Leave of Absence

by craig on September 16, 2012 11:27 am in Uncategorized

I was invited to be on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News this morning – which I always find a great deal more intelligent than the Andrew Marr alternative on the BBC. I declined because I did not want to get up and get a 7.30am train from Ramsgate on a Sunday morning. I had a meeting until 11.30pm last night planning a conference on human rights in Balochistan [I still tend to say Baluchistan], and I have a newly crowned tooth that seems not to want to settle down. But I am still worried by my own lack of energy, which is uncharacteristic. Is this old age?

I also have some serious work to do on my Burnes book, and next week I shall be staying in London to be in the British Library reading room for every second of its opening hours. So there may be a bit of a posting hiatus. I have in mind a short post on an important subject on which I suspect that 99% of my readership – including the regular dissident commenters – will strongly disagree with me.

This is a peculiarly introspective post, perhaps because my tooth is hurting, but I seem to have this curmudgeonly spirit which wishes to react to the huge popularity of this blog by posting something genuinely held but unpopular; a genuine view but one I don’t normally trumpet. The base thought seems to be “You wouldn’t like me if you really knew me”.

Similarly when I wrote Murder in Samarkand I was being hailed as a hero by quite a lot of people for my refusal to go along with the whole neo-con disaster of illegal wars, extraordinary rendition and severe attacks on civil liberties, sacrificing my fast track diplomatic career as a result. My reaction to putative hero worship was to publish in Murder in Samarkand not just the political facts, but an exposure of my own worst and most unpleasant behaviour in my private life.

I am in a very poor position to judge, but I believe the result rather by accident turned out artistically compelling, if you don’t want to read the book you can get a good idea of that by clicking on David Tennant in the top right of this blog and listening to him playing me in David Hare’s radio adaptation.

Anyway, that’s enough musing. You won’t like my next post, whenever it comes. Promise.

Tweet this post


  1. Scouse Billy

    25 Sep, 2012 - 4:42 pm

    “Scouse Billy, you’re obviously a bit of a genius”

    Really? I am widely read as Zoologist said and I look at life holistically, sceptically and with an open mind.

    I profess I have never considered the issue of actinide waste, so I suggest you follow my example and do your own research with healthy scepticism and an open mind.

    Wikipedia as a starting point is fine but please don’t accept it as authoritative or unbiased – furthermore those citing it as such tend to lose credibility.

    YOu might actually look at the link I posted with you in mind. Although 15 years old now, it is a reasonably fair picure of the history of zero point energy from Tesla to date – nor is it too technically heavy wrt the physics: it was made for public consumption.

  2. Scouse Billy

    25 Sep, 2012 - 4:47 pm

    Ah, now I see why you posted the platitudinous comment and question – so you be the 1000th comment… really!

  3. Zoologist 24 Sep, 2012 – 8:25 pm
    “Oh, and on “Humility? Allow me quote you directly :
    stop being such a cunt and you might get better fucked.

    That’s hilarious. You even cut and paste your insults. I might be flattered if you were not so simple.

  4. A filter bubble is a term coined by internet activist Eli Pariser in his book by the same name to describe a phenomenon in which websites use algorithms to selectively guess what information a user would like to see, based on information about the user (such as location, past click behaviour and search history). As a result, websites tend to show only information which agrees with the user’s past viewpoint, effectively isolating the user in a bubble that tends to exclude contrary information. Prime examples are Google’s personalized search results and Facebook’s personalized news stream. According to Pariser, users get less exposure to conflicting viewpoints and are isolated intellectually in their own informational bubble. Pariser related an example in which one user searched Google for “BP” and got investment news about British Petroleum while another searcher got information about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and that the two search results pages were “strikingly different.”

    Add Confirmation Bias:

  5. @Clark – “It’s a shame the discussion wasn’t longer and more technically detailed.”

    That’s all academic now, Clark. You see there’s this new technology I’ve been reading about called Tesla Zero Point Free Energy that makes Thorium-MSRs look as cutting edge as an East German moped. You can read all about it on the most authoratative and unbiased website that documents controversial political and scientific issues – see below. I downloaded plans from a website, showing me how to build my own power plant, cost me fifty bucks. I know the site was legit because it had lots of animated gifs. I modified the design by wrapping the zero point Tesla copper wire around my cat and shoved a twenty gram free-energy ceramic magnet up his arse. Man, he shot off like a bolt of electricity – thus proving the concept is sound. 


  6. Jemand, you obviously should have read this first. “How to Pill a Cat”. Or for Scouse Billy, HTPAC:


  7. Clark, HTPAC, yes I’ve been there. First thing to do is to trim the claws. Hah!

  8. Jemand, I have a friend who used to read Fortean Times and Nexus Magazine. He’s an alcoholic now. But these magazines were full of anti-gravity devices and machines to harness “free energy”. Plans could be purchased, but such designs published free of charge seemed to have had units converted, either from Metric to Imperial or vice-versa, such that dimensions were specified to at least six significant figures. They always specified that the design would only work if constructed to sufficient accuracy.

    “Never invest in anything that contravenes a law of conservation.”

  9. Scouse Billy

    25 Sep, 2012 - 6:16 pm

    Clark and Jemand proving GIGO yet again – ignorance is bliss, eh.

  10. LeonardYoung (25 Sep, 2012 – 11:40 am):

    You wrote: “Yes that’s right, but the point is we were taken to war BEFORE (if my memory is clear)the security service doubts emerged into the public domain. Please correct me if I got this wrong.”

    Official doubts may have surfaced after the event, but no objective observer could have thought this WMD notion was anything but fabrication, both before and at the time we went to war.

    The weapons inspectors were on the ground, appearing in interviews, pleading for more time to absolutely comprehensively prove that there were no WMD. At the same time, Rumsfeld was giving interviews stating that he knew exactly where the WMD were (if my memory serves), “In Tikrit and Baghdad and north, west, south and east of there.”

    The weapons inspectors said that IF Rumsfeld knew where they were, would he mind passing along the information so they could verify it right away? They were ignored.

    I watched weapons inspectors, with the Iraqis, destroying their Al Samood missiles, because they went a bit further than the 50KM range allowed. (Details may be a bit off, I’m doing all this from memory.) Hans Blix, chief weapons inspector, said, “We are not breaking matchsticks here!”

    The UK’s dossier on WMD was derided by people who knew what was happening on the ground. Blix said that they’d taken away question marks, and replaced them with exclamation marks. The second “dodgy dossier” was a cynical attempt to pass off some ropey, speculative PhD thesis from an American student from years back.

    We all knew at the time that Iraq posed no threat.

  11. Indeed, Jemand. Beware men bearing gifs, and never accept cookies from strange websites.

  12. Clark, if you’ve not seen it. A fledgling search engine, DuckDuckGo, has set up an info page on bubbling:


  13. We all knew at the time that Iraq posed no threat.

    Exactly, Glenn. That’s why millions of us were out on the streets, protesting. The London protest was the most peaceful I’d ever experienced, with people of all nations, families including children… People wouldn’t even shout or chant.

    We should have stormed the House of Commons.

  14. Better than being a fake science GIGOLO, Billy.

  15. Scouse Billy

    25 Sep, 2012 - 6:42 pm

    Without cutting and pasting can you point out where any science I have referred tois fake – you know by thinking fr yourself and using your impressive bank of scientific knowledge and comprehension?

    Lol good luck with that – don’t blow bubbles in your bong or it’ll turn acidic …

  16. Clark/SB – I think the scientific arguments are fine to have, but aren’t accessible to the layman. I prefer the approach of following the background of the leaders of each respective movement, to see whose motivation I most trust. The world has become too specialised now for the man in the street to become sufficiently expert in a subject to take a view on it, and we certainly can’t require it of people before they are permitted to take a view.

  17. Clark, my brother discovered “free energy” when he squatted in London. Apparently he stumbled upon this astonishing phenomenon when he rewired the electricity meter so that it went in reverse.

  18. Och come on Jon, we’re over 1000 comments down this thread, with three newer posts and a load of other threads open. No one is reading this unless they’re interested. Let Scouse Billy post his “science” and discredit himself entirely.

  19. @Jon – “Clark/SB – I think the scientific arguments are fine to have, but ..”

    Jon, are you referring to MSR or Free Energy?

  20. @Jemand – neither, I was making a very general remark, which I apply to things like climate change, medicine, health, etc. Ultimately, the layman has to trust an expert, rather than take a Ph.D in each discipline.

    @Clark – sure, I wasn’t saying it shouldn’t be discussed. Just that a highly technical approach is not accessible for most people, and thus is not persuasive. I think showing how spokespeople on either side of the climate change debate, for example, is highly illustrative of motivation. Sadly this creates another impasse (presumably) since whenever I point out that the propaganda will primarily come from energy/oil companies (to discredit AGW, which would hurt their profits), I guess someone will suggest that more money can be made from green taxation and carbon trading. Phew!

  21. Scouse Billy

    25 Sep, 2012 - 7:30 pm

    The salient bit is that you made your minds up without digesting the information offered.

    I merely suggested Clark (and others) might want to take a look – he didn’t.

    So just say so, Clark – why the personalisation and insults?
    I didn’t make the documentary nor did I claim that I agree with everthing in it but put it up there: for discussion, if you care to watch it through and digest it.

    So what’s your beef?

  22. Free energy, mmm. I though “oh dear, perpetual motion” when I heard that – I was designing perpetual motion machines when I was eight, despite my father’s insistence that energy cannot be created. However some research shows that perpetual motion isn’t the meaning of the phrase “free energy” – in fact, it is collecting energy from the non-zero K air. That sounds great, and my video link claims twice that a car has been built using this technology. Yet we don’t have them – how come? The video doesn’t explain, which is a critical omission.

    Building a Tesla coil seems pretty trivial. Could I make one in my back yard, and run a wire into my house? Again, sounds great, but there must be a catch somewhere.

  23. Scouse Billy

    25 Sep, 2012 - 7:53 pm

    You might be interested in the documentary, Jon.
    It covers much of the ground right up to and including Professor Inomata’s N-Machine.

  24. @ScouseBilly “Lol good luck with that – don’t blow bubbles in your bong or it’ll turn acidic …”

    Now, if the world starts to use bong water to cool the reactors, everything would be so much more peaceful.

  25. Scouse Billy

    25 Sep, 2012 - 8:19 pm

    Sunflower, an intriguing thought ;)

    Seriously though there is evidence that we will be able to clean up radioactive waste using some of the new technologies.
    Oh and the documentary has some footage from the uniquely eccentric, John Hutchison.

    Of course, there is an allusion to HAARP activity – as they say the new physics can be used for bad as well as good.

    All the more reason to pay attention IMO.

  26. LeonardYoung

    25 Sep, 2012 - 8:25 pm

    I don’t want to make too big a thing of this, but the notion that “we all knew “WMD was nonsense is not quite true when you examine the polls at the time. A large proportion of both the US and UK electorate bought into the myth, as they do now on many other issues.

    Another example: The Charles de Menezes police and “official” narrative was believed by not only the vast majority of the electorate but by every single mainstream news media. The fact that a statistically tiny number of people questioned it from the beginning didn’t filter through until very much later.

    I think it is sensible to guard against the notion that just because things are being discussed here or on other fringe media, that somehow the general electorate is anything other than extremely compliant.

    The Assange case is yet another example. A small proportion of the electorate is concerned with due process, rule of law, war crimes etc. The vast majority are concerned only with Assange’s trial by media and his alleged narcissism.

    Similarly, today the entire media produced thousands of hours broadcasts and double page spreads of a jaunt to France by a teacher and pupil while hardly any newspaper has written more than a column inch, or broadcast more than fifteen seconds about the thousands of children, some between six and eight years old, who have been tortured or murdered near the Syrian border because they happened to have parents who were embroiled in the Syrian uprisings.

  27. LeonardYoung

    25 Sep, 2012 - 8:29 pm

    Sorry should have said: “guard against the assumption that the electorate is other than compliant”. Typo and lack of ordering thoughts.

