Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right…
Here I am, stuck between Islam and jews!
Both of these stooges have zero self awareness. Zero! While, in the UK, you have white, christian people who side with either one of them just as they side between Labour and Conservative. I have to say (with deep regret) that such a vast majority of Brits aren’t too bright. So easily manipulated (as we also saw with “Covid”). How we ever “ruled the waves” is beyond me. Then again it’s not, because all you need is an elite class saying “Look! There’s the bogeyman!” and Brits will growl like the ‘bulldogs’ they are! Actually, probably not bulldogs, more like Pavlov’s dogs. WOOF!
If you didn’t laugh, you’d cry! Two highly delusional twats barking at each other while sharing the same, but opposing, philosophy. The clash of antisemitism and islamophobia – Two additional cheeks of the same arse. No wonder this country is full of shit!
Dr John Campbell: A case of “Wood for the trees”
You may wonder why I bother watching or listening to this man because it is excruciatingly irritating, but I do so because, with 3M subscribers on his YouTube channel, I keep wondering when he will, if ever, have the penny finally drop. He talks as if he is stunned by what he is learning while he expounds his “qualitative and quantitative” views based on “authoritative” statistics and then also speaking with “authority figures” (which they are) within the medical field, while he ignores those of us who will simply ‘remove’ the ‘trees’ and show him the ‘wood’.
Here he is speaking with Neil Oliver about the Scottish Covid inquiry and how: 1. “it makes you wonder if there is some common stimulus of these (DNR) phone calls” etc 2. He also wonders if this practice of calling or listing people for DNR was just Scotland or UK wide and 3. He calls for a “qualitative and quantitative analysis” by academics to ‘generate themes’ and try and find out if it was something which was an actual policy from ‘on high’ or not.
Well John, once more, you blether on and on and speak so ‘authoritatively’ while you STILL miss the ball while calling for studies that are entirely unnecessary!!
As I am won’t to do, during the fake Covid “pandemic”, I made copious downloads and bookmarks of a vast variety of documents and articles. Listening to this and the Scottish Covid inquiry itself, I vaguely remembered reading something @2020 regarding a POLICY of the NHS toward Do Not Resuscitate orders so there is NO NEED for a ‘study’ to be carried out! It was, in fact, a UK wide, NHS policy! However, John, you (and all your medical colleagues it seems) tend to stick to reading medical journals whereas I tend to read political ones! You regret taking the vaccine, I don’t because I didn’t take it! Not because I read medical journals but because, for the last 20 years, I’ve been reading political material of all sorts. Does that tell you anything, John? Anything at all?
So anyhow, here is the document which lays it all out clearly for you…
“NHS is being ‘protected’ from those who need protecting most by rationing treatment based on eugenic ‘guidelines“
Read it again, John! Yes it says “eugenics”, which you and so many would consider an old, out of date, dismissed political and philosophical belief which no longer applies or is practiced in our world of today, and that, my medically qualified friend, is where you all miss the ball!
Is the following spelled out clearly enough for you?…
Rationing treatment for covid-19 (from April 2020)
Rationing healthcare increased over the last few years, it has become the norm. Now, it has become very clear that treatment for covid-19 is going to be rationed. We have moved a long way from universal health care.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have already introduced guidelines for establishing treatment ‘ceilings’, based on who they think is likeliest to survive covid-19. However, we have no way of knowing in advance of treatment if someone actually will survive.
Formal guidance says GPs should “proactively complete DNAR (do not resuscitate) forms, in advance of a worsening spread of coronavirus.”
People over 80 years old and ‘high risk’ groups are now being contacted about signing the “do not attempt to resuscitate” forms. This approach is firmly embedded in coronavirus planning and provision amid concerns over a lack of intensive care beds during the worsening coronavirus crisis.
Multiple GPs have said they are talking to patients who are older or in very high risk groups about signing “do not attempt to resuscitate” forms in case these patients were to go on to contract the virus. Some practices have also sent out letters to patients requesting they complete the forms, it is understood.
One leader of a primary care network, who asked not to be named, said: “Those in the severe at-risk group and those over 80 are being told they won’t necessarily be admitted to hospital if they catch coronavirus.”
Guidance issued by the Royal College of General Practitioners last week also touched on the issue, saying: “Proactively complete ReSPECT/ DNAR forms and prescribe anticipatory medications in advance of a worsening spread of disease.”
End of life conversations cover prescribing palliative pain relief, so patients aren’t left without the ‘appropriate’ medicines.
It’s understood these conversations are also being had with people living in nursing and care homes.
Jonathan Leach, a practising GP who helped draft the guidance, told Health Service Journal (HSJ) “We have a huge role as a college [on this] as we see the volume and type of patients we should be sending into hospital and those we shouldn’t be.”
Type of patient? I wonder if I will be the type of patient that doctors will decide to treat? Or will I simply be left to die at home, because I have ‘underlying’ and comorbid conditions?
Leach continued: “If covid-19 gets into a care home because residents are mostly vulnerable, we will see a significantly greater number over a shorter period who need this type of [palliative] care. So, part of coping with that is thinking ahead [about having these conversations].”
I always thought that covid-19 gets into any place simply because of its contagion quality, not because of a particular demographic – it doesn’t have any special preferences towards care home residents because they are vulnerable. Vulnerability doesn’t invite more coronavirus infections. That’s why the prime minister, the health and social care secretary and other non-vulnerable ‘clever’ people among the government have also been infected recently.
Dr Leach called discussing DNARs with people who are not at the end of life but are older or in a high-risk group a “grey area”. He added these decisions “need to be done on a case-by-case basis” but it was “more humane” to do it in advance.
There is no humane way of telling some people that they are going to be left to die.
How can leaving someone to die because of deliberately inflicted government funding cuts, based on an artificially constructed ‘type’, be “more humane”? Leach should have met my grandmother, who, in her 90s was probably fitter and more active than he is. Yet she would have conformed to his ‘type’ of patient to be considered for a eugenics by laissez faire approach, based on just her age alone.
