is not the actual. Far from the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. 

Blair's Labour government then removed the ability to receive legal aid, removing the ability of a huge swathe of "normal" people to defend themselves. Instead, Blair brought in the "No Win, no Fee" system, where the lawyers could argue in court to recoup costs. But of course convincing the lawyers to take on a case in the first place is a mission. After all, the no win no fee system is essentially an insurance type system. 

If there is a  good chance of winning, the lawyers will accept the case. If there is a 50/50 chance of winning, then unfortunately no capable defence for you. In actuality, if the odds of winning the case are lower than 60/40, then kiss your freedom goodbye. 

No Win, No Fee works when you are most evidently innocent. It doesn't work when the case gets murky, nuanced and ambiguous. 

Against all of this manipulation of the legal system, was the bastion of jury trials. Even if you couldn't get a proper defence team, even if the odds were stacked against you, if the evidence was ambiguous, if you could convince enough of your peers that you were innocent, or that the case was unreasonable, or malicious, the jury could find you not guilty.

There have been cases where the media have placed a defendant banged to rights, where it seems impossible to win, but the jury have seen something in the evidence that just doesn't sit right, or maybe they are not convinced the prosecution have made their case "beyond all reasonable doubt".

Whatever, the jury have acquitted the defendant, against all odds. 

However, this new Labour government are trying to remove that last bastion of common law, of Magna Carta: the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. 

Blair's labour already changed things up, where most small cases were held before a judge only. But there was the option for jury trial for smaller cases in some instances. 

Starmer's Labour wants to eradicate jury trials altogether for everything except the most heinous cases.

I just wonder what cases would be exempt from Jury trial? Would gang rape of white girls buy Pakistani men be only seen by a judge?

We've already seen with the Twitter post cases that judges are accepting their role in the state machinery with zealous glee. Sending people to prison for years, for an offensive tweet. Something where I'm sure a jury would rightly acquit a person.

But this is a step too far. The state becomes judge, jury and executioner. The state takes on the case and prosecutes, the judge is appointed employed and paid by the state, and the judge defines the sentence. 

The problem being that the judges are political appointees, they are activists, and not impartial. They are beholden to the state for their living. It leads to impropriety, or at the very least, the impression of impropriety in the legal system.

Otherwise I can see a situation where judges become the target of criminals. Either to blackmail, to entice or worse, to eliminate. It brings in the spectre of revenge. A judge can be seen as a target for retribution, whereas if you are convicted by your peers, it's hard for a single person to become a target. 

The process has done for you, not the person. Elimination the option of jury trials just buts judges at more risk. It puts defendants at more risk of unsafe prosecutions and puts the legal and judicial system at risk of being put into disrepute.

The eradication of jury trials must be prevented, at all costs.

M.I.5 Online Psy-Ops in Play.

I've been online for the best part of 40-odd years. If you think that's impossible, I was actually online at college back in the early Eighties in the days of teletype, using Open University servers.

Then came bulletin boards, accessed by modems from home. Oh, the convenience of technology. 

Then came UseNet, the online equivalent, accessed by internet connections, accessed on a pay-per minute basis.

I pre-date the World Wide Web and direct internet connectivity by decades when it comes to online usage.

Then the WWW came and as a tool for influencing the public, it was a game-changer. Don't get me wrong, Bulletin Boards and UseNet were hotbeds of conspiracies, but the World Wide Web brought those conspiracies into the mainstream, and with it the ability to manipulate various factions within the public.

Social Media has also had a huge part to play, crating "bubbles" of contact, within which ideas and opinions are kept in a feedback loop and extremely reinforced. During Covid, the intelligence elements went to work covertly manipulating groupthink in group chats and covertly requesting amplification of certain ideas and suppression of others. The latter only coming to light with the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk.

Which is how we get the extremism of opinions today. Whether on the left of politics which has the most rabid, slavish adherence to their orthodoxy, akin to a cult. To now the right wing wokeist element, that are now adopting extremist opinions of their own.

The right have been slow adopters of the type of Zealotry of the left, because they opine a more lessez-faire attitude, and the condensation of extremist ideology has taken a lot longer to form. 

One thing I've witnessed from day one of the internet, are the activists cajoling and caressing opinions. They are not immediately obvious unless to spend some time online. The more you watch, the more you seen the patterns, the cadence of words, the similarities. Being a computer nerd also allows you insight others cannot access.