  28. 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm:


  29. @Clark

    Scepticism and skepticism are different things, and it isn’t just the spelling. Make time (plenty of time) to read my Zetetic Scholar link (skip back a couple of threads).

    What we seem to have here is a battle between sceptics and skeptics. I’ve picked my side. Sceptic. Not remotely skeptical.


  30. @Scouse Billy – which documentary are you referring to? I’ve scanned a few pages in this thread, and can’t see one that might already have been mentioned. Apols if I’ve missed it.

  31. Scouse Billy

    25 Sep, 2012 - 9:19 pm

    Jon, it’s called, Tesla The Race to Zero Point Free Energy:


  32. LeonardYoung

    25 Sep, 2012 - 9:42 pm

    @Vrosnky. Of course language develops and changes, but “Sceptic” and “Skeptic” were, and still are in my view, just different spellings between US and British conventions. The fact that a few people have imposed an unilateral second meaning to “skeptic” doesn’t really cut it for me. Perhaps there should be a new or alternative word, rather than merely hijacking a perfectly sound word and twisting its very clear original meaning.

    Skeptic is now a pejorative word commonly used to describe others whose views are based on stubborn or wilful denial of “consensus” science. That is a million miles from the noble origins of a “sceptic”, who is a person with an objective and disinterested position on matters intellectual or scientific. The word “skeptic” is thus an invention by those who do not approve of open-minded scepticism and prefer to the critically aware with a label of “disbeliever”, “denier” or “heretic”, whereas in fact sceptics are merely asking salient and reasonable questions before diving into beliefs or assumptions, or compliance for the sake of appearances.

  33. Scouse Billy, ta. Will d/load and watch soon. (The one I linked to was very poor imo, as was the second part of it – all assumption and no proof. But at least it encouraged me to see some cool Tesla coil vids on the web!)

  34. Scouse Billy, I should wait until after 0:00 to watch the Tesla video, or it eats into my download limit. But there is so much nonsense distributed about Tesla, and yet the proponents don’t even know of the real propaganda battle in which Tesla and Edison were the main public characters, nor do they realise that Tesla was vindicated because he was right, leading to all mains electricity being distributed as AC.

    Your own comment indicates that the video you linked is not particularly technical, which would preclude any checking of extraordinary claims, so I thought it might just be a waste of 1hr 49min of my time. But I’ll check it out.

  35. Vronsky, I’ll catch up with your links in due course, too. Thanks.

  36. Thank you, Clark. I genuinely think you might find it to be of interest.

  37. P.S. Clark, yes, I totally share your sentiments regarding the Tesla mythology, if you will, although his papers were “confiscated” and who knows what was in them and what, if anything, they are being used for today.

    But the documentary actually is not particularly concerned with Tesla and looks at more recent innovations. The titular reference is, quite possibly, “used” as a ploy to gain wider interest but don’t let that put you off, it’s carbon neutral shall we say and certainly pro-environmental and maybe even anti-Big Oil ;)

  38. SB documentry:
    “when jp morgan prohibited Tesla from broadcasting electric power overseas with broadclip tower
    … it changed the course of history”

    Teslas notes are studied widely. The fundamental unit for magnetic flux is named after or was coined by him. There may be some large portion of Teslas notes lost, and even his life story distorted and hidden, for any reason. However, if the repressed information includes how to practically broadcast power so accurately and safely and efficiently as to make copper wire industry redundant, which is what the documentry… dreams of. The systems/phenomens would have been rediscovered by many thousands of electronic researchers since, who are able to experiment so much more easily than Tesla, being able to order precise and very refined components and materials, not to mentioned newly invented, like efficient diodes and transistors (!)

    The documentry is a kind of sci-fi.

    Not very fine.

  39. @ScouseBilly Jon, “it’s called, Tesla The Race to Zero Point Free Energy:”

    Amazing video, thank you for the link. This video explains a lot. Energy is not about energy it is about control of human kind, keeping people in the Matrix is what this is all about.

    If free energy was made available the incentive for global control would be gone, no more a handful of greedy materialistic devil worshipers treating the Earth’s population as their personal slaves. No more illusion of being all-powerful gods, it would mean the end of the zionist dream world.

    This is not good. Quickly, start WW3 before we loose control!

  40. “This video explains a lot.”

    Sorry to say, with a lack of reading and practice in basic electronics you dont know what you are watching is fantasy fiction.

  41. Indeed, Sunflower – do you think the crab fellow is some sort of control freak? He certainly has a propensity to inflict his opinions, yet I’ve never seen him offer anything of any substance himself ;)

  42. Thatcrab, thanks. I strongly suspect that you just saved me from wasting nearly two hours of my life. That’s truly valuable, and I thank you.

    Scouse Billy, I’m certainly not making time to watch that video tonight. Yes, Tesla was a threat to the copper industry. The reason… OK. You believe other things, so I’ll put it this way. The conventional reason is rather mundane.

    I read an interesting snippet about painting and drawing. It was that abstract or surrealist art can demonstrate skill, or it can disguise incompetence. Not all artists can paint the picture that they imagine in their mind. Those who can are the ones who have practised and refined their skills of representative painting, drawing, etc. They have practised the discipline of accurately representing real objects in the real world. Then, when they wish to depict something unreal or imaginary, they have the skill to express their idea.

    Likewise in the realm of maths. Any fool can write out some symbols that look like maths, and it will probably be totally original. But only someone who has actually studied maths and developed the necessary discipline is capable of extending and adding to useful, valid mathematics.

    Now, Scouse Billy, if you can explain to me, from your own mind without Googling for “the answer”, why Tesla really was a threat to the copper industry, I’ll be far more inclined to watch that video.

    Sunflower, do you have any clue why I just made that request to Scouse Billy?

    Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. Dollops to that.

  43. Clark, universal wireless energy – hardly difficult. That was but one aspect, Morgan “pulled the plug” on him because he couldn’t meter “free energy” is more to the point.

    Don’t watch it then – trust the misanthropic crab. You’re loss – why should I care anyway.

  44. lol just re-read “you’re loss” – Freudian?

  45. The closest thing I can find to scientific opinion on “free energy” is this:

    According to NASA, “the concept of accessing a significant amount of useful energy from the [zero point energy] gained much credibility when a major article on this topic was recently [March 1st, 2004] published in Aviation Week & Space Technology, a leading aerospace industry magazine”.[11]

    I’m substantially of the view that a peer-reviewed paper is the best assurance of scientific validity – I’ve read that George Monbiot receives baseless claims of harnessable energy every week, but the peer review is in each case absent. There is much about physics we do not know, but I’d guess that it’s too early to celebrate yet.

  46. Come on Scouse Billy. Tell me how Tesla threatened the copper industry. You need High School physics. Then I’ll start taking you seriously.

  47. Jon, essentially the same people, or at least their decendents, don’t want us to have “free energy” today as didn’t back in Tesla’s day.

    I won’t spoil for those who do want to watch it but the conclusions are prescient and made me think of Clark’s thesis at Tallbloke’s.

  48. ” why should I care anyway.” A salient point, at last.

  49. Scouse Billy, you and your comrades have spent days trying to convince the more rational on this site that global heating is a scam, and accusing us of propagating the propaganda of “the Elite” who wish to wipe out 5/6ths of humanity. You have insulted out intelligence, and encouraged us to waste our precious life hours on your nonsense.

    Or have you? Show me that you possess some elementary skill with technical matters.

    If you do not, it is you that are the misanthropists, the ones whose ignorance and arrogance is threatening millions and billions of lives.

    [Mod/Clark: Updated for typos made in annoyance and haste.]

  50. I just told you – “wireless” geddit? Morgan had bought up copper mines anticipating transmission wires! You may be thinking of AC v DC but actually Morgan pulled his backing after Tesla had built his tower at Colorado Springs – I do know his life story.

    But I already explained the documentary is NOT about Tesla.

  51. No, Scouse Billy. Explain the well understood, conventional reason. Show me that you care about the thoughts you propagate.

  52. Heh.

    Carnival Barker;” See the little ball under the cup? Now you see it. Now you don’t”

  53. Billy’s Freudian slips are his undoing.

  54. So far, Scouse Billy has tried to flatter me with “…made me think of Clark’s thesis at Tallbloke’s” and he’s tried to pick my brains to answer the question for him. This is the man who would have us believe that science is corrupt, and that climate scientists are trying to mislead us for financial gain.

    You are looking like a dishonest fraud, Scouse Billy.

  55. No, Clark I can’t read your mind, mate – not sure that I’d want to ;)

    I gave you my reason whether it’s conventional or not I couldn’t say.

    But I will search “tesla threat to the copper industry” ok?

    Oh look what came out:


    “1902: Nikola Tesla Begins Exploring How to Transmit Electricity Without Power Lines; JP Morgan Refuses Further Funding
    Nikola Tesla’s Wardenclyffe Tower, initially financed by J.P. Morgan, was designed to transmit electricity without wires. By 1904, J.P. Morgan – who had a monopoly on copper which was used to transmit electricity – refused to provide any more funding.”

    Sorry I thought you were “more rational” – apparently not.

  56. Suggest you need help, Clark.

    Good night.

  57. That’s not a permanent exit, Clark. He will be back. He can’t help himself.

  58. Tesla indeed reduced the amount of copper that any given electrical power project would require. How, Billy? Can you write the appropriate formulae? You should have done them when you were about 14 years old.

  59. “You should have done them when you were about 14 years old”

    i think the peak of intellect is age 22-24, After that, experience must transcend intellect, or not..

  60. Sorry to inject myself into private discussions, Clark. As the intoxicants accumulate, i hyperbolate.

    (made that word up, dude)

  61. Hello Ben. That’s OK. Enjoy your intoxicants. Billy is silly. I wonder if convincing people of things he doesn’t understand himself is his intoxicant. Good old substance (ab)use seems more honest, to me.

    Can’t stop here; this is bat country.

  62. @BF – Thanks for the two links yesterday – I didn’t see them until a moment ago. I had forgotten all about Talking Heads – a welcome trip down memory lane.

    And I do think Carlin is a legend. Not too many Brits have heard of him sadly.

  63. Scouse Billy .. I just watched it. Thanks for posting, I found it very interesting. I’m no physicist but I don’t doubt that any commercially viable “free” energy source would also be a “competing” energy source for the energy monopoly suppliers and that particularly promising patents are snapped up for immediate burial.

    The film has absolutely nothing to do with Tesla.

  64. Clark said, “You are looking like a dishonest fraud, Scouse Billy.”

    You’re only just concluding this, Clark? C’mon! SB has done nothing but allude to his great learning in any number of subjects. But rather than show his capacity to absorb a question and provide an answer using it, we just get a reference to something vaguely associated (if we’re lucky!), with a irritatingly patronising “run along and learn from this my son, and begin to see the light” attitude.

    All SB comes up with is whacked out notions such as Save The Children are in fact child killers, bent on genocide, because they’re providing vaccinations, which everyone knows – or should know – are hoaxes by the pharmaceutical industry to make money, while their mates in the UN want to kill everyone, and blah – blah – blah. And here’s a video of some freak stating just that, in case you want proof.

    It’s not possible to have an honest discussion with someone who probably wants to be a cult leader. Hence his avatar. Such people just want to forcefully assert their whackadoodle nonsense, and just keep piling more on top, to make their rather weak-minded admirers think that everything they knew was wrong, this Great Leader has all the answers, and by Christ doesn’t this visionary fellow put ordinary mortals to shame with their vast learning and insights.

    After a while, it appears these people start believing in their own self-aggrandisement, drinking their own Kool-Aid so to speak, and are completely incapable of backing off a point no matter how outlandish. Not to say downright silly. The really amusing part is where they’ll accuse everyone of being stupid and misinformed for following basic scientific conventional wisdom, but go off in risible flights of fancy by way of alternative explanations (secret HAARP weapons, deep-galaxy radiation, and so on).