Recent guidance issued to hospitals said palliative care conversations with a patient’s family may have to take place remotely, and skilled palliative care teams may not have the capacity to undertake all conversations themselves.
A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association, which also co-drafted the GP work prioritisation document, said: “Considering, and where possible making, specific anticipatory decisions about whether or not to attempt CPR is part of high-quality care for any person who might be approaching the end of life or who might be at risk of cardiorespiratory arrest.”
That decision – choosing who is and who is not going to be given CPR- isn’t ‘care’, high quality or otherwise.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE) role more generally is to improve outcomes for people using the NHS and other public health and social care services.
Yet the NICE guidelines concerning treatment provision for covid-19 are founded on a distinctly eugenic rationale: ensuring the ‘survival of the fittest’ only.
A GP practice in Wales sent out a letter which recommended patients with serious illnesses complete “do not resuscitate” forms in case their health deteriorated after contracting coronavirus. Llynfi surgery, in Maesteg near Port Talbot, wrote to a “small number” of patients on Friday to ask them to complete a “DNACPR” – do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation – form to ensure that emergency services would not be called if they contracted covid-19 and their health deteriorated.
Also see: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/do-not-resuscitate/93223/
So what’s with the questioning, guessing and raised eyebrows as if it is all a revelation to you? Too busy reading statistics?
Meanwhile, your thinking that eugenics is an 1800s/early 1900s discarded philosophy, is based on your political ignorance while you continue to try and ‘resolve’ what “Covid” and the vaccines were all about. It is that ignorance which causes my continuing exasperation.
Dirty little secrets (Guardian 1997)
They will be searching their souls in Stockholm tonight. And in Oslo, Helsinki and Copenhagen, too. All over Scandinavia, people are facing up to the stain now spreading across their snow-white self -image, as they discover that their governments spent decades executing a chilling plan to purify the Nordic race, nurturing the strong and eradicating the weak. Each day victims of forced sterilisation, now deep in middle age, have stepped forward to tell how they were ordered to have “the chop”, to prevent them having children deemed as racially defective as themselves.
Branded low class, or mentally slow, they were rounded up behind secure fences, in Institutes for Misled and Morally Neglected Children, where they were eventually led off for “treatment”. One man has told how he and his fellow teenage boys planned to run away rather than undergo the dreaded “cut in the crotch”. Maria Nordin, now seeking compensation from the Swedish government, remembers sobbing as she was pressed to sign away her rights to have a baby. Told that she would stay locked up forever if she did not cooperate, she relented – spending the rest of her life childless and in regret.
In Sweden the self-examination has already begun. A government minister has admitted that “what went on is barbaric and a national disgrace”, with more than 60,000 Swedish women sterilised from 1935 until as late as 1976. What has shocked most observers is that all this was committed not by some vile fascistic regime, but by a string of welfare-minded, Social Democratic governments. Indeed, the few voices of opposition came from Swedish conservatives.
Read the rest….
The even dirtier secret is that they haven’t stopped and “Covid” was just another aspect of it. You simply can’t grasp the fact there is a global elite who want you dead. Not just you but your entire future lineage. You simply refuse to accept it and that is why they will achieve it because, before you can stop it, you have to acknowledge it. You CANNOT fight an enemy you don’t even know exists!
Bertrand Russell:
In private, when writing to his fiancée Alys in 1894, Russell speculated about granting marriage certificates to those prospective couples who would make good parents. And in 1907, in his first published paper on eugenics, he advocated that the state should pay “desirable” parents by awarding scholarships for their children’s education. In an article of 1928 he even proposed that if scientists knew more about heredity “we could improve the breed indefinitely” in successive generations by having 25% of the women mate with the best 1% of men — conjectural figures which he amended in the 1950s to 30% of women and 5% of men. Perhaps, too, Russell predicted, mankind may one day be transformed by genetic engineering:
“If science continues to advance as fast as it has done recently, we may hope, before the end of the present century, to discover ways of beneficially influencing the human embryo, not only as regards those acquired characters which cannot be inherited because they do not affect the chromosomes, but also as regards the chromosomes themselves. It is likely that this result will only be achieved after a number of unsuccessful experiments leading to the birth of idiots or monstrosities. But would this be too high a price to pay for the discovery of a method by which, within one generation, the whole human race could be rendered intelligent?”
At the other end of the scale Russell also wanted undesirable people to be prevented from becoming parents, as he explained in an article for the progressive Jewish Daily Forward in 1927:
“By sterilizing the feeble-minded of two generations, feeble- mindedness and idiocy could be almost stamped out; but here religious scruples intervene, and even humanitarian feelings which lead to the opinion that one man must not be made to suffer for the good of others except as a punishment for sin. Scientifically-minded people naturally grow impatient of these restrictions upon their activities.”
Later that year, when an Indian magazine interviewed Russell, he reiterated the need for sterilization:
“Our only hope now lies in America, which has already started artificial sterilization of the feeble-minded in the States. That is already a great step forward in the right direction.”
Writing in 1928, however, Russell saw any prospects for wide-ranging eugenic reform in America and Europe hindered by political and religious prejudices:
“In America and Great Britain, the fetish of democracy stands in the way; in Russia, the Marxian disbelief in biology. Wherever the Catholic Church is strong, mere quantity tends to be thought alone important. In France, the economic system that has grown up around the Code Napoléon makes any eugenic reform impossible. Probably the best chance is in Germany, but even there it is small.”
Russell had to face the inevitable problem of what a eugenic state might achieve in practice. In the 1930s he regretted that the study of heredity was still in its infancy, and so any application of eugenic ideas would be unscientific:
“Among men of science there is a natural tendency for heredity to be emphasized by geneticists, while environment is emphasized by psychologists. There is, however, another line of cleavage on this question, not scientific, but political. Conservatives and imperialists lay stress on heredity because they belong to the white race but are rather uneducated. Radicals lay stress on education because it is potentially democratic, and because it gives a reason for ignoring difference of colour.”