The more you see, the more you understand. The nudges of certain people to become what they become. The Karens, the Far-Left cultists. 

You can see over the decades, the cultivation of the groups. Especially during the Covid crisis, where they were activated unlike previous activations. Opinions went off the scale in favour of oppression and authoritarianism.

Government agencies were very active in shaping public opinion by activating these cultish groups in favour of government policy. The intelligence services not only activated the groups through their various agents and proxies, they also monitored the effects. Where there was opposition to government edicts, they were quickly identified and stamped upon. 

M.I.5 and the assets at G.C.H.Q. were mobilised in a massive push to induce, indoctrinate and activate the rabid mob in order to quell opposition.

If you ever wondered how and why it went so far, that's your answer. The biggest Psy-Op in living history. Bigger than the Psy-Op that became the war on terror. 

This was a worldwide activation, where governments, even those normally in opposition, worked together. Governments that had vested interest in not revealing the truth.

Europe needed to quell the panic created by the massive number of deaths in Italy. It needed to downplay the effects of the virus and the panic within European governments. Revealed by the stupid decision to keep external and internal borders open.

America needed to hide their involvement in the funding of research in China. Research America had made illegal within it's own borders.

China needed to hide the fact they were working on bioweapons using funding from America and also that there was a leak from their laboratory in Wuhan.

The biggest indicator of this were the edicts coming out of The World Health Organisation. Like some broken A.I. (like HAL from 2001) the messages and the actions of the WHO made absolutely no sense without the knowledge that in the background, major governments were applying pressure to act in their political interests. Not at all in the interests of the World's health. 

Since Covid, the government agencies have not stopped. The various intelligence agencies got a huge boost in funding during Covid and as with all government agencies, once they have a certain level of funding, they are unwilling to give it up. Hence we have the various Psy-Ops in play at the moment. The Far-Right, The Online Safety Act, yadda, yadda. 

Right now it will not stop. But it needs to stop. Government manipulation of online spaces needs to stop.

It got to ridiculous levels now, witness the OFCOM letters to 4Chan and other non-UK companies. They are believing their own Psy-OP. 

That really is the time to call it quits guys.

Budget: Threat to Tax Homeowners on the Value of Their Property.

I've just heard on the Radio, the latest stupid idea considered by Labour as part of the budget. 

Taxing homeowners on the value of their property (theresholds vary).

Let's say your house is worth a million pounds. How did it gain that value? Did it attain those lofty heights through some magic?

No , it gained value through government policy. It's government policy that has not provided the new hoses that are required in order to keep the price of houses down.

So the first point against this "Wealth Tax" is it's highly immoral for a government to artificially inflate the value of an asset (your house) and then once it attains a certain value, to tax you on it.

The second point is that most houses are subject to a mortgage. i.e. you are actually in debt to the value of the house. It's in effect a negative asset. So is the government really saying they are going to tax you on the debt you owe? 

Not only that, you don't actually own a house while it's subject to a mortgage. The Bank or Building Society hold the deeds of the house until the mortgage is paid off. 

So is the government really going to tax you on something you don't actually own?

Is the government going to tax the lender and the occupier pro rata on what percentage of the house each owns? As an example, if you've paid off 20% of your mortgage, do you pay 20% of the tax payable and the lender pay the 80%? Who is going to work that out? How much will it cost the government to employ extra people to work that out?

If the government accepts the above and only taxes houses that are owned outright, don't forget that all other houses have increased in price at the same rate. So for instance you bought a house 10 years ago at £500,000 and it's now worth £1 million, ALL the other houses in the area have increased in price at the same rate. 

So the COMPARABLE VALUE hasn't actually increased. Yes the monetary amount is higher, but that amount only buys you the same asset.

Again, is it moral for the government to tax something that hasn't actually increased in value compared to similar assets?

Now, you could argue that if you buy a house for 50K, spend 5K doing it up and you sell it for 100K, then there should be a tax on the profit. But there already is capital gains tax, or corporation tax payable on that.

I could go on and on about the immorality of such a tax, how it is unworkable, how it would be expensive to administer.

There is talk of local councils administering the scheme, basically reporting property values back to HMRC. But that's an extra burden on local government for which they are not being paid. 

I wouldn't be surprised if local councils refused to administer the scheme. And I would especially expect Reform councils to refuse to comply.