    Every village has an idiot, and there’s a crazy uncle in every family. But we can’t base our discussions around these people as if their point of view was as valid as those from rational folk.

  65. Is it ironic that today I received a tender for a 350 user web-expenses system with specific requirements for end-user “carbon accounting”?

    What to do? Should I tell them that they are wasting their money as carbon trading is a busted flush? Or do I take the contract and snigger hypocritically all the way to the bank?
    The latter, I guess.

    Keep up the good work chaps, I’m beginning to see thing’s your way after all. Kerching.

  66. Oh happy day .. It just gets better ..

    The drugs don’t work: a modern medical scandal

    The doctors prescribing the drugs don’t know they don’t do what they’re meant to. Nor do their patients. The manufacturers know full well, but they’re not telling.

    “Drugs are tested by their manufacturers, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques that exaggerate the benefits.”

    I know you won’t read it but, what the heck.

  67. Tesla did many weird and wonderful things, but may only have been ahead of the pack by ten or so years upon arrival in the US, in taking ac from commutator-less dynamos and with such an ac source developing working practical controllable ac polyphase motors for industrial power applications mostly and proving the superiority of ac for distance transmission purposes at higher voltages with the impressive Niagara Falls hydro-electric project. Big sparky stuff distributing power wirelessly by natural or man-made lightning-bolts between huge towers (which had tremendous power requirements themselves) would have splattered the whole radio spectrum with interference, and inhibited broadcasting, an unfortunate side-effect he would have been well aware of as he demonstrated several radio controlled toy boats to great acclaim and considerable interest from competing military powers who seen potential there for torpedos and drones operated from afar. He did make some reportedly suitcase sized apparatus which induced earthquake like tremors, and as well as almost bringing down the NY apartment building he tested it in, the effect was greater further away with windows several miles away broken and other damage until the police arrived and put an end to the demonstration and the landlord to evict him and his laboratory from his distressed building. A flawed genius, but for most of his life a harmless eccentric.

  68. Ben Franklin

    26 Sep, 2012 - 3:19 am


    I have been ambivalent about Einstein’s active role in developing the A-Bomb, but find my rationalizations for an otherwise outstanding human being, to be aging with me. The eagerness of science to exalt ego or ideology seems to increase by the tick of the clock. I am deep in my cups now, so it will be easier to take advantage of your good auspices today, and repent tomorrow.


    ” They include:

    – A means of causing artificial earthquakes

    – The development of particle beam weapons

    – Power systems that could tap almost unlimited energy from the Vacuum

    – The ability to generate nuclear explosions and wilfully transmit them through space and time to any desired location

    – Development of a means of propulsion involving anti-gravity methods based upon electricity and magnetism

    In considering the list as given, of what would appear to be almost extraordinary capabilities, it would be well to know that none other than Nikola Tesla himself pioneered most of these fields. Officially, in terms of what physical-technological advancements made it into mainstream from Tesla’s work, only those things which were ‘none threatening’ to the establishment were allowed out. Thus was alternating current – developed by Tesla – considered ‘acceptable’ to the powers that be, who allowed it onto the world stage. However, Tesla’s work on ‘free energy’ systems and of tapping the almost inexhaustible reservoir of energy from the vacuum was not.”

  69. @Jon
    25 Sep, 2012 – 7:24 pm

    Good post. We are debating on behalf of the experts so our own thoughts are somewhat moot. When our arguments are reduced to the essence, they are merely links to expert announcements.

  70. I propose not to hold back until you earn enough amount of cash to order all you need! You should take the credit loans or consolidation loans and feel comfortable

    [Mod/Clark: I edited this to break both of the links, but left the comment, as part of the discussion.]

  71. Basically what this comes down to is the clash of the “scientific” mechanistic reductionist world view and a non-mechanistic world view that accepts the fact that consciousness exists as separate from matter. “Scientists” cannot see, touch, smell, hear or taste consciousness, therefore they conclude it does not exist.

    The mechanistic world view postulates man are “gods” of this planet and the universe and those that managed to, by evil conspiracy, to introduce and put themselves in control of the present economic system try to live out their puny dreams of being god by using their powers to enslave humanity.

    Of course free energy wouldn’t fit into the present day “scientific” models of “reality” and so do a lot of phenomena around us, e.g. consciousness, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means “you” cannot explain it because your references are like to those of an ant trying to grasp philosophy.

    Put even more simple, it’s the clash between good and evil, or “I am god” vs. “I am a servant of God”

  72. @Clark/Jon

    Young27Mandy 26 Sep, 2012 – 7:07 am

    Wow a marketing comment. It is possible that Google lends some weight to nofollow comments. One might assume especially so from high value blogs such as this. Delete that comment please!

    I didn’t realise you allowed the a tag though. That’s great. It will make comments far tidier. Why not add it to your list of acceptable tags?

  73. Above I meant nofollow links.

    But really I am just commenting to test an a tag.

  74. Phil, I have spent countless hours deleting the spam comments from this blog. Craig, apparently, used to do it all himself. Recently, Jon has been doing most of it.

    We get spam here because this blog is set up such that contributors are not required to register in order to submit comments.

  75. Sunflower at 26 Sep, 7:55 am, your comment touches upon me in a very personal way. My oldest friend, the girl, now a woman, with whom I lost my virginity, is currently letting a cancer grow in her breast rather than undergo “western” medical treatment. She refuses to speak with me because I wish to discuss the matter rationally.

  76. If we follow “New Age” thinking to its extreme conclusion, my friend’s illness is my fault. Consciousness manifests reality, right? The cancer in her is growing because I believe it is, I am manifesting it in her, right?

  77. Vronsky, it looks like I have a busy day of discussion beginning. Of course, if I could just “manifest” a few more copies of myself, one could go looking for the source material I need, another could monitor the thread and reply to incoming comments, and yet another could read your Zetetic Scholar link. But in the “real” world…

  78. Sunflower and Phil,

    This is a link to a comment by Nextus that triggered an emotional breakdown on my part.


    Sunflower, you wrote:

    “Basically what this comes down to is the clash of the “scientific” mechanistic reductionist world view and a non-mechanistic world view that accepts the fact that consciousness exists as separate from matter. “Scientists” cannot see, touch, smell, hear or taste consciousness, therefore they conclude it does not exist.”

    The thread which includes the comment I linked to above will give you some idea of which “side” I stand on in the “clash” you refer to above.

    Phil, after my crack-up, I stopped deleting the spam from this blog. Those spam “comments” have since been deleted, but other contributors’ comments will give you some idea of how much automated rubbish accumulates when there is no one to tend the threads.

  79. Oh. Has it all got a bit serious? Suddenly, I’m the only one with anything to say. Guess I’d best just fuck off.

  80. Clark,

    Not sure if this is of interest:


  81. Clark, I am sorry to hear about your friend, and her distrusting conventional cancer treatment. That’s a difficult one to resolve. I wonder, does her reticence come from a fear of doctors/hospitals, or a genuine faith that non-conventional medicine works?

    If it helps, I wonder if suggesting that conventional medicine is worth a go additionally, on top of her preferred treatment? You could argue that two approaches must be better than one.

  82. Scouse Billy – don’t be angry with Clark if he doesn’t accept your hypothesis immediately. What you are claiming is outlandish, as all physics-changing discoveries are; this does not make it categorically untrue, but if we have is all theory and no proof, you can expect people to be sceptical.

    I read last night that “wireless energy” was regarded as “difficult to monetise” in Tesla’s day. At first I thought that people would be receiving it without paying for it! But in fact it was thought that in fact the transmission part of “wireless” energy was itself a fraud, and people could just receive it from the atmosphere themselves.

    It should go without saying that if this technology exists, it beggars belief that no-one is using it, even on the sly. It would be too enormous a secret to keep for very long, and all manner of collusion between the scientific community and energy companies could not keep a lid on it. Surely?

    (The video is downloaded and in my watch list.)

  83. No, Jon I am not really angry – perhaps disappointed because, as those who watched have attested, the documentary is not about Tesla but really addresses the concerns of those that are looking for cheap or “free”, clean and essentially infinite energy.

    Perhaps I did not make this clear enough but having read Clarke’s view both here and at Tallbloke’s, thought it would be of interest to him especially as it is sympathetic to his viewpoint.

    The cancer issue is something else – a difficult and highly charged topic with conflicting views. There are a couple of thought provoking documentaries that I have watched more than once: Cancer – The Forbidden Cures by Massimo Mazzucco, and Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business. Having watched these,I am not so sure I would go the conventional route if I were diagnosed with cancer either but nor would I proselytise to others one way or another.

  84. So, my friend should apparently travel to Rome and have sodium bicarbonate solution injected into her breast for several days, because “cancer is a fungus”.

    Or, maybe she should exist exclusively on juiced vegetables, and perform regular enemas with coffee, as this is the Gerson therapy.

    Or, she should travel to some place, I know not where, where child “psychic surgeons” apparently push their hands through the skin without using blades, and have the lump lovingly removed.

    Or, or, or…

    How do we tell which of these pet “cures” actually work?

  85. @Scouse Billy – yeah, I wasn’t talking about the documentary as such, just the general claim about free energy. It is a lot to take in on little evidence, even though I plan to watch the film.

    In relation to all of these things – cures for cancer included – there is a danger that “trust no-one” seems to apply. As I said yesterday: this implies that people who have not the time or skills to garner a lifetime’s experience in each field and obtain the various qualifications required, can still claim to know better than people who have. Thus, the good approach of being reasonably wary of authority is warped to recommending paranoia about everything.

  86. @Clark

    I am sorry to hear about your friend. Life is sometimes a friggin nightmare.

    Sometimes people make poor decisions. You know she has and I obviously agree that cancer is best treated with modern medicine. You have provided her with the information. Don’t blame yourself about her decision. Ultimately it is her decision. And maybe even think about seeing her on her terms.

    Take some time away from moderating this place. You take it easy mate.

  87. @Clark & Jon

    What spam filter are you using? May I dare to recommend Mollom. In my experience it would have caught the spam I saw earlier.

    [If you ever need some technical man hours contributed, to lighten the load and give you more time to moderate (or even live your lives) I would be more than happy. I know my way around PHP/CMS types of things.]

  88. Phil (just above) provides sense as always. You – Clark – are absolutely not responsible for the decision of another adult. That they choose a stupid route is not your fault, because you failed to convince them to do otherwise.

    For instance, a very dear friend – we regarded each other as brothers, actually – has succumbed to alcoholism, to the point I can no longer stand to see him. This intelligent, witty, talented man now lives in squalor, in stinking, filthy conditions that would not be considered fit to house animals. There is absolutely nothing I nor any other of his former friends could do to persuade him stop, or even make a serious attempt to get help. The AA and so on just gets in the way of his drinking too much. A litre of that filthy “white cider” is needed just to stop the hands shaking upon waking, and he’ll drink until passing out two or three times every day. Years worth of brave new beginnings, new hope just around the corner and so on, have always turned to nothing.

    It doesn’t matter how earnestly we want someone to do the right thing, we cannot take responsibility for the choices they take.

  89. @Clark “If we follow “New Age” thinking to its extreme conclusion, my friend’s illness is my fault. Consciousness manifests reality, right? The cancer in her is growing because I believe it is, I am manifesting it in her, right?”

    Dear Clark, absolutely not, that is not the conclusion. I pointed out a problem with applying conventional science in areas where those “tools” might not be good enough. Not to speak of consciousness, even mind or ether can be understood by our blunt material senses, although those are a lot easier to relate to with conventional science than consciousness.

    My example does not in any way put you in a responsible position the way you infer.

    The mechanical perspective stipulates there is a beginning to our lives “birth” and an end “death”, there is no higher purpose to life than to enjoy this body and it’s senses to the maximum degree until death. There is no higher purpose and everything was created out of nothing by a big explosion that somehow, mysteriously, created a universe full of perfection on all levels.

    If you hypothetically try to understand the world as having purpose, that consciousness is eternal, it is never born neither does it ever die and the actual “you” is consciousness not the material vehicle (body and mind) that you happen inhabit at the moment to interact with this material dimension, then everything becomes a learning experience instead.