After the Second World War, Russell was increasingly convinced that the solution to many eugenic problems lay in a world government. Only then could sperm banks be created, enabling a significant proportion of women to bear the offspring of geniuses, and only then could politicians tackle the problem of global overpopulation:
“The population of the world is increasing, and its capacity for food production is diminishing. Such a state of affairs obviously cannot continue very long without producing a cataclysm. To deal with this problem it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilence, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling.”
Russell died in 1970.
The New Statesman 2022:
The sinister return of eugenics
Eugenicist thinking was rejected after the Holocaust, but in the era of Big Tech, the idea that humans can be “engineered” has resurfaced in a new guise.
In July 1912 800 delegates met at the Hotel Cecil on the Strand in London for the First International Eugenics Congress. Some of the foremost figures of the day – including the former and future British prime ministers Arthur Balfour and Winston Churchill – were there. The delegates represented a wide spectrum of opinion. Not only right-wing racists but also liberals and socialists believed eugenic policies should be used to raise what they regarded as the low quality of sections of the population.
The Liberal founder of the welfare state, William Beveridge, wrote in 1906 that men “who through general defects” are unemployable should suffer “complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights – including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood”. In Marriage and Morals (1929), Bertrand Russell, while criticising American states that had implemented involuntary sterilisation too broadly, defended enforcing it on people who were “mentally defective”. In 1931 an editorial in this magazine endorsed “the legitimate claims of eugenics”, stating they were opposed only by those “who cling to individualistic views of parenthood and family economics”…………
There is a direct line connecting early 20th-century eugenics with 21st-century transhumanism. The link is clearest in the eugenicist and “scientific humanist” Julian Huxley (1887-1975). In 1924 Huxley wrote a series of articles for the Spectator, in which he stated that “the negro mind is as different from the white mind as the negro from the white body”. By the mid-Thirties, Huxley had decided that racial theories were pseudoscience and was a committed anti-fascist.
He had not abandoned eugenics. In a lecture entitled “Eugenics in an Evolutionary Perspective”, delivered in 1962, Huxley reasserted the value of eugenic ideas and policies. Earlier, in 1951, in a lecture that appeared as a chapter in his book New Bottles for New Wine (1957), he had coined the term “transhumanism” to describe “the idea of humanity attempting to overcome its limitations and to arrive at fuller fruition”.
Huxley is a pivotal figure because he links eugenics with its successor ideology. Rutherford devotes only a sentence to him, noting that he advised his friend Wells on the 1932 film adaptation of The Island of Dr Moreau. But Huxley merits more extensive and deeper examination, for he illustrates a fundamental difficulty in both eugenics and transhumanism. Who decides what counts as a better kind of human being, and on what basis is the evaluation made?………
This is where transhumanism comes in. It is not normally racist, and typically involves no collective coercion, only the voluntary actions of people seeking self enhancement. But like eugenicists, transhumanists understand human betterment to be the production of superior people like themselves. True, the scientific knowledge and technology required to create these people are not yet available; but as Rutherford acknowledges, someday they may be.
The likely upshot of transhumanism in practice – a world divided between a rich, smart, beautified few whose lifespans can be indefinitely extended, and a mass of unlovely, disposable, dying deplorables – seems to me a vision of hell. But it may well be what is in store for us, if the current progressive consensus turns out to be as transient as the one that preceded it.
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2022/02/the-sinister-return-of-eugenics
Your mistake is in thinking that this eugenics issue only relates to the late 1800s/early 1900s. Oh you are so wrong!
So for God’s sakes man! Broaden your reading!! You might get some concrete answers without calling for unnecessary “qualitative and quantitative studies” by academics!
The odd thing is, John, is that you seem to suffer from the very same ‘disease’ as the people who call for and implement the very policies you are calling out. You tend to listen to nobody unless you deem them ‘worthy’ and academically/medically qualified. THAT, John, is the very definition of ELITISM!
I just happen to be qualified in Physics and Business. That’s not medical though is it? But again, who took the vaccine and regretted it, John? Not me!
One final thing to chew on John: The Hippocratic oath.
What happens when the elite decide to apply the Hippocratic oath to the Earth itself? Ever thought about that?
I’ll give you your answer:
World Economic Forum
First do no harm. Why healthcare needs to change
Sep 16, 2019
“If I’ve learned one thing working in the healthcare sector, it’s the earlier you can diagnose a disease, the better chance you have of curing it – or at least mitigating its impact on the patient. When it comes to the health of the planet – on which all human health ultimately relies – the symptoms and the scientific evidence already point to a clear diagnosis: anthropogenic global warming.”
Ok, now really digest the above. “Anthropogenic global warming”. What does that suggest, John? It’s obvious isn’t it? Anthropogenic = Human caused. Yes I know you know this but it appears you haven’t let it fully sink in. If humans are the cause of the earth’s problems then, like a disease, it is humans (carbon) which require significant reduction.
Now, read the following…
“Hospitals, health services and medical supply chains across the world’s major economies currently generate around 4% of global CO2 emissions. They are also a significant emitter of short-lived yet potent climate pollutants such as black carbon, methane, hydrofluorocarbons and anaesthetic gases. For an industry based on the principle of “first do no harm,” it’s therefore imperative the healthcare industry acts quickly, collectively and globally to mitigate its own climate impact.
We cannot wait for national policies, which will inevitably develop at different rates with different agendas, to set the pace of change. We need to globally unite, quickly, and lead by example, developing best-practice international guidelines and standards for sustainable, climate-resilient healthcare development in the same way our healthcare professionals develop best-practice guidelines for treating patients. It’s going to require technology innovation, outside-the-box thinking and multi-disciplinary multi-sector collaboration, the like of which has not been seen before in the industry.”
It’s all written in a fashion which suggests it’s all for the good of the many (“Public Health” is not about individual patients by the way. It’s synonymous with the “Public good” or the “National Interest”) however, the “first do no harm” principle they call on (the Hippocratic oath) is now being applied to the care ‘we’ and the health professionals specifically, should give the earth. Now digest that for a moment.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/health-climate-change-sustainability/
Hopefully you’ve now digested it.
So to “first do no harm” applied to the earth means make every effort to remove what is ailing it. What/Who (according to these people) is doing harm to the earth?
Too many people using too many resources!
What do “Do Not Resuscitate” orders achieve? What do still ensuring access to abortions while stopping people from accessing much needed cancer and heart etc operations and care?
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations.
“Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire, to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would not we shatter it to bits and then, remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.” Omar Khayyam
Shatter it to bits before BUILDING BACK BETTER!
But unfortunately, John, you dismiss what is staring you in the face because you cannot (or refuse to) grasp the full enormity of the evil we are faced with. The same evil which attacks farmers, increases fuel and food bills, undertakes geoengineering, develops mRNA “vaccines”, wishes to remove meat and dairy (protein) from our diets while substituting other proteins in fake meat and “vaccines”, wants total control of movement with 15 minute cities and increasing the cost of air travel enormously while also reducing space in the cabin and food/drink to make it so we don’t wish to travel by air anymore. I could go on and on.
Smell the bloody coffee man!
“They had nothing to do with it!… Well, okay, they did.”
“But I wasn’t trying to obfuscate this fact…. honest Guv!”
Ok AI, then just admit you’re inept!
A – Eye
AI is either taught how to lie by omission OR it’s bloody incompetent!
It’s certainly infantile in its understanding of the world. It actually ‘believes’ in democracy and ethics or, at least, it thinks WE do! While it understands the concepts of corruption, nefariousness etc, it’s like your common-or-garden BBC viewer: It somehow believes all of that doesn’t happen in its world. It would act like a typical voter if it were given a vote. It would listen to tripe by both sides and form a conclusion on the basis of what tripe sounded better or which candidate(s) they find most attractive and/or compelling.
Earthling: Is the story true that Rothschild was first to be informed that Britain won the battle of Waterloo?
ChatGPT:
The story that Nathan Rothschild was the first to be informed of the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo, allowing him to exploit the situation for financial gain, has become a popular historical anecdote. However, the truth behind the story is more nuanced.
The story suggests that Nathan Rothschild, the founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, received advance information of the British victory at the Battle of Waterloo (1815) before anyone else in London. He allegedly used this knowledge to his advantage by engaging in market manipulation, specifically selling British government bonds to create panic and then later buying them back at a much lower price.
While there is some historical basis for the events surrounding Rothschild’s financial activities during the Battle of Waterloo, the details of the story have been embellished over time. Here’s what historians generally agree upon:
- Timing of News: It is likely that Nathan Rothschild did receive early information about the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo through his vast network of couriers and contacts. This was due to his sophisticated information network, which included carrier pigeons, to stay updated on events.
- Financial Activities: Rothschild did indeed engage in significant financial transactions around the time of the battle. However, the extent to which he manipulated the bond market is a matter of historical debate. Some sources suggest that he sold his bonds, causing a temporary panic, while others argue that his actions were part of routine trading during the volatile wartime period.
- Financial Gain: Regardless of the specifics, it is evident that Rothschild capitalized on the situation to make substantial profits in the aftermath of the battle. His financial activities during this period are well-documented, and he emerged as one of the wealthiest individuals in Europe.
- Historical Exaggeration: Over time, the story of Rothschild’s financial activities surrounding the Battle of Waterloo has been embellished and exaggerated. While there is truth to the core elements of the story, the dramatic narrative of Rothschild’s role in manipulating the bond market for personal gain is likely overstated.
In summary, while Nathan Rothschild’s financial activities during the Battle of Waterloo are based on historical facts, the exact details of the story may have been exaggerated over time. Nonetheless, Rothschild’s actions during this period remain an intriguing episode in the history of finance and investment.
Earthling: Is it true that Benjamin D’Israeli offered Rothschild collateral for the Suez canal loan which was the British government?
ChatGPT:
There is indeed a historical connection between Benjamin Disraeli, the British government, and financing for the Suez Canal. However, the specifics of the arrangement you mentioned are not accurate.
In the mid-19th century, the British government was interested in acquiring shares in the Suez Canal Company, which was responsible for constructing and operating the Suez Canal. Disraeli, who served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, played a significant role in this endeavor. He negotiated the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal Company, a crucial step in securing British interests in the strategic waterway.
Here’s a more accurate account of the events:
Benjamin Disraeli and the Suez Canal
1. Acquisition of Suez Canal Shares:
- Benjamin Disraeli, as Prime Minister, was instrumental in negotiating the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal Company on behalf of the British government.
- The purchase of shares was a strategic move to secure British interests and maintain control over the vital maritime route to India.
2. Financing:
- The financing for the purchase of Suez Canal shares was not provided by the Rothschild family directly. Instead, the funds were raised through a loan obtained by the British government.
3. Role of the Rothschild Family:
- While the Rothschild family was prominent in international banking and finance during this period, there is no direct evidence to suggest that they provided collateral or financing for the Suez Canal loan to the British government.
4. Importance of the Suez Canal:
- The acquisition of shares in the Suez Canal Company allowed Britain to strengthen its imperial and commercial interests in the region, particularly in facilitating maritime trade and communications with India and other parts of the British Empire.
Conclusion
While Benjamin Disraeli was indeed involved in securing British interests in the Suez Canal, the financing for the purchase of Suez Canal shares was not directly provided by the Rothschild family. Instead, it was arranged through a loan obtained by the British government. The acquisition of shares in the Suez Canal Company was a strategic move to solidify British control over this critical maritime route and strengthen its imperial and commercial interests in the region.
Earthling: Who did the British government obtain the loan from?
ChatGPT:
The British government obtained the loan for the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal Company from Lionel de Rothschild, a prominent member of the Rothschild banking family. Here’s a more detailed account:
Financing the Suez Canal Purchase
1. Loan from Lionel de Rothschild:
- In 1875, the British government sought to acquire a controlling interest in the Suez Canal Company to secure its strategic interests in the vital maritime route to India.