    We are going to meet good and bad and we are going to suffer, there is no doubt about that, in this hypothesis the crucial point is what do we learn form our journey?

    The essence of conciseness is love and free will, in your particular example, out of love you want to help your friend, on the other hand your friend has free will and even if her choices may bring pain to you and you think there are other better ways, it’s still her free will and you have no responsibility for her choices.

  90. @Clark & Jon

    I’ve just noticed that Mollom seems unmaitained for wp. Just goes to show how much web site development I have done in the past couple of years. Obviously not much.

  91. @Phil, thanks for the anti-spam suggestion. I’d be wary about that one, as it appears to have been abandoned, and so we wouldn’t get timely security updates. For blogs that need a bit of extra security, I tend to prefer plugins that have a large usage base (100K+ downloads) so we can have more confidence in them.

  92. @Clark & Jon

    Although the Mollom web site suggests it is fine for wp. Anyway I will stop banging on about it now.

  93. @Jon

    Sorry my last comment cross posted with your response.

  94. Here’s what breast cancer does if left untreated:


    And here’s the story behind the pictures:


  95. Scouse Billy

    26 Sep, 2012 - 1:53 pm

    Clark, I am not suggesting anything of the sort but I don’t think conventional medecine has a good track record wrt cancer. There are alternative approaches that some claim to have helped them.

    I don’t know your friend’s views but I concur with Sunflower that they should be respected. Neither you nor I nor I suggest the experts really know the causes and cures for cancer.

  96. Scouse Billy

    26 Sep, 2012 - 1:57 pm

    Jon, fair point regarding “free energy” but I hope you find the documentary (intellectually) stimulating.

  97. Scouse Billy 26 Sep, 2012 – 1:53 pm
    “Neither you nor I nor I suggest the experts really know the causes and cures for cancer.”

    Is nothing more important to you than you having your say, getting the last word in?

    You are truly contemptible.

  98. JHC, Billy – is there a single expert on Earth, who do the sciency-thing with all that book-learnin’ and stuff, that you wouldn’t say has it all backwards, is wrong, corrupt, and the real answers are elsewhere?

    No – a decision to favour quack medicine should not “be respected”. No more than I respect my dear friend’s decision to drink himself to death. I can’t do anything about it, that doesn’t mean the decision is respected.

    Your knee-jerk, arrogant dismissal of all conventional understanding is exceedingly dangerous, particularly since you dress it up as crusading against The Man, fighting the system, striking a blow for the people. I don’t think we’ve come across a subject yet in which you don’t feel you know better than the experts, and advise anyone willing to listen that experts shouldn’t be trusted.

  99. Sunflower, you wrote:

    “on the other hand your friend has free will and even if her choices may bring pain”

    My friend is restricting free will. She refuses to discuss the matter with me, because I wish her to think about what could happen if her alternative approach doesn’t work (see my last two links). She is restricting my free will, by blocking communication. She is restricting her own free will by ruling out certain courses of action in advance, and refusing to examine the matter with an open mind. Ironically, she frequently accused me of being closed minded, relating a very similar argument to Sunflower’s “clash of the mechanistic and non-mechanistic”.

    Having read lots of misleading alternative sources, she feels that there is a grand conspiracy by doctors, nurses, the pharmaceutical companies. They wish to torture her, to “chop her breast off”, and eventually kill her with radiation and chemotherapy, in order to make money. So she has to block my communication in order to protect herself from the propaganda I would expose her to.

    The parallels with the global heating “debate” are obvious.

    Earlier, Zoologist linked to an article by Ben Goldacre about distortion in the field of drug testing. I am well aware that this is happening, and it is a very big problem. I greatly respect Goldacre’s Bad Science blog, and I would visit more often if I had more time.

    Zoologist, however, is almost certainly quoting Goldacre as “evidence” that science is utterly corrupt, in support of the theory that global heating is another of those grand conspiracies, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that Goldacre is a scientifically educated doctor and psychiatrist. It is Goldacre’s commitment to science and rationality that enables him to be such a powerful critic of corruption in the field of science.

    Zoologist, Sunflower, and possibly Cryptonym have all been supportive of the video that Scouse Billy linked to. It is pseudo-science. It is lies and deception, and it distorts history in order to be sensational. I know this, because electrics, electronics, and physics in general are special interests of mine. I have sufficient technical knowledge in this field to make a valid judgement.

    In my world view, honesty is one of the highest virtues. I am heartily sick of seeing lies pedalled as some higher truth that cuts through some imagined grand conspiracy. Such nonsense is causing my friend to kill herself.

    Of course, I suspect that having stated my case so strongly, some of you expect that I am a shill, that I am paid to pedal lies to help the grand conspiracy to continue. Maybe you suspect that my friend doesn’t even exist. If any of you would like to, come and live at my house to check me out, follow me around and see what I do. I’ll show you receipts to prove my sources of income. I’m not rich and I’ll expect you to pay your keep. My contact details are on my web page linked from my name by my avatar. I post under my own name. You conspiracy theorists do not. Overcome your paranoia.

  100. Glenn and Phil to Scouse Billy, 26 Sep, 2:13 pm and 2:05 pm. Hear, Hear

    [Mod/Clark: Edited to include Phil.]

  101. Scouse Billy

    26 Sep, 2012 - 2:41 pm

    Lady doctor refuses surgery, chemo and radiation – why?


  102. Who is that picture of on your latest avatar, Scouse Billy?

  103. @Clark “Of course, I suspect that having stated my case so strongly, some of you expect that I am a shill, that I am paid to pedal lies to help the grand conspiracy to continue.”

    Of course not, at least not me, your sincere concern is obvious.

  104. @Clark – re friend with cancer

    There’s a thousand things I and many others can say but only one thing makes sense. You are powerless to act on this problem as you describe it. Therefore, what else can you do? You might find the strength to bury your fears, frustration and sadness (that’s tough) and give her comfort for the remainder of her life on her terms, however irrational they might be. Or you can distance yourself from her in frustration and regret it for the remainder of your life. Whose feelings are most important?

    There is another course, but it involves emotional blackmail. Does saving a life justify the means in doing so? In any case, you will need to eventually resign yourself to the fact the she is going to die anyway – sooner or later, just like you and me.

    Chin up old man.


    “Lady doctor refuses surgery…”

    The dreaded, subverted Wikipedia:


    “[Dr Lorraine] Day underwent wide excision, but refused drugs, chemotherapy, and radiation”

    [Mod/Clark: I have repeatedly edited this to correct my own typos. Sorry, I am fucking furious.]

  106. Jemand, what I can try to do is convince anyone, just one more person would help, to check their facts before spreading disinformation. To try to prevent this happening over and over again.

    Phil, Jemand, Glenn, Jon; thank you all for your support.

    Sunflower, I hope you’re learning on this thread. Thanks for your kind message.

  107. Scouse Billy

    26 Sep, 2012 - 3:06 pm

    Clark, the lady in the video is Dr Day try listening to what she says.

    I do know her story btw and she did have some of the tumour cut away but here she is saying she refused a masectomy.

    NOW the important bit is where she reveals that chemotherapy causes cancer and that “the patients don’t know that but the doctors do”.

    She adds that doctors only prescribe cancer giving “therapy” because they don’t know what else to do.

    Btw Dr Day is well into her 70’s in the clip and had been cancer free for over a decade – SHE DIDN’T DIE she must be doing something right.

    Try getting your facts right – your friend is clearly no fool.

  108. Best wishes sent in your direction, Clark. Take a break from the screen for a bit, if you can – it’s not too bad outside weather-wise, at least here in the Midlands!

    @Scouse Billy – I think you and Clark are not going to agree on this topic. Since serious illness is an upsetting topic, I wonder if you might exercise some sensitivity, and choose not to pursue the discussion? Plenty more threads to choose from :)

  109. Ben Franklin

    26 Sep, 2012 - 3:10 pm

    Clark; We discussed guilt a little the other day (or rather I talked AT you) in another matter.

    I have often said I wouldn’t let the Dr, cut me for fear of spreading out in my bloodstream, but now the risk is greater, and the techniques have improved with excision. Then, there’s chemo which sometimes seems a disease to overcome in itself. My best friends wife recently succumbed after 4 years of abject misery . He is a dispensary, but she refused the cannabis. IMO she was being a martyr as she had separated from him due to their failed personal relationship. I think our genetic structure forms a sort of Physiological Determinism. It is what it is. She will survive or not based on factors which have nothing to do with your action, or omission. Don’t take it on yourself, as you have before.

  110. @Clark “My friend is restricting free will. She refuses to discuss the matter with me, because I wish her to think about what could happen if her alternative approach doesn’t work (see my last two links). She is restricting my free will, by blocking communication.”

    Now, this is a tricky part. In principle you may impose your free will on yourself, provided you in the process take into consideration to reasonably avoid harming others in the process.

    But to say that she denies you your free will by not agreeing to listen to you is not logical. When it comes to her life it’s her free will that takes priority, regardless of how much good advice you have to give.

    This is something everyone that brings up children goes through to a lesser or higher degree as the children turns into adults becoming responsible for their own lives, starting to do things that we think is totally wrong.

    Communication relies on trust and force never creates trust. I can put a gun to your head and say “love me” and you would likely say “I love you”, but would you mean it?

    The paradigm you describe is the basic foundation for many of today’s societies where politicians believe they “know” what’s best for ordinary people and creates laws that in detail regulate their lives according to the politicians understanding of how a life should be lived.

    What this practically does is that it disempowers people, it removes the responsibility from the individual to the state, and it creates powerless zombies. When it comes to geo-politics this is done by design. It’s much easier to control a herd of powerless sheeps.

    In interpersonal relationships, if we take your example, will you after she agrees to listen to you and comply with your will, manage her decisions for the remaining of her life? Or just in those areas where you know better than her?

    Wouldn’t it be better to respect her as an individual trying to see the world from her perspective and to create a foundation for communication? From a practical point of view that would increase your chances to influence her.

  111. Jon, I’d rather you told Scouse Billy to fuck off rather than me. If you don’t mind.

    No. I take it back.

    Scouse Billy, if you don’t know her story, go and look it up before you post links to misleading videos. She had the lump removed. I’ve encountered her story before.

    Yes, I know the dangers of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. They are probably over-prescribed. The situation in the US is worse than in Europe. Why? Probably, greater corporate influence. Funnily enough, I’m probably more familiar with this stuff than you are.

  112. @Clark – “Jemand, what I can try to do is convince anyone, just one more person would help, to check their facts before spreading disinformation. To try to prevent this happening over and over again.”

    Clark, no one can prevent this from happening 100%, the problem of foolishness is here forever – we can only try to mitigate it. And the job Craig, you and Jon are doing on this blog fighting stupidity and ignorance is a whole lot more than what most people do. Give yourself a break.

    I hope you can find some kind of peace with your friend.

  113. Sunflower, free will is not something that we have, it is something that we develop. Consider, you are free to paint a picture, but do you have the ability to paint what you see in your mind? Free will doesn’t come out of nowhere.

    From Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life

    “HARRY: That’s right. Yeah, I’ve had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and, uh, what we’ve come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: people are not wearing enough hats. Two: matter is energy. In the universe, there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person’s soul. However, this soul does not exist ab initio, as orthodox Christianity teaches. It has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved, owing to man’s unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
    BERT: What was that about hats, again? “

  114. Clark, apart from trying to be a “wise-guy”, I do feel your pain, don’t doubt that. And yes, I’m trying to learn, some days are more successful than others.

  115. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_Radio_(film)

    Has anyone seen this film? It’s brilliant. While the setting is talkback radio, it reminds me of this blog and that of Jack Marx, Australian journalist and blogger. I was a belated contributor to the comments section of his blog.

  116. Scouse Billy

    26 Sep, 2012 - 3:35 pm

    Yes, Clark, she had the lump removed but refused a masectomy.