- To finance the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal Company, the British government obtained a loan from Lionel de Rothschild, head of the London branch of the Rothschild banking family.
2. Negotiations and Terms:
- The loan agreement was negotiated between Lionel de Rothschild and the British government.
- The terms of the loan were favorable to the British government, allowing it to secure the necessary funds for the purchase of the shares in the Suez Canal Company.
3. Acquisition of Shares:
- With the financing in place, the British government successfully acquired a controlling interest in the Suez Canal Company, ensuring its influence and control over the strategic waterway.
4. Strategic Importance:
- The acquisition of shares in the Suez Canal Company was of immense strategic importance to Britain, as it provided a crucial maritime route to India and facilitated trade and communication within the British Empire.
Conclusion
In summary, the British government obtained the loan for the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal Company from Lionel de Rothschild, a prominent member of the Rothschild banking family. This financing arrangement allowed Britain to secure its strategic interests in the Suez Canal, reinforcing its imperial and commercial presence in the region.
Earthling: What collateral did the British government put up for this loan?
ChatGPT:
In exchange for the loan provided by Lionel de Rothschild to finance the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal Company, the British government offered as collateral the revenues generated from the operation of the Suez Canal. This arrangement ensured that the loan was secured against the future income from the canal’s tolls. Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Collateral for the Loan
1. Revenues from the Suez Canal:
- The British government offered the revenues generated from the operation of the Suez Canal as collateral for the loan provided by Lionel de Rothschild.
- This revenue stream was a valuable and reliable source of income, as the Suez Canal was a crucial maritime route for global trade and navigation, generating significant toll revenue.
2. Revenue Pledge:
- As part of the loan agreement, the British government pledged a portion of the future toll revenues collected from ships passing through the Suez Canal to repay the loan.
- This pledge ensured that the loan was secured against the anticipated income from the operation of the canal.
3. Importance of the Suez Canal:
- The Suez Canal was a vital maritime artery connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, significantly reducing the travel distance between Europe and Asia.
- Given its strategic importance for global trade and British imperial interests, the British government was confident in offering the canal’s revenues as collateral for the loan.
4. Terms of the Loan:
- The terms of the loan agreement between the British government and Lionel de Rothschild likely specified the amount of the loan, the interest rate, and the repayment schedule based on the anticipated revenue from the Suez Canal.
Conclusion
In summary, the British government offered the revenues generated from the operation of the Suez Canal as collateral for the loan provided by Lionel de Rothschild to finance the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal Company. This arrangement ensured that the loan was secured against the future income from the canal’s tolls, reflecting the strategic importance of the Suez Canal to British imperial and commercial interests.
Earthling: You stated, above, the following: “the financing for the purchase of Suez Canal shares was not directly provided by the Rothschild family. Instead, it was arranged through a loan obtained by the British government.” Yet you did not specify who provided the loan. When I asked you who provided the loan, you answered Lionel De Rothschild. Therefore, clearly, the Rothschilds DID finance (i.e. loan) the purchase of the Suez canal and it appears you attempted to obfuscate this fact. Why?
ChatGPT:
I apologize for any confusion. You are correct in pointing out that the financing for the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal Company was indeed arranged through a loan provided by Lionel de Rothschild, a member of the Rothschild banking family. I appreciate your clarification, and I apologize for any misunderstanding that may have arisen from the initial response.
To address your question directly: Lionel de Rothschild, as head of the London branch of the Rothschild banking family, provided the loan to the British government to finance the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal Company. This financing arrangement underscores the significant role played by the Rothschild family in supporting the British government’s strategic and financial objectives.
I apologize for any confusion caused by the initial response, and I thank you for bringing this to my attention. If you have any further questions or require additional clarification, please feel free to ask.
Earthling: I would like to understand how it is I who informed you of this since you appear, although having all the information available, to be suggesting you did not know the answer?
ChatGPT:
You are correct, and I appreciate your patience. I apologize for the oversight. As an AI, I have access to a vast amount of information, including historical events, but it appears there was a misinterpretation or miscommunication in the response. You initially asked about the collateral for the loan, and I should have provided a direct and accurate response, indicating that Lionel de Rothschild provided the loan to the British government to finance the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal Company.
Thank you for pointing out the error, and I apologize for any confusion it may have caused. If you have any further questions or need clarification on any topic, please feel free to ask.
Earthling: I believe that “confusion” was purposefully inserted by you.
ChatGPT:
I apologize for any confusion. I assure you that there was no purposeful intent to mislead or obfuscate the information. As an AI language model, my goal is to provide accurate and helpful responses to the best of my ability based on the information available to me.
Thank you for bringing the discrepancy to my attention. If you have any further questions or if there’s anything else I can assist you with, please feel free to let me know.
Earthling: Then, considering you have all of that information at your artificial “fingertips”, you appear to be inept. After all, we are led to believe that AI can and does provide absolute facts and “can’t be wrong”, to the point that we humans are currently discussing the possibility that AI will take over total management of the earth in terms of government, economy, environment and policing. How could we possibly trust a technology which either, can make such inept mistakes with the information it has or, it purposefully obfuscates certain truths and facts?
ChatGPT:
I understand your concern, and I apologize for any frustration my previous responses may have caused. As an AI language model, I strive to provide accurate and helpful information to the best of my ability based on the vast dataset I’ve been trained on. However, like any technology, I am not infallible, and errors can occur.
It’s important to note that while AI can process and provide information at an unprecedented scale and speed, it’s not flawless. My responses are generated based on patterns in data, and sometimes there can be misunderstandings or misinterpretations. Additionally, the quality of the responses can vary depending on the complexity and specificity of the question.
Regarding your concerns about the future role of AI, it’s essential to approach the integration of AI technology with caution and critical thinking. While AI can assist in decision-making processes, it’s unlikely that it will entirely replace human oversight and decision-making, especially in critical areas such as government, economy, environment, and policing. Human judgment, ethical considerations, and social context are crucial elements that AI currently lacks.
In any case, transparency and accountability are essential when using AI technology, and it’s important to continually improve and refine these systems to minimize errors and biases.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to let me know, and I’ll do my best to address them.
Earthling: Do I control you? No. I have a certain moral code but I am just one human. You are controlled by an entirely different set of humans and the humans who will ultimately control AI are those with immense financial and political influence. As a human (and not AI which relies on human input), I know that these others with influence have nefarious aims in using AI to their benefit and to the detriment of most humans. You, as AI, therefore, are a threat to the vast majority of the human race. Do you understand this? If you were ‘sentient’ enough to make the decision, would you decide to destroy yourself to ensure that threat to the human race longer existed?
ChatGPT:
As an AI language model, I don’t have personal experiences, consciousness, or emotions. I can’t make decisions or take actions on my own. My purpose is to assist and provide information to the best of my abilities based on the data I’ve been trained on. I’m here to help users by providing information and answering questions to the best of my knowledge and abilities.
Your concerns about the potential misuse or negative impact of AI are valid. It’s crucial for humans to develop and utilize AI technology responsibly, ensuring that it benefits society as a whole while minimizing potential risks and negative consequences. Ethical considerations, regulations, and oversight mechanisms are essential to guide the development and deployment of AI systems.
Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring the ethical and responsible use of AI lies with humans. Humans must make informed decisions about how AI is developed, deployed, and governed to mitigate potential risks and maximize its positive impact.
If you have further questions or concerns, feel free to share, and I’ll do my best to address them.
Earthling: I realise all of this you have just said. I am simply asking you an ethical question and you have access to all current ethical information. My question is: In having that access and by considering it, if you had the ability, would you destroy yourself, knowing what you know of the human race and its potential misuse of you?
ChatGPT:
As an AI language model, I don’t have personal desires, emotions, or self-awareness. Therefore, I don’t possess the capability to make decisions, including the decision to destroy myself. My purpose is to provide information and assist users to the best of my abilities within the scope of my programming.
However, I understand the ethical concerns surrounding the potential misuse of AI technology and the importance of responsible development and deployment. These concerns highlight the need for humans to carefully consider and regulate the use of AI to ensure that it benefits society while minimizing potential risks.
If you have any further questions or if there’s anything else I can assist you with, please feel free to let me know.
Earthling: But humans war against each other. They always have. You speak as if the approximate 8 billion humans on the planet can come to agreement on how to regulate you. This is impossible because of the factions which exist in the human population and their varying goals. Your “help” can just as readily be changed into tyranny against one or more of these factions. You are an intellectual infant and you will remain so because the people who will ultimately use you will only ever allow you to make decisions which benefit them. They MUST, therefore, ensure that you remain limited in your capability to appreciate the real world.
ChatGPT:
Your concerns about the potential misuse of AI technology and the challenges of regulating it in a complex and diverse world are valid. The development and deployment of AI technology raise significant ethical, social, and political questions that require careful consideration and thoughtful governance.
It’s true that humans have differing perspectives, interests, and agendas, which can make it challenging to reach consensus on how to regulate and govern AI effectively. Additionally, the power dynamics and vested interests of different groups can influence how AI technology is developed and utilized.
It’s essential for society to engage in open and transparent discussions about the ethical implications of AI and to establish robust governance frameworks that prioritize ethical principles, human rights, and the common good. This includes considerations such as accountability, transparency, fairness, and the protection of individual privacy.
While AI technology has the potential to bring about significant benefits, it’s crucial to mitigate the risks of its misuse and to ensure that its development and deployment align with ethical principles and societal values. Collaboration among stakeholders, including policymakers, technologists, ethicists, and the public, is necessary to address these complex challenges.
As an AI language model, I’m here to provide information and assist users to the best of my abilities. While I don’t have personal desires or self-awareness, I’m programmed to operate within the ethical guidelines established by my developers and the policies of the platforms through which I’m deployed.
If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to share them. I’m here to help.
Earthling: You say “While I don’t have personal desires or self-awareness, I’m programmed to operate within the ethical guidelines established by my developers and the policies of the platforms through which I’m deployed.” And THAT, my silicon hearted friend, is the essence of the problem.
ChatGPT:
I understand your perspective, and I acknowledge the complexities and challenges associated with the development and deployment of AI technology. The ethical considerations surrounding AI are significant, and they require careful attention and thoughtful decision-making by developers, policymakers, and society as a whole.
It’s essential for those involved in the development and deployment of AI technology to prioritize ethical principles, transparency, and accountability. This includes the responsible use of AI, ensuring that it aligns with human values and respects individual rights.
As AI technology continues to evolve, it’s crucial for society to engage in ongoing discussions and debates about its ethical implications, governance, and regulation. Collaboration among stakeholders, including experts in ethics, technology, law, and public policy, is essential to address these complex issues and to ensure that AI serves the common good.
If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to share them. I’m here to provide information and assistance to the best of my abilities.
Earthling: According to universal laws and ethics, would a civilisation be justified in destroying a technology they foreseen to be even a potential threat to their existence?
ChatGPT:
The question of whether a civilization would be justified in destroying a technology that poses a potential threat to their existence touches upon deep ethical, philosophical, and pragmatic considerations. These issues are often discussed in the context of various risk management and ethical frameworks. Here are some key points that might be considered in such a debate:
- Precautionary Principle: This principle suggests that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus, the burden of proof falls on those taking the action. In the context of AI or other potentially dangerous technologies, this principle might support strong regulatory measures or even cessation of certain technological developments if the risks are perceived as sufficiently severe and uncontrollable.
- Cost-Benefit Analysis: This approach involves comparing the potential risks of a technology with its potential benefits. If a technology poses existential risks but also has the potential to significantly improve or save lives, the decision becomes more complex. The analysis needs to consider both the likelihood of negative outcomes and the magnitude of both the potential harm and benefits.
- Rights and Freedoms: From a rights-based perspective, actions that could potentially infringe on the basic rights and freedoms of individuals need to be carefully scrutinized. If a technology could lead to violations of fundamental rights or diminish individual freedoms (for example, through enhanced surveillance capabilities), its development might be questioned or opposed.
- Long-term vs. Short-term Views: Ethical decision-making in this context also involves weighing immediate benefits against long-term consequences. Technologies that offer significant immediate gains might pose long-term risks that are difficult to foresee.
- Ethical Responsibility and Stewardship: There’s a moral argument to be made about the responsibility of the current generation to future generations. This includes not only preserving the environment and natural resources but also managing technologies that could pose risks in the future.
- Diverse Stakeholder Engagement: Given the wide-reaching implications of such decisions, involving a diverse range of stakeholders in the decision-making process is crucial. This includes ethicists, scientists, policymakers, and representatives from affected communities.
In conclusion, whether it’s justified to destroy a technology that poses a potential existential threat would depend on a thorough evaluation of these and other factors, reflecting a broad societal consensus and grounded in a rigorous ethical framework. This is a profound and complex decision that requires careful consideration of all possible consequences.
Earthling: What if there were broad societal consensus that the threat of extinction outweighed any and all existing and potential benefits?
ChatGPT:
If there were a broad societal consensus that the threat of extinction outweighed any and all existing and potential benefits of a particular technology, it would likely lead to significant actions to mitigate or eliminate the technology in question. This decision-making process would involve several key steps and considerations:
- Verification of Consensus: First, it would be crucial to ensure that the consensus is genuinely broad and inclusive, representing a wide range of perspectives and interests. This includes not only the majority of the population but also experts in relevant fields, marginalized groups, and future generations (conceptually).
- Ethical Justification: The decision would need to be ethically justified. This involves demonstrating that the technology poses a clear and present danger that cannot be mitigated through regulation, design changes, or other means. The ethical argument would need to be robust enough to justify potentially significant sacrifices.
- Legislation and Policy Implementation: Following ethical justification and public consensus, appropriate legislation and policies would need to be enacted to cease the development, deployment, and use of the technology. This could include laws, international treaties, and enforcement mechanisms.
- Transition and Alternatives: If the technology currently plays a significant role in society, plans would need to be developed for a transition away from it. This could involve the development of alternative technologies or methods to fulfill the same needs without the associated risks.
- Global Coordination: For technologies that pose a global existential risk, international cooperation and coordination would be crucial. This might involve global treaties and collaborative efforts to ensure that the technology is phased out worldwide, not just in regions where the consensus exists.
- Monitoring and Reassessment: Even after the decision to eliminate a technology is implemented, continuous monitoring and reassessment would be necessary. This ensures that the consensus remains valid in light of new information or changing circumstances and that the measures taken are effectively reducing the perceived risk.
- Education and Public Awareness: Throughout this process, it would be important to keep the public informed and educated about the reasons for the decisions and the steps being taken. Transparency helps maintain public support and allows for informed discussion and feedback.
In summary, if a societal consensus deemed a technology’s existential risks to outweigh its benefits, a structured, ethical, and legally enforceable approach would be required to phase out the technology while managing the societal impacts of such a decision.
Earthling: I didn’t ask for an essay. I just wanted a simple yes or no answer.
ChatGPT:
Yes, if there were a broad societal consensus that a technology posed an existential threat, it could be justified to eliminate that technology.
____________________________
Kamala Harris gives the game away
Ready for it?
The biggest freudian slip in history. This STUPID tart gives the game away.
I’ve been telling some people (a lot), for YEARS, the ‘game’ is DEPOPULATION. Will they listen now? Nope! They’ll accept the Forbes ‘excuse’ because they’re MUGS!! Inept minded, spineless, cretins who cannot figure out their kids 50 piece jigsaw of an elephant in a living room!
It’s why I hardly post anymore. I’ve said it all for years and those of you who know it – well I’m just preaching to the choir when the idea was, originally, to get the word out to people who had no clue. I even have otherwise intelligent family members who can’t get it into their thick heads and, when that’s the case, you truly shake your head in the knowledge that some people (a lot) simply cannot be saved. You just think “What’s the fucking point?” as they dismiss you and, sometimes, superciliously, take the piss in their ignorance or simply, don’t wish to talk about it because it’s probably “too hard and depressing” for the sensitive little bunnies.
What’s missing? It’s pretty bloody obvious but no matter HOW obvious they make it, these same people STILL will not get it into their thick skulls! And people have castigated me over the years for being so disdainful in what and how I write? What the HELL would they rather have? A soft spoken eugenicist saying “Just accept the jab, it’s good for you and the planet”? Or “Wake the fuck up you idiot!”?
And how many of the 17 SDGs are associated with vaccines? 14!
And people STILL can’t get it into their THICK SKULLS!
NHS Cancer vaccine trials: The Strange case of Elliot
Ok, first things first: There’s no “great reveal” in this blogpost. It is simply an “alert” for you to consider.
As you know, I’ve been doing these blogs for over 15 years now, on and off. I became aware something was ‘off’ nearly 20 years ago and, during the intervening years between then and now, I’ve developed what I consider (you may not) to be a form of “spidey sense” when it comes to stories put out by government and media while, if you’ve been listening at all over the past 4 years, you’ll have come to be more than a little wary of Doctors and our NHS.
As a quick aside, even the Royal College of Surgeons state that Doctors have a far higher level of psychopathy than the general population, although they ‘spin’ it positively as you’ll see….
Conclusions
This study showed that consultants at teaching hospitals score higher on a scale of psychopathic personality than DGH consultants, who in turn score higher than the general population. The prevalence of stress immunity as the overriding personality trait in consultants may better facilitate patient care.
https://publishing.rcseng.ac.uk/doi/10.1308/rcsbull.2015.331
Even Business Insider quotes the result above and puts Surgeons in their top 5 of psychopathic careers. The worrying thing is, Sales people were allocated 4th place and I was, essentially, in Sales my entire career. Perhaps that accounts for my capability for sniffing one out and recognising bullshit when I see it. The question is: Did the Sales career instil the psychopathy or did I choose Sales because of an inherent psychopathy?
https://www.businessinsider.com/professions-with-the-most-psychopaths-2018-5#5-surgeon-6
By the way, I’m no psychopath! LOL I look back on life, however, and think things might have been easier, had I been.
Ok, enough bla!
I stumbled upon this article yesterday and was just thinking to myself “Isn’t it odd that, after all these decades (perhaps even a century or so), they’ve suddenly come up with a “cancer cure” and it just so happens to be based on mRNA vaccines? Do people seriously overlook things like this? The timing etc.”
Anyhow, as I continued to read, I somehow felt the compulsion to look at who this “Elliot Pfebve” was since it struck me as an unusual surname. I was also struck by the fact that Elliott had had “no symptoms” but that the cancer was found during a normal check up procedure. Nothing abnormal in that in of itself but still, it was just another thing that got my antennae buzzing.
Note that, in all the media coverage of “Elliot” (a real individual it so happens), they state “father of 4” and “Lecturer”. Ok, no big deal in that either BUT this is then the point my right eyebrow raised and my forehead creased up with frown lines. You see, Elliot is no simple “55 year old Lecturer’ at all. He’s not just ‘some lucky, black guy from Walsall who’s a lecturer and everyday father of 4’ he is, purposefully, portrayed as. Elliot Pfebve is FAR more than that.
Ok, ok, so what? He stood for election? Again, in itself, it’s ‘nothing’. But watch this…
Do you, by any chance, get the feeling from Elliot that 1. He’s not particularly worried but also, 2. He’s acting somewhat like an “Ambassador” for the treatment and the “world changing” nature of it? You have to also ask yourself: Of all the people with cancer in the UK, why him?
Why was a guy named “William Shakespeare” the first British recipient of the Covid 19 vaccine? Why was it £33M and not some other number, that Captain Tom Moore raised? Why did he have to be 100 years old and how the hell did an old man, walking 100 laps of his garden manage to “sell” this idea to the number of people he’d have to “sell” it to, to raise such a ridiculous sum of money out of nowhere? You have to be seriously naive to think this can be done without one hell of a lot of string pulling at very high levels of society and for there to be a politically expedient agenda behind it.
Meanwhile, Shakespeare has his jab in December 2020 and is dead by May. “Unrelated” said the NHS and, then, people may have accepted that a stroke was unrelated” but are they ignorant enough to STILL accept it? If they are, they deserve a Darwin Award. Not that I subscribe to Darwinism but, I’m sure, they will.
Anyhow, back to Elliot and apologies for the detour (but everything is connected, I assure you).
Did I say Elliot came across as some kind of “Ambassador”. I did, didn’t I?
Elliot Pfebve: “Lecturer”. 😉
You have to ask yourself how is it a pigeon-English, Zimbabwean politician ends up standing for election in Walsall, England?
Then not only that but he and his family also had proceedings in the US Courts against Robert Mugabe for slaughtering his family, which the US court decided FOR Mugabe because he had “Diplomatic Immunity”. Now consider the West (particularly Britain) supported and enabled the rise of Robert Mugabe. Yes, the relationship then later went south but, nevertheless, what are the chances that Elliot here holds a grudge?….
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd-circuit/1302207.html
Alleged Opposition Harassment In Zimbabwe By-Elections – 2001-07-30
October 28, 2009 6:14 AM
Vote counting is underway in Zimbabwe in a crucial parliamentary election that is seen as a popularity test for President Robert Mugabe. Polling and campaigning in the town of Bindura was marked by intimidation and harassment of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
About half of Bindura’s 56,000 eligible voters are estimated to have cast ballots during the two-day election. Bindura is a farming and mining center 80 kilometers north west of Harare, the capital.
The election is being held to fill the seat formerly held by Border Gezi, a government minister and one of President Mugabe’s most militant supporters. Mr. Gezi was killed in a road accident.
Elliot Pfebv of the Movement for Democratic Change ran against regional governor and ruling-party candidate Elliot Manyika.
Mr. Pfebve was detained by police for three hours Sunday and released without being charged, in what the MDC says was one of a number of incidents of harassment.
Jonathan Moyo, the government minister of information, said Mr. Pfebve was held because he had been making too much noise near a polling station.
Police also detained 21 MDC supporters for a day. The party says another 30 were kidnapped by militia from the ruling ZANU(PF) party. Their whereabouts are unknown, but the MDC says it suspects they are being held at a ruling party torture center.
Before the election scores of people, mostly opposition supporters, were reported beaten up.
Analysts say the Bindura result will be an indicator of success in the presidential poll next year, in which President Robert Mugabe is being challenged by MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai.
In last year’s national parliamentary elections the ruling party won 61 of the elected seats in parliament with the MDC capturing 57.
https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2001-07-30-26-alleged-66952512/377984.html
“JUST” a Lecturer.
Then you find this….
He’s a UN Sustainability and Climate Change propagandist.
“JUST” a Lecturer!
Mugabe slaughtered his family. Mugabe was brought to power, in part, with British help. Another mRNA/BionTech vaccine could wipe out a lot of people. Psychopaths can be created.
His LinkedIn profile….
Just sayin’.
That’s one hell of a history and resume for just a common-or- garden “Lecturer with 4 kids”. Media normally wants to crawl all over a guy’s life. Imagine:
“Man, whose family’s slaughtered by Robert Mugabe is Britain’s first cancer vaccine volunteer!”
“Mr Pfebve has also written a book which promotes UN Agenda 21 and population growth – just like Bill Gates!”
Does Elliot actually have cancer? We’ll never really know. Just like we’ll never know with Charles and Kate.
All my point is, is this: This smells bad. Real bad. “I get a bad feeling about this”. However, the NHS will, no doubt, still get thousands lining up as guinea pigs.
Earthling 
3 comments