    Her full interview is here and right near the start explains that you cannot cut cancer out because the underlying cause remains (and I would add there is always the risk of metastasis).

    The only reason I posted the testimony of a patient of Dr Simoncini earlier, was because he has claimed “99% success” in breast cancer treatment. I think he has an interesting paradigm and extraordinary claims – and remember he is a qualified oncologist that was distressed by the abject failure of conventional tratments in the paediatric-oncology ward where he watched children suffering and dying.

  117. Scouse Billy

    26 Sep, 2012 - 3:36 pm

  118. Clark, I agree to that Monthy Python quote, the soul is “brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation” . I just believe the soul is eternal and brought into existence means that we actually become aware of it.

    “In my world view, honesty is one of the highest virtues.” Yes, the world needs more of that.

  119. @Scouse Billy

    You can throw sticks (links) and others will amazingly run and fetch them. But not me. To me, you are a text book internet phenomenon, sort of similar to how biologists see fruit flies. Don’t let that discourage you. Without you Billy, good reason and sound judgement would have no reference point.

  120. Scouse Billy, for you, again:

    “It [the “soul”, ie free will] has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation

    Isn’t it said that other people are the mirror of the soul?

    Whenever you post something that you haven’t looked into and checked, you may end up deceiving people, or at least wasting away hours of their lives. You really should have learned that by now. You should be able to see why people have been highly critical of you on this thread.

    The trivia you are distracted by is your need to “win” the argument, or at least to induce doubt regarding the counter-argument. Emotional audit is called for; you need to assess the feelings that motivate you to behave this way. This will take time, reflection, introspection. After that, you may have the necessary resources to look into the global heating and cancer treatment arguments. No matter what the truth is in these matters, you have clearly demonstrated to many others (if not to yourself) that as yet, you lack the necessary personal resources to do so.

  121. Ben Franklin

    26 Sep, 2012 - 3:53 pm

    Lots of good advice here, but how to apply?

    I remember two seemingly disconnected metaphors. Take what you will from them.

    Two things;

    In the Movie Phenomenon, John Travolta is enamored with a young woman with a past. He tries to make contact, but no interest. She makes willow furniture. He has a business and offers to display her work. They don’t sell. He keeps buying them, and hiding them in his house. A friend of his overhears others besmirching Travolta’s character while having beers. The friend chimes in; ‘ Fred, you still with your wife?’ “No” he replies. ” I thought not. Maybe you shoulda bought her chairs. That’s a smart thing, I think”

    2nd-In the book ‘Be Here Now’ then, Richard Alpert travels to India to find himself, and encounters a Guru of some substance. He is quite impressed by the Teacher, and after a few weeks has to go the city to update his passport. While there he stops to eat at a vegetarian restaurant and feasts on the repast with gusto. But, he somehow feels the guilt from his pleasure as he finishes a vegan cookie and hides it from view as he eats. Upon his return he still has that guilt plaguing him and he buys a bag or oranges as a gift to the Guru. Upon seeing Alpert, the Teacher literally runs to Alpert, grabs the bag and begins stuffing orange after orange into his mouth, peels and all, until they are gone. With an overwhelming visage of love on his face, dripping with juice, he looks at Alpert and says; “Did you enjoy the cookie?”

  122. Jemand, yes, Our Billy lacks self discipline, without which free will is rather moot.

  123. I have to go now. When Ben announced that yesterday, Billy returned Ben’s accusation of narcissism. Personally, I think it is simply polite to announce ones exit from an ongoing conversation.

    I will catch up with this thread later. Ben, sorry I that I still haven’t replied to your e-mail. I prioritised the conversation here. I expect you can see why I did that.

    Best wishes to all.

  124. Scouse Billy

    26 Sep, 2012 - 4:10 pm

    Clark: “The trivia you are distracted by is your need to “win” the argument, or at least to induce doubt regarding the counter-argument.”

    Interesting thesis – but I can assure you I don’t do trivia: the issues I raise I consider to affect all of us, particularly your good self, often the first to repeat and/or defend conventional “wisdom”.

    As for winning an argument… my goodness I left that long ago but I am happy to post information that upsets some peope and in some cases adopt that position for the purposes of debate. Essentially, however, I think a free society should scrutinise very carefully the “mainstream” doctrines of governments, institutions and industries.

    As to conspiacies, Gore Vidal once said America runs on conspiracies, what is a political party if not a onspiracy?

    Anyway I will leave it there and bid you all well.

  125. Take it easy, Clark. See you when you get back.

  126. Scouse Billy

    26 Sep, 2012 - 4:12 pm

    Actually, Clark, it was Ben prefacing his departure with “Sorry,” that gave rise to my tongue in cheek reference to narcissism – see the “nuance”? ;)

  127. Scouse Billy, thank you so much for recommending a killer to “treat” my oldest friend.




    Wikipedia in Italian:


    Google translation:

    “Tullio Simoncini is a former doctor struck off by the Medical and convicted by final [1] for fraud and manslaughter. It has also been condemned by the Antitrust Authority for misleading advertising and unfair commercial practice with a fine of € 50,000 and a ban on continuing to publicize its activities by any means [2].”

    With 33 thirty three references.

    Are you going to apologise, Scouse Billy?
    Are you going to mend your ways and in future check on the things you claim to be factual?

  128. Sunflower,

    What do you think of all this? Do you believe that crappy film that Scouse Billy linked to, or do you think I could be right, and it’s full of nonsense? Which of us do you consider more trustworthy?

  129. I want to raise another issue now. When I got angry, people told me to calm down or get away from this blog.

    Anger is one of the human emotions and it is as important as any of the others. It is not, as so many Hippy / New Age idiots maintain, a “negative” emotion. It is part of our evolutionary heritage. It evolved because it helps us to survive and prosper. It is a protection system and a deterrent.

    My anger today was entirely justifiable. It was right and proper. Anger is there to deter abuse, dishonesty, etc.

    So lets have a little poll. Who thinks Billy should apologise to me? Who thinks I should apologise to Billy for getting angry at him? Possible answers include one, the other, both, and neither. If you choose “both”, who should apologise first?

  130. Clark: Don’t be daft. SB is wannabe cult leader – he’s not going to admit to having ever, in his life, having as much as put on an odd pair of socks, let alone posted something factually incorrect.

    Whatever the less rationally based posters (like Zoologist) might think, we’ve proved what’s necessary on this thread. It’s been a tough ride, but if we don’t know where we respectively stand at the end of it, we never will.

    The Only thing Scouse Bully could do to really cap it off, is to insist smoking is totally ok, lung cancer has nothing to do with tobacco, and the tobacco industry is a desperately persecuted scapegoat for general atmospheric pollution, while they’re marketing a perfectly safe product.

  131. Ben Franklin

    27 Sep, 2012 - 2:40 am

    Billy has already revealed himself. He gets off on pissing folks off. His apology will accomplish nothing. You have nothing to apologize for Clark. He will disappear as soon as the attention he craves is withdrawn.


  132. Ben Franklin: Do you think that’s all there is to it? Attention seeking, such as a particularly whiny infant, or a not very bright kind who just has to be obstinate to get attention?

    Just in case the point isn’t obvious here – no apologies are needed from you, Clark, and SB is not capable of producing one.

  133. Ben Franklin

    27 Sep, 2012 - 3:07 am

    Glenn; “Attention seeking, such as a particularly whiny infant, or a not very bright kind who just has to be obstinate to get attention?”


  134. @Clark – “Anger is one of the human emotions and it is as important as any of the others … It evolved because it helps us to survive and prosper.”

    Quite true. Isn’t it amazing how clueless people are about the origins and function of emotions? I think the problem is related to our inability to come to terms with the truth of our animal heritage and survival and reproduction as the primary evolutionary drivers. Emotions seem to be divided into two types – attractive (positive) and repelling (negative). And for each emotion, there seems to be an opposite.

    Anger is an emotion that overcomes fear. It is negative in the sense that it drives us to violently reject or attack that thing that we fear, be it a natural threat like a bear or an abstract threat like an odious ideology. In this case, Clark is simultaneously afraid of the damage caused by the spread of fraudulent medical treatments, and also of sounding abusive on a blog where he encourages intelligent debate. Anger overcomes these fears.

    Hatred is also an emotion, the opposite of love. It is also a negative one in the sense that it causes us to stay away from and shun anything that we distrust as being harmful. We hate bad people, bad habits, bad places and bad ideas. Yet those who practice political correctness are now attacking us for having these negative emotions as if they are unnatural faults. I say fuck those PC wankers. All emotions are natural and vital to motivate us. Without emotions, there is no drive to do anything.  But they do need to be kept in check by the rational mind.

    As for the subject of apologies, does anyone really want a forced apology? Or do they seek someone’s humiliation?

  135. Jemand, absolutely, I seek Scouse Billy’s humiliation. Should I not? His arrogance is… I’m missing a superlative. Billy needs to come down a peg or several. He needs to understand, to stand beneath. He needs to understand something, anything. He currently estimates his opinions to be above just about everyone else’s. Humility is indeed called for, on Billy’s part. I’m actually doing him a favour.

  136. Billy posted:

    “Lady doctor refuses surgery, chemo and radiation – why?”

    When it is pointed out that she had the cancer cut out, he ignores this and returns:

    “NOW the important bit is where she reveals that chemotherapy causes cancer and that “the patients don’t know that but the doctors do”.

    She does not “reveal” that; she merely asserts it. But Billy continues:

    “Try getting your facts right”

    Who? Me? Billy gets nothing wrong:

    “right near the start explains that you cannot cut cancer out because the underlying cause remains”

    Explanation? No, just more assertion. But Billy is all for it. then Billy posted this:

    The only reason I posted the testimony of a patient of Dr Simoncini earlier, was because he has claimed “99% success” in breast cancer treatment. I think he has an interesting paradigm and extraordinary claims – and remember he is a qualified oncologist that was distressed by the abject failure of conventional tratments in the paediatric-oncology ward where he watched children suffering and dying.

    when five minutes with Google would have demolished every claim in that paragraph.

    I seriously believe that apologising would do Billy good. That’s why we have apology, like we have anger.

  137. @Clark

    There’s no good that can come from trying to force something from Billy. He’s not the same kind of internet bunny as Goran, or Goran’s legion of fans. Billy is a fruit fly trapped in a bubble of self-delusion. May I suggest the best kind of approach is a low energy response including sometimes ignoring him. I’m not sure how many visitors here would actually be influenced by his peddling of junk ideas. And the more energy that you spend on Billy, the less energy you have to spend on slapping down trolls who DO have influence.

    I recommend seeing the Oliver Stone film ‘Talk Radio’ to put things in perspective.

  138. @Clark “What do you think of all this? Do you believe that crappy film that Scouse Billy linked to, or do you think I could be right, and it’s full of nonsense? Which of us do you consider more trustworthy?”

    Going to make two posts in my answer to you. The first is a quote by Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits:

    Look at the word responsibility — “response-ability” — the ability to choose your response. Highly proactive people recognize that responsibility.

    They do not blame circumstances, conditions, or conditioning for their behavior. Their behavior is a product of their own conscious choice, based on values, rather than a product of their conditions, based on feeling.

    Because we are, by nature, proactive, if our lives are a function of conditioning and conditions, it is because we have, by conscious decision or by default, chosen to empower those things to control us.

    In making such a choice, we become reactive. Reactive people are often affected by their physical environment. If the weather is good, they feel good. If it isn’t, it affects their attitude and their performance. Proactive people can carry their own weather with them. Whether it rains or shines makes no difference to them. They are value driven; and if their value is to produce good quality work, it isn’t a function of whether the weather is conducive to it or not.

    Reactive people are also affected by their social environment, by the “social weather.” When people treat them well, they feel well; when people don’t, they become defensive or protective. Reactive people build their emotional lives around the behavior of others, empowering the weaknesses of other people to control them.

    The ability to subordinate an impulse to a value is the essence of the proactive person. Reactive people are driven by feelings, by circumstances, by conditions, by their environment. Proactive people are driven by values — carefully thought about, selected and internalized values.

  139. @Clark “What do you think of all this? Do you believe that crappy film that Scouse Billy linked to, or do you think I could be right, and it’s full of nonsense? Which of us do you consider more trustworthy?”

    You may have a strong position against the content of the video a “crappy film” as you say. On the other hand you recognise that there are lots of stuff “out there” that science cannot explain through the reductionist empiric process -even a higher power or God, and consciousness.

    The film relates to the concept of Free Energy and gives examples of people exploring the field, some of them are documented brilliant minds.

    My understanding is that there are two issues here, one is that the concept of free energy collides with your academic understanding of energy and the other is that you basically don’t like ScouseBilly. I think those two should be separated.

    The first issue, the film about free energy, I thought it was an informative and interesting film. It doesn’t claim to prove anything, it shows that people are working in the field and it states some have more success in the area than others, I believe that. In principle I absolutely believe there is free energy to be tapped out of the creation if we could understand how to do it.

    Second issue, you don’t like ScouseBilly, somehow he makes you angry by his way of expression and the view he represents. In this case refer to my previous post, you are response-able, you can choose how you react to that.

    In this context, ScouseBilly has the upper hand and you and your “supporters” who don’t like ScouseBilly because of the view he holds, come across as small-minded and disrespectful. If this is about arrogant and inconsiderate use of words ScouseBilly is definitely not unique.

    Apology is only defeat for small-minded persons, you do not loose anything by apologising, you win. If I would be you I’d jump on the opportunity to show who is the “greater person”. Not that this is a contest in anyway, but for my own sake.

  140. Anger may be natural, but it is the “all-devouring sinful enemy of this world”.

    The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: It is lust only, Arjuna, which is born of contact with the material mode of passion and later transformed into wrath, and which is the all-devouring sinful enemy of this world.

  141. Regarding the Tesla Zero Point Energy film, I watched half of it last night. So far, it’s a round-up of ideas, but doesn’t present them in sufficient detail to assess them, and in any case I don’t think it is trying to prove anything. I’d estimate the documentary was done around 1997 – so it would be quite out of date. At worst, it is interesting – the (mainly hobbyist) inventors featured genuinely believe they’re solving the world’s energy problems, and they’re brave for trying (I wonder if Edison and Bell were regarded as crackpot in their time!).

    One of the topics the film is unclear on is whether energy is being created. Many references are made to “creating more energy than is supplied”, but the subtext of these “open” systems is that they are harnessing the energy in the air, and so don’t necessarily violate the laws of thermodynamics.

    I made some notes on the first half – if only to give you an idea of whether you want to invest the time watching it. I don’t expect the second half will be more persuasive, but I may give it a go if I get the time.


    Free Energy – The Race to Zero Point (hosted by Bill Jenkins)

    Atomic energy. What new physics is calling the Quantum Vacuum Flux.

    Standard energy will run out by 2025.

    Tesla wanted to transmit power without wires – to ships at sea – Wardencliffe Tower. Project scuttled by JP Morgan, who wanted to lay copper cables for electrical transmission. His papers were seized by the US govt when he died.

    Faraday and Maxwell set up the basis of the science.

    “N machine” from Bruce de Palma and Para Mahamsad Toohari’s [spell?] “Space Power Generator”. “Repeated experiments have detected anomalous electrical outputs greater than that used to rotate the disk but friction and voltage limitations have hampered efficiency, and therefore widespread acceptance”.

    ZPF/ZPE is very hard to measure, since energy is going in all directions at all times. Bringing “aether” theories back into vogue.

    Lamb Shift in quantum mechanics – given Nobel prize. Casamir Effect. Raw energy in a cubic cm – if you could take the raw energy inside it and condense it into mass, you would have more observable mass result from that than our largest telescope can see in the observable universe.

    Moray Valve to detect space energy in the 1920s. Radiant energy device ran for days and put out 50KW of energy. No-one could explain how it worked.

    Moray and his family were threatened, shot at, his lab ransacked, and his equipment destroyed by his assistant, a Communist sympathiser who was frustrated that Moray would not let him take the technology to Russia.

    Schauberger 1930s. Harnessing the spiralling of the atom. Duped into passing the rights of his ideas over to US interests, none of his ideas were manufactured, and he died a broken man.

    Walter Russell, revised period table.

    A variation of the electrostatic Wimshurst device, is the Testatica, developed in a small Swedish Christian community in the 70s, supplying power for more than 20 years. Many technical experts have come away stumped, but the community thinks the world is not spiritually prepared for it, and won’t release the design.

    Electrogrivitics. High voltages (20-200KV) used to make capacitors float. US army planes using this technology in the Cold War to assist plane propulsion.

    Over-unity systems [i.e. devices that give out more energy than they consume] is perfectly legitimate physics. Most scientists aren’t aware that the ZPE exists, since most scientists are not physicists. Science is too fragmented to spot it.

    No more confusing than a windmill or a waterwheel. Mention of “Consciousness/sacred” physics [29:40].

    Inertial Propulsion, a badly balanced rotating energy that wobbles in a box to create propulsion. 20 times more efficient than jet engines. Demo powering a canoe in a swimming pool. Difficult to commercialise. Finds it difficult to get investment, even with a patent.

    1996. Convert plasma discharge into electricity. GEET Fuel Processor, runs on water with a little crude to prime the engine. Runs 8.5 hours/day. Never needs cleaning. Fitted into car – 300% efficiency. Trebles car’s 20mpg to 60. Transmutation of elements? they are not entirely sure how it works.

    Initially rejected by many US companies, but they are looking into it again.

    Cold fusion in a bottle, in Utah. Initially widely debunked, but was widely replicated around the world. More energy out than in. US Dept of Energy masterminded a panel of biases experts who unfairly evaluated it. Up to 1KW power output from 1W in. Cells carry on generating for 14 hours after they have been switched off.

    As a result of cold fusion: transmutation of heavy metals. Production of copper and rhodium. Confirmed with minimal energy input – similar to old claims of the alchemists, now being done in labs. May be able to create precious metals, or make radioactive materials non-active.

    US Energy companies now very interested in cold fusion conferences. The technology will make the power grid disappear.

    (Reel 2)

    Newman. Status quo power brokers have been fighting [against it]. Meters show that the device is creating more “RF power” than the batteries themselves are capable of producing. Scientists have signed affidavits to say the invention works.

  142. I’m posting this “blind”, in that I have not read the comments after my last submission in the early hours of the morning, in which, if I remember rightly, I stated that I did indeed wish for Scouse Billy’s humiliation. To reiterate with more clarity, if Billy cannot develop humility spontaneously, humiliation of him seems appropriate to me.

    I’m posting “blind” because upon waking, I realised that I’d got something wrong. I wrote:

    “when five minutes with Google would have demolished every claim in that paragraph.”

    This was wrong and I therefore admit my error. Simoncini probably does claim “99% success”, and Scouse Billy quoted this claim. My investigations also took considerably longer than five minutes. I apologise for my overstatement.

    I have been looking into Lorraine Day. This video gives some idea :


    Lorraine Day spouts Illuminati conspiracy theory and religious creationism. She says that humans were “placed in the Garden of Eden by God who designed them to live forever”. The Report from Iron Mountain which she cites as evidence was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the “Most Successful Literary Hoax”. She is married to William E. Dannemeyer, a US Republican politician. From Wikipedia:

    “In November 1978 he was elected as a Republican to the U.S. House of Representatives, and returned for six additional terms. He accumulated a strongly conservative record on the Budget, Judiciary, and Energy and Commerce Committees, supporting legislation to suppress illegal immigration, restrict telephone sex lines, and criminalise flag desecration.

    He attempted to block federal funding of evolution-related exhibits at the Smithsonian Institution in 1982, and pushed for easing the separation of church and state. On fiscal issues, he advocated budget cuts in social programs, renegotiation of the national debt, tax reduction, and deregulation. He was the lead Republican sponsor of the 1985 deregulation of natural gas prices.”
    Dannemeyer believes that Jews are trying to take over the world, or according to his website, “The main goal of the Zionist Jews and their New World Order is exactly the same as it was when Jesus was on earth – to exterminate Christ – and His followers!” His article is linked to by his wife’s website, Lorraine Day, who openly states that the Holocaust is a plan by Jews “to destroy all nations, control the entire world, slaughter most of the population of the earth, and reduce the rest to slaves.”

    So we are back to the topic of global heating denial (ie. US gas prices), and (coincidentally?) we find it associated with the US Religious Right, and funnily enough, hatred of Jews.

    I fully expect that Lorraine Day is simply a liar, and that she has had expensive and extensive private cancer treatment and is simply lying about it. I expect that her personal appearance is likewise maintained by expensive “therapies”.

    Interestingly, Lorraine Day advises us to purge ourselves of all anger, because it “eats us up” and “gives us cancer”. Nothing to do with rich republicans preferring a docile population, then. Throughout history, populations have wrested power from rulers through acts of disobedience and revolution, and obviously, people’s anger at injustice has been an important motivator in these struggles for justice.


    Scouse Billy, are you a Christian? Do you believe that the Bible is literally the “Word of God”? Do you believe in the biblical story of creation? And do you hate Jews? If not, maybe you should disassociate yourself from this nonsense.

  143. I’m off for a walk now. I still haven’t checked for new comments and I’ll review this thread later.

  144. Ben Franklin

    27 Sep, 2012 - 5:06 pm

    There should be a pic of you in the dictionary next to ‘persistent’, Clark.

  145. It’s surprised me since childhood, that the right/left divide will separate points of view so consistently. Throw out any given issue, particularly one that has no obvious ideological leaning, and people will fall cleanly to one side or the other, consistent with their preferred party’s line. Why is that? Because their party has chosen where their interests lie (for the right – does this benefit the rich? Will big business approve of it?), and starts pumping the message on down?

    Outfits like Fox “news”, The Sun and so on are brilliant at turning moneyed interests into a cause that champions the little guy, everyday folk. They can turn around a news item so quickly, the narrative is suddenly Big, Bad Government screwing the ordinary fellow. And leave out entirely how profitable the favoured position enriches the investor class.

    They’ve been working on this for years when it comes to GCC – everything is at stake, if by “everything” we’re talking about short term profit. We’ve been hit up on this thread very hard by their stooges and useful idiots.

    Before the subject moves on to medical science (in the general rejection of all science), it’s worth noting how paltry the GCC deniers’ case actually was. A bogus petition. Various shams and baseless assertions. Smears of institutions, individual scientists, and – in desperation – the very notion of science itself. Vague and half-baked paranoia about the UN, population control, and that old standby – a one-world takeover. Far better designed for ignorant, racist, terrified xenophobes in the US than in more civilised parts.

    The inability of “sceptics” to answer direct questions, or frankly to dialogue at all in a meaningful way on subject. The more serious the matter at hand, the more studiously it is ignored. Proof by repeated assertion.

    Yet in all meaningful aspects of life – using technology, respecting physics and engineers to keep cars, trains and planes operating as they should – science is understood to be as real as the air we breathe. Science only becomes all wooly and corrupt when there’s a politically inconvenient conclusion. Such as the reality of man-made GCC.

  146. “the very notion of science itself”

    Trust issues abound. Even formerly trusted NEWS orgs have been assaulted, and, at times guilty of the sin of fudging, or omitting data. So we came out with Fact-Checkers, and now they are verklempt. Polls are currently in vogue as punching bags. So where do we turn for accuracy and efficacy? Hell if I know.

  147. Sunflower, I see that you have posted a moral lesson for me, while you have ignored Scouse Billy and his promotion of potentially lethal procedures. Maybe anger scares you so much that you react against it reflexively. Maybe you should post a little criticism of Jesus of Nazereth because he threw over the tables of the money-changers in the temple. Or maybe your New Age “philosophy” merely serves to make you feel very pure.

    Your point has some validity. It is pointless and harmful to hang on to anger. However, when anger flows for an appropriate cause, it is a force for good in this world. It is a motivator. It does need to be properly channelled and directed, of course. That Billy is keeping out of range indicates his cowardice.

    Ben, what we have to help us to find truth amid the lies and distortions is logic and consistency, observation over time, and honest communication across community. Sunflower seems to think that people like me are setting ourselves in the place of God. However, I believe that I stand beneath reason and observation (in the personal and community senses). Regarding observation, we have to become aware of our interpretive processes so that we can adjust for our biases and prejudices. I think this is called “right seeing” in some Buddhist teachings.

  148. The Illuminati depopulation conspiracy is utterly stupid. The elites of this world are pleased to have teaming hordes of people, because they serve as workers and as a market. The elites are happy for a large number to be unemployed, too, as their suffering serves to scare the employed into compliance.

  149. Sunflower wrote – “In this context, ScouseBilly has the upper hand and you and your “supporters” who don’t like ScouseBilly because of the view he holds, come across as small-minded and disrespectful. If this is about arrogant and inconsiderate use of words ScouseBilly is definitely not unique”

    ….yep,that just about sums it up

  150. Ben Franklin

    28 Sep, 2012 - 1:49 am

    Clark; In keeping with the George Carlin Cultism are his words, paraphrased;

    “The Rich only keep the Poor around to scare the living shite out of the Middle-Classes.”

  151. Sunflower, poor stuff from you.

    “the film about free energy, I thought it was an informative and interesting film.”

    I watched half an hour or so. I noted several points of distortion and deception, to create sensationalism. If I find the time, I shall watch it again and write them out for you.

    Do you really think I should respect this sort of thing? When The Sun newspaper slandered the Liverpool fans by blaming them for the Hillsborough disaster, do you think I should have “respected” this as a valid point of view? Lies are lies.

    “you don’t like ScouseBilly, somehow he makes you angry by his way of expression and the view he represents. In this case refer to my previous post, you are response-able, you can choose how you react to that.”

    I don’t know Scouse Billy, except for the words I see here. I don’t like lies, and I disapprove of people re-transmitting lies, especially ones that can be fatal. But you defend it and moralise at me.

    “In this context, ScouseBilly has the upper hand and you and your “supporters” who don’t like ScouseBilly because of the view he holds, come across as small-minded and disrespectful. If this is about arrogant and inconsiderate use of words ScouseBilly is definitely not unique.”

    No, it is not about “use of words”, it is about re-transmitting potentially fatal lies, and not having enough respect for other readers to fact-check before re-transmitting.

    “Apology is only defeat for small-minded persons, you do not loose anything by apologising, you win. If I would be you I’d jump on the opportunity to show who is the “greater person”. Not that this is a contest in anyway, but for my own sake.”

    Yes. I am offering Scouse Billy the opportunity to become a greater person. So far, he prefers to protect his precious ego by hiding.

    Incidentally, your own contradictions are showing; you say “Not that this is a contest in anyway”, and yet you advise me how to win. How you think you would win.

  152. Chris Jones: Yup, that about sums it up – if and only if you were a lazy, partisan hack who’d already made up their mind, while giving it the one-glance over. And was utterly shameless in knowingly bringing about such a willful deception too.

    But you’re here to visit the whole thing again, as an innocent, interested bystander who’s just interested in the truth – again – right? Are you ready to put down your two or three points (for the newcomer), as if they’d never already been discussed?

  153. Chris Jones, did you not check my links, or did you disbelieve them? Scouse Billy tried to “help” me by advertising the services of a fake “doctor” who performs at best useless and at worst lethal procedures, and charges lots of money. How can you defend that fake doctor, and why do you defend Scouse Billy when he promotes it?

    If your lover had a headache, and I said to go to a “doctor” who would shoot a magic bullet through his or her head, would you respect that?

  154. Ben, you’re keeping me sane. This really is bat country. Glad I’m not tripping…

  155. Sunflower, you also wrote this:

    The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: It is lust only, Arjuna, which is born of contact with the material mode of passion and later transformed into wrath, and which is the all-devouring sinful enemy of this world.”

    Inscribed on a stone tablet or something, was it? Or was it written by a human?

  156. Ben Franklin

    28 Sep, 2012 - 2:16 am

    Clark; I have NO idea why Wiki lists Oscar Ocosta as ‘Narrator’, but this is the reference;

    Narrator: We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something like:

    Raoul Duke: I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.

    Narrator: Suddenly, there was a terrible roar all around us, and the sky was full with what looked like huge bats, all swooping and screeching and diving around the car, and a voice was screaming:

    Narrator and Raoul Duke (simultaneously): Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?!
    Dr. Gonzo: Did you say something?

    Raoul Duke: Hm? Never mind. It’s your turn to drive.

    Narrator: No point in mentioning these bats, I thought. Poor bastard will see them soon enough.

  157. Ben, I don’t have a copy here, so I can’t look to see if Oscar Ocosta is mentioned. I don’t remember it, but it’s a difficult sort of book to recall details from. Sorta mind-bending.

    The police convention. Chris Jones and Sunflower turning into alligators. “No! Keep that child away from those monsters!”

  158. Ben Franklin

    28 Sep, 2012 - 2:25 am

    Mind-bending…that sounds about right :+)

  159. These crazies would have me send my oldest friend to have bicarb syringed into her breast, so that I show appropriate “respect” for non-“academic” ideas.

    When I was a child, I would have argued against having a blood transfusion, because I’d been brainwashed for most of my life to think that blood transfusions made God really upset.

    FFS, why should God give a damn about that?

    At least drugs wear off…

  160. Ben Franklin

    28 Sep, 2012 - 2:32 am

    sorry. Oscar Acosta, which was a pseudonym to protect the intemperate attorney.

  161. For the benefit of any bewildered readers, Ben and I are both fans of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, a Savage Journey into the Heart of the American Dream, by Hunter S Thompson, illustrated by Ralph Steadman.


    The corruption of the American Dream of liberty and equality into fake medicine and religious mind-control has certainly been showing itself on this thread, paradoxically enough in non-Americans.

  162. You know, this bit by SB: “NOW the important bit is where she reveals that chemotherapy causes cancer and that “the patients don’t know that but the doctors do”. “ really chaffs my arse.

    My old lady works in the medical profession, leaning towards the care and treatment of children in particular. Always has done. She hates me mentioning anything about her in public, which is why I stay largely anonymous. She got a first in her degree. Her masters is in health promotion – breast, skin and bowel cancer in particular. She’s worked in all aspects from theatre, to initial consultation and follow-up, to nursing care, to play therapy for children, and on and on.

    The very idea that she’s all part of some massive scam to visit harm on women & children in particular, so they can die through avoidable cancers while getting abused with needless and terrible radiation/chemo etc., is not just silly.

    The idea is utterly outrageous, it can only come from a complete detachment from the real world. If that makes you think I’m “disrespectful”, Sunflower, because I won’t agree that my old lady IS in on such a scam – I have two words. Screw You.

  163. Ben Franklin

    28 Sep, 2012 - 2:44 am

    Clark; I sense we will bore everyone with this American cult fragging. We’re still Colonial, after all.

  164. Ben, US foreign policy perpetrates some disgusting abuse upon the rest of the world. But so does British, European, Australian, Chinese etc. etc. foreign policy.

    From the US has come all sorts of high culture, literature, art, concepts of law, you name it. People everywhere are a mixture. And each person, internally is a mixture, and always will be.

    I’m going to argue harder in future against knee-jerk anti-Americanism.

  165. Ben Franklin

    28 Sep, 2012 - 2:58 am

    It’s cool. No need to intervene. They will see it themselves, eventually.

  166. Glenn, too right. It is disgusting that these people slander the caring professions so. Doctors, nurses, scientists, teachers; they’re all in on it, these idiots tell us. We must love fraudsters and respect their lies.

    {expletive deleted}

  167. Clark – i think you’ll find Scouse Billy was trying to be of help. That and expressing an opinion.

    Regarding your comment of:

    “The Illuminati depopulation conspiracy is utterly stupid. The elites of this world are pleased to have teaming hordes of people, because they serve as workers and as a market. The elites are happy for a large number to be unemployed, too, as their suffering serves to scare the employed into compliance”

    …The great caring elites of this world think of you as an useless eater Clark,a vermin. In this new technotronic and scientific era (read Brzezinski for more on this), there will soon be no need for ‘the workers’ – technology and science will eventually take the place of that outmoded idea. Think about that as you witness the gradual de-industrialisation of the developed countries in favour of the lower waged developing and BRIC countries for short term profit and exploitation. What will everybody left in the developing world do Clark,work for Wikepedia? Voluntary euthanasia will probably be the kindest option..

    Those good old Rhodes Milner group ey – what a dandy bunch of chaps

  168. Bed time for me. Goodnight Ben, from all the way across the Atlantic. Goodnight Glenn. Thank you both for your support.

    Here’s to critical thinking and research.

  169. Ben Franklin

    28 Sep, 2012 - 3:04 am

    G’nite Clark, et al..,

  170. Chris,

    “Scouse Billy was trying to be of help”

    I already mentioned that, a few times. Blasting out opinions without checking is arrogant and self-centred. Billy owes me an apology, just like if I directed you towards random nonsense, and it turned out to be harmful because I hadn’t bothered to check.

    Haven’t you seen those TV sketches? “You don’t want to do it like that! Here, do it like this!


    The next line should be “Sorry”.

  171. What can I say, you were asking for clarification, I tried to give some from my POW. You and others come back with the sentiment “screw you”.

    I’m not trying to impose anything on you, basically “if the shoe fits, wear it” otherwise discard it.

    Your religion of the reductionist mechanical view of the world is no different from my religion that there is a transcendent cause to the creation. Both are based on faith. You believe in scientists and I believe in God.

    The crucial point is not on what medium the doctrine is written, it’s what is says.

    Whatever method of remedy your friend applies to mitigate her decease there is no guaranteed outcome, you know that. I’m sorry if I upset you, that was not my intention.

  172. Sunflower, I am not Glenn; you seem to have amalgamated us somehow. But I’m sorry he was rude to you. Supporting a theory that the vast majority of medical staff are either evil conspirators or unwitting dupes abusing and eventually murdering their patients is far more offensive to him, I would say. Where does your “religion” stand on fraud? On lying? On transmitting falsehood inadvertently?

    Sunflower, do you accept dualism, that mind and matter are separate? This was what Descartes proposed. Do you also believe that all is one? You can read some of what I think here:


  173. Sunflower, what is a POW?

    “Your religion of the reductionist mechanical view of the world is no different from my religion that there is a transcendent cause to the creation. Both are based on faith. You believe in scientists and I believe in God.”

    Please think again. Some more about what you might call my “spiritual” outlook is here:


    Sunflower, have you ever asked yourself if it is possible for individuals to exist in the realm of spirit? What would mediate their free will?

  174. Sunflower, there is a huge difference that you haven’t recognised. Religions are belief systems. The endeavour of science is a disbelief system. If you do not know what I mean, ask questions, and I shall try to explain.

  175. Ben, I think I may be getting an inkling if what has gone wrong. The original Hippy movement, those Flower Children of peace, who put themselves in the path of police bullets to protest about the US war on Vietnam; that movement grew into this “New Age” stuff. But the New Ager’s reject the Hippy sacrament and its ritual: the psychedelic experience.

  176. Chris Jones, the other mistake you are making about the elite is that they are a cosy club, that they’re happy to exploit all the ordinary people, but when it comes to each other, they always cooperate and are totally open and honest with each other.

    What inner motives do you suppose drive the elites to exploit and enslave ordinary people? Remember, these elites accumulate wealth and power vastly beyond the point of satisfying their every physical and social need or want.

    The masses form an important part of the elite individuals power base. Yes, individual members of the elite may cooperate when it suits them. But do you think for one minute that one of them wouldn’t take another’s power and wealth if they got the chance?

    So by what means do you think each would use to protect and increase their personal empire? Answer: by any means available. Technology is just one aspect of those means. Another is a compliant and obedient population.

    A member of the elite may well wish to depopulate the sphere of another member of the elite, but he would be damn stupid to depopulate his own. Where would his cannon-fodder come from? Who would tend his machines of war?

    What do the elite do when the people show signs of organising and cooperating against the elite? Well, they exaggerate ideological differences so that they can send their populations into war against each other. And that is exactly what we see Lorraine Day and her husband doing:

    ““The main goal of the Zionist Jews and their New World Order is exactly the same as it was when Jesus was on earth – to exterminate Christ – and His followers!” His article is linked to by his wife’s website, Lorraine Day, who openly states that the Holocaust is a plan by Jews “to destroy all nations, control the entire world, slaughter most of the population of the earth, and reduce the rest to slaves.””

  177. Scouse Billy

    28 Sep, 2012 - 1:11 pm

    Of course, the use of sodium bicarbonate is widely used in oncology as a buffering agent. Recently the University of Arizona received $2m from the National Institute of Health to further investigate the role of bicarbonate in cancer treatment (they have been running a program for the last 10 years).


    But Clark has the forensic tools of Google and Wikipedia at his disposal so he echoes their ridicule.

    As for Lorraine Day – she successfully recovered from breast cancer without the orthodox protocols because she, as a renowned orthopaedic surgeon, had “insider knowledge”.

    Whatever her husband’s political position or her other views, I see as utterly irrelevant with regard to the above. They do seem to have elicited prejudice from Clark.

    Well that’s your problem, Clark, not mine.

    And you seem to think I have something to apologise for – are you suggesting I am guilty of thought crime by expression?

    Good grief :)

  178. Scouse Billy, this would seem to be an abstract from a related research paper:


  179. Billy, Lorraine Day is a very dangerous person. You only need to check out her website to see that. Or do you approve of that sort of thing?

    Looking into her story more, it would appear that she has undergone some degree of excision more than once. But I see no more reason to trust what she tells us about her cancer treatment than the sort of lies she publishes on her website. Why do you?

  180. Scouse Billy, I want you to know that I find this very distressing.

    Please tell me how you feel about it.

  181. Billy, I feel angry, and slightly physically sick. I feel like I wish to self-harm.

    Please tell me your emotional feelings. We are not face-to-face, so the only way to judge our human interaction is through honest reporting of our feelings.

  182. Scouse Billy

    28 Sep, 2012 - 2:37 pm

    I am sorry, Clark but I am not emotionally involved which you clearly are.

    From the article I linked to, I think this passage is relevant:

    “There are no real medical precedents to draw on when it comes to the use of sodium bicarbonate; it is that useful, safe and effective for a wide range of illnesses. But it seems that much of the medical debate over its use has more to do with illogical thought processes than reality, that is at least what sociologists are finding or saying in the public debate about universal health care. People often work backward from a firm conclusion to find supporting facts, rather than letting evidence inform their views.

    A totally rational person would lay out – and evaluate objectively – the pros and cons of sodium bicarbonate and its use in cancer treatment but even the best professionals get attached to their beliefs. We form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in our personal identity and sense of medicine and health irrespective of the facts of the matter making our theories more potent than pragmatic answers.

    Just about everybody is vulnerable to the phenomenon of holding onto our beliefs even in the face of evidence to the contrary. It is a challenge to reevaluate world views and medical belief systems but we have to do it to continue to be of service to our patients. Patients depend on us to offer the latest and the best information. Our egos do get in the way though, and some doctors are known for their great egos.

    No matter what your ego says, the world of fungi and all the problems they bring are important in medicine and only irresponsible practitioners will ignore them. Sodium bicarbonate’s action dramatically changes the intracellular environment and this is wonderful when conditions are acidic.

    Its action is, for all intent and purpose, instant and as a cancer treatment one course runs about two weeks. Some people are able to kick cancer off their back in one round though we can well see that for many it will be several rounds or constant rounds and of course maintenance rounds. In the end bicarbonate is not a healthy alternative or substitute for a alkaline diet and good alkaline water.

    Sodium bicarbonate – that simple white stuff called baking soda we can buy in any supermarket in the world is a world class anti-fungal. You want to punch a late stage infection of any kind in the face use bicarbonate. You want to wipe out fungal, yeast or mold colonies baking soda is your number one bet and every good doctor knows this. If we are not good we can make ourselves good fungi fighters with bicarbonate in our hand and that is exactly what Dr. Simoncini does with the stuff. He uses it like a fire extinguisher spraying tumors as well as he can with it as directly as he can, though when used orally and transdermally it reaches cancers in all parts of the body through systemic effect.

    Traditional anti-fungal drugs are ineffective in treating tumors because the solid colonies can be attacked only on the surface of their volume, and after the first administrations they become resistant. A solid tumor with fungal infection is powerful and they resist attack and adapt quite readily to pharmaceutical drugs. After all fungi love to chew on rocks and they eat mercury for breakfast so you got to hit them correctly in a all out frontal attack with sodium bicarbonate.

    Dr. Simoncini is the medical genius who has identified the substances uniquely able to penetrate these volumetric tumors: for cancer of the internal organs it is sodium bicarbonate; and the best substance to eliminate skin cancer is iodine when it is spread onto the growth. Other doctors use iodine internally in high doses and this does have the same effect on internal cancers. Combine with bicarbonate and we have two panzer divisions we are letting loose to mop up cancer no matter where we find it in the body.

    Bicarbonate, when used in conjunction with other equally safe substances, can form the basis for a natural chemotherapy, which will prove itself in the end compared to vastly more toxic interventions. Everyone knows in their gut the horrors that await those who travel down the chemo, surgery and radiation roads. Why travel down these pits to hell when safer, vastly more inexpensive, natural and potentially highly effective answers like sodium bicarbonate are there on the supermarket shelves for the taking?”

    I really hope your friend does recover whichever route she chooses.

  183. Clark – its quite simple: its down to money and power (and a hefty dose of extreme racist superiority doctrine) There may even be a misguided element of trying to do what’s best for humanity and the world in there.Yes – there is inner competition between various competing factions and yes they are rather good at exaggerating the ideological differences of the plebs and sending us all into wars against each other.

    I’m sure you’ve come accross him before but have an open minded listen to what this guy has to say.He has one of the most messy websites around but that shouldnt matter in this case http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/

  184. Scouse Billy, how do you feel when engaging in this argument. You don’t turn into Mr Spock, you must feel something.

    Billy, that is not any kind of research article. We must exercise responsibility when we’re evaluating life-and-death choices.

  185. I am currently writing up my complaints about the “Free Energy” video. I’ve taken about an hour to get to 07:35, and I have eight problems with it already.

  186. 1:43 “Theoretically and mathematically proven” – this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

    2:20 “Our finite reserves of oil and gas will be completely exhausted by 2025…” – even standard “peak oil” theory projects a one century decline.

    05:30 “Tesla was well on his way to transmitting electricity without wires…” Evidence? There’s plenty that it can’t work.

    06:00 “Tesla.. In harmony with nature… Conflicted…” Emotive over-simplification.

    06:20 “Tesla was deleted from the historical record…” But we’ve all heard of Tesla. What is “the” historical record, anyway? Wikipedia has many detailed and referenced articles about Tesla.

    06:46 Thomas Valone “J P Morgan prohibited Tesla from distributing power overseas it changed the course of history, and for 100 years we’ve been suffering under that profit motive” But I have no evidence that such transmission was possible, and plenty to believe otherwise.

    07:25 “The groundwork that would lead to free energy” Like free energy has actually been done.

    07:35 “the Earth, whose rotation around a molten metal core keeps the planet spinning…” Nothing is required to keep Earth spinning. There is hardly any friction, and the Earth has massive angular momentum.

  187. I don’t know if interventions from other (concerned) individuals will help here, but I’ll try. This topic is emotional, since it is personal, and has non-abstract consequences.

    Scouse Billy, as a non-mod, I implore you to exercise a great deal more sensitivity to Clark. You can easily see the hurt done by insisting upon your views – which give great succour to the kind of anti-science and anti-medicine choices Clark’s friend is making – but you push on regardless. Your freedom of speech is not tempered at all by appropriateness or humanity, which in turn is a cause for concern to people you affect in this blog community. It seems that you have a great psychological need to be right – and thus you are more emotionally involved than you state – and that does your various causes no good at all.

    Clark, I don’t think you’ve fully internalised how much it is not your fault that your friend is taking a crazy route. You need to work on that, in my (very humble) view. If you have the strength to do so, I would advise contacting her, and promising never to raise the subject of treatment unless she does. That way, you will both have the emotional support of the other at a difficult time, even though you’re just talking about the weather.

  188. Ben Franklin

    28 Sep, 2012 - 2:58 pm

    Clark; It is a corm of sacrament which has made into a pejorative. The one thing I am upset with Leary about is that he went rogue. If he had remained in the Establishment, and ceased with the Circus, we would have grown exponentially with it’s use in therapies, IMO. We need a bit of mass altered consciousness. That’s what the Authoritarian fears.

  189. Chris, I’ve just looked at Cutting Through the Matrix, and I can’t even find any statement that is clear enough to test for truth or falsity. Maybe you could link to a page that seems to make sense to you, and I’ll tell you what I think of it.

  190. Ben Franklin

    28 Sep, 2012 - 2:59 pm

    yegads. ‘a form of sacrament…’ .

  191. Jon, my friend may well be reading this. This is a public blog, and I’ve told her about my connection to it. Scouse Billy, Sunflower etc. could be influencing her directly.

    This is also a very popular blog. They could be influencing many other people anywhere in the world, too. Accuracy and responsibility should always be exercised. I try to never assume that I am right. Sources need to be checked, from pro- and anti- sources.

  192. Ben Franklin, I agree. The psychedelic experience is a threat to all authority, because of the direct connection to… What? There is no word for it. But the connection is undoubtedly personal.

    The suppression of substances that induce the psychedelic experience is right out there in the open. In the UK we recently had a scientific enquiry into drug prohibition. Professor Nutt was sacked, because he didn’t return the verdict of grave danger against the drugs that the government wishes to remain illegal.

    But grand conspiracy? No one has been able to hide knowledge of the existence of the substances. They just suppress its use with threats of punishment.

  193. Scouse Billy

    28 Sep, 2012 - 3:07 pm

    Clark, for goodness sake it was a documentary made in 1997 – I didn’t make it nor do I have an attachment to it – just thought it might be of interest to you.

    Shoot the messenger if you must – it’s your perogative.

    I don’t get emotionally involved it iterferes with reason and objectivity.

    btw Rupert Sheldrake does a pretty good job of questioning the dogmatic assumptions of materialist science in The Science Delusion. He spoke about this recently at The Lincoln Center, here:


    Nextus would meet his match if he came up against Sheldrake ;)

  194. Clark – scroll down to where he lists the topics of his daily radio shows and listen/download. He also has the direct links to all the areas he covers. He rationally discusses/analyses most areas covered here

  195. Scouse Billy

    28 Sep, 2012 - 3:18 pm

    Jon, I have made my views perfectly clear and will refrain from restating them but please do not suggest that they are anti-science – do you not understand the expression Nullius in Verba?

    Nobody has to take my word for anything and I don’t ask or expect that.

    But it cuts both ways – The Royal Society were right that everything should be questioned no matter how “established”.

    Empiricism would suggest that I may have a point but others should do their own research and come to their own conclusions.

    I am not asking anyone who disagrees with me to apologise or be humiliated – I take the position of Voltaire.

  196. Scouse Billy, what do you think of the way The Sun newspaper covered the Hillborough disaster? There is a messenger that should have been shot. Would you be happy with me recommending The Sun, and calling it truthful?

  197. Ben Franklin

    28 Sep, 2012 - 3:21 pm

    ” The psychedelic experience is a threat to all authority, because of the direct connection to… What?”

    Loss Of Control. They can’t monopolize production, and it’s use runs counter to the goals of Industry and Government. Mellow does not auger well for productivity.

  198. Ben Franklin

    28 Sep, 2012 - 3:23 pm

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud