Lies and Liars

Posted on by

MC’s latest essay concerns the lies that we are told — by Islam, by our politicians, by our media, and by wealthy and powerful people who stand to profit from our ignorance and credulousness.

Lies and Liars

by MC

Yesterday, I was thinking about things, and I was amazed at just how many things I now perceive to be lies. It is hard to write about conspiracy theories before they are shown to be true, but when ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ are cast aside for the sake of doctrine, we really have to look for alternatives that actually fit the reality and the facts.

The biggest lie going now is the ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ meme, when it is so obviously not. However, if media and government say it loud enough and often enough then it obviously becomes ‘truth’. The problem here is that we Westerners no longer understand the word ‘religion’, and confuse it with the word ‘politics’. It is a long time since the West has had to deal with religious fanaticism. The 20th century was a century of political fanaticism.

Islam is a political movement hiding behind a religious façade, and, more recently, it has added ‘racist’ drapes to create a fashionable fantasy and further obfuscate all the issues. Originally it was a political religion of brown-skinned people, but it has evolved. For now the skin-colour isotope of the modern elemental theology of ‘racism’ can be used as a shroud to further misdirect all and sundry away from its real aims and intentions; a world without unbelievers.

It is therefore an incitement to murder and coercion on a huge scale.

European religions have been benign for the last 200 years. Whilst they meddled in politics, it was usually just pontificating on morality and poverty, etc., and was not really relevant to the mainstream.

The symbiosis between cultural Marxism and Islam has been significant, however, for in both, the ends justify the means. Therefore both are prepared to lie and cheat and steal for whatever might achieve their desired ends, even up to and including murder and political assassination.

But we are also being lied to about climate as well. And we are lied to about big pharma and medicines. We are being lied to about poisons and genetic modifications to our food. We are also being lied to about water.

These are official lies, and in each case, history is changed to suit the elite discourse. Take the fluoridation of water for example. Fluorine is highly electronegative, so much so that its bonding pattern with metallic elements is voracious. Fluorine is more poisonous than lead, and whilst we spend billions of dollars trying to remove the not very dangerous lead (see the endnote) from gasoline and replace it with known carcinogens, we are putting fluorine in our drinking water. Thus it ends up infiltrating the whole of the food chain.

Most dental research on fluorine was done using sodium fluoride, a by-product of uranium processing, but what is put in water is sodium fluorosilicate, a compound taken from industrial waste scraped from the inside of industrial chimneys.

This is like saying that because sulphur dioxide is a preservative, we can therefore use sulphuric acid to preserve things too. But as with all things, follow the money to get to the truth.

Fluorine is nasty, even in small quantities. It renders the magnesium, sodium, potassium and calcium in our bodies inert. In the case of magnesium, this shuts down the ATP process with which cells create energy. Fluorine also replaces the vital element iodine in the thyroid system, as well as making powerful people wealthy. As for good teeth, free from dental caries: well, that is up for grabs.

Enforced medication is illegal. Consent is usually required — except, that is, where fluoridation is concerned.

Socialism is also supposed to be good for you, but there is no proof as such. It is supposed to give you a cradle-to-grave shelter under a tree of togetherness, but in reality, the canopy of the socialist tree is supported by a trunk which does all the work for those who lounge in its shade and pluck its fruit. And those loungers seem to consider those in the trunk to be idiots and therefore expendable. So the trunk gets thinner and thinner.

The reality is that ‘socialism’ is a theory, a theory which keeps reinventing itself. It is a theory in which men are inspired by a ‘wise one’, people like Constantine, Mohammed and Marx. The rules are usually the same — one set for the elite, and another for the cattle. The cattle have no individuality. They are a mixed multitude of workers only fit to be organised by the Chosen.

Thus, in the long term, socialism is very, very bad for you.

But the short-term effect is like that of sodium fluoride, which may stop the holes in our teeth, but the long term effect is the sodium fluorosilicate which the elites conveniently forget to tell us about. Socialism is at best an experiment in social engineering with many failures and NO successes. It is an attempt to replace the obvious superiority of Judeo-Christianity with a man-made equivalent. In reality it is just the Newspeak term for ancient feudalism.

Islam was nothing but an early pre-Marxian form of violent socialism, where the (working) middle-class victims were robbed in the short order instead of by a long drawn-out con trick, as is true of Marxism today. The effect, more a thousand years ago, was disastrous desertification as the middle class generators of wealth evaporated, taking the skilled farming and irrigation skills with them. General productivity dropped to nothing, so that looting, mayhem and constant wars of expansion (Jihad) were the only lucrative industries.

The Islamic revolution turned a land flowing with milk and honey into the arid wasteland that was so emotionally described by Mark Twain. Judeo-Christianity has reversed the process in the last 100 years, and the forces of both modern and ancient socialism are not happy about it.

Socialism is a political religion of parasitism, and always eventually kills its host through financial paralysis. Redistribution of wealth means removing that necessity which is the mother of invention. Thus, the creativity that powers wealth creation is aborted to pay for the inertia of the unwilling.

There is a thing the socialists call ‘white supremacy’, and in their view it is unfair and wrong. But that same ‘white supremacy’ was hard-earned in a hostile environment. When one is obsessed with race, one tends to see everything through the lenses of ‘race’ and ‘equality’. Hence the idea of ‘white supremacy’ as a pejorative explanation of the obviousness of white supremacy. But what if there is a somewhat more rational explanation of the fact of white supremacy? What if it is a product of culture and good law, well-enforced, and not race and inequality?

Shared White Supremacy has benefited the whole world enormously. It has lifted many parts of the world out of the squalor of feudalism into a more beneficial and civilised existence. In many cases white supremacy led the way to a betterment of life for all. It is/was not perfect, and some cultures resisted because it was also the beacon of Judeo-Christian achievement.

White Supremacy is epitomised mainly by Christianity (or the vestiges of it), and along with the automobile and washing machines came the missionaries. Here in Israel ‘missionary’ is almost a swear-word, and describes those evangelical Christians who prefer to preach to Jews rather than attend to the obvious problems in their own countries. But these Christians are nowhere near as bad for the country as those who come preaching Mohammed and Marx.

Each man (or woman) is worthy of his hire. If he works and produces a profit then he should have food on the family table. If a man wants something for nothing then he is usually a criminal. Socialism enables that criminality by forcibly stealing from those who are worthy of their hire and giving the loot to those who are unworthy. This is a structure that cannot stand. Yes, some are incapable and need support, but they are far fewer than those who demand to be supported.

I am quite severely crippled and I had to make a choice between working or living on benefits. I chose to work and take the pain and fatigue, but then, I am of the Judeo-Christian persuasion and I believe in being productive.

It is always very tempting to kill the golden goose to find out why it lays eggs of gold, and I cannot help but see this kiddies’ story as summing up the naivety of socialism. Judeo-Christianity worked because it promoted honesty and integrity and that the ends do not justify the means; never ever. White supremacy is there because the ‘white’ areas of the world embraced the Ten Commandments and their synergy with civilization itself.

The great lie is to deny this to the point that we have to watch our countries spiral out of control because cultural Marxism and Islam have taken over the helm. We need to look very carefully at our various histories.

The history of Israel is a history of a fight against the forces of both Socialism and Mohammedanism. It is only within the last thirty years that the stranglehold of socialism (the histadrut) was broken, and Israel is now prospering at a time when the rest of the civilised world is struggling. In Jewish areas of the country one can leave one’s car and house unlocked. The borders are controlled and jobs are available.

I am old, crippled and do not speak the language very well. But I have a job in high tech that keeps us going. The problem in Israel is that of a skills shortage, and we need to allow limited immigration of productive people even if they are not Jews. What we do not need is to open our borders to all comers.

But what about unproductive people? Are we prepared to see those who will not support themselves starve? Are we prepared to shoot those who try to cross our borders illegally?

Israel has a problem with illegal immigrants, too. People in lands in the region know that Israel alone considers human life sacrosanct, so they cross Egypt to camp by the border fence until they are allowed in. To stop this, we must be prepared to let them starve in the no-man’s land between the border fences.

In many ways, the information explosion is behind the mass desire of relatively barbaric peoples to exploit the good will of Judeo-Christianity. This is a relatively new phenomenon, and one which can bring down a naïve Western civilization.

Dick Whittington thought the streets of London were paved with gold. Umbala Nkomo knows that he can retire as soon as he gets to London. He knows that whatever he does or does not do, once he sets foot in the UK he will be able to suck at the public teat.

Can we watch Umbala starve? Can we deport him back to where he came from? Tough decisions…

In the meantime, those extremely valuable wage-earners, the ‘workers’, are watching as Umbala sucks them dry.

So exactly who is now exploiting whom? And about whom should the ‘workers’ now unite?

Socialism has abandoned the workers because they did not respond with suitable adulation of their betters. Nowadays socialism champions those whose countries and customs have kept them in poverty. From these they may well get the adulation that they crave.

But even this new iteration still means that the slow rot of socialism is corroding the pillars of so-called ‘white supremacy’, the very columns that support our fragile civilization.

What is it that the individuals who support socialism actually want? Does the Muslim who supports sharia want to destroy Europe and revert everything back to the Arabian Desert and third world turmoil? No, he does not, but at the same time he is incapable of thinking through the long-term consequences of his actions.

What is it that the useful idiots want to achieve? A free and just society where everybody lives in poverty except the elite, just as in every other communist state? Just where does the wealth that is to be redistributed actually come from?

What do the actual controlling elites want to achieve? A family dynasty, a titled and entitled aristocracy? Slaves and ‘droit de seigneur’?

My school days were wasted because I had to live out the ambitions of my parents instead of ‘finding myself’ academically. But modern children have to live out the ambitions of their society, a society that has embraced religious socialism as its dominant theme. It is a society where long-term consequences are taboo subjects, and socialist superstitions such as ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’ are the order of the day, where ‘hate’ and ‘racism’ are the vague bogeymen deemed to be the causes of major civilizational pestilence. So now, most young people never reach a state of maturity whereby they can throw off the yoke of this fashionable bondage brainwashing. Those who cannot wrench their brains free of mind-bending media and entertainment lies are sentenced to life in the gutter of a road built by others, and are going to places unknowable and ungovernable.

One would hope that the Left is falling to bits. It wriggled out of its murderous 20th-century history by claiming minority-murderer status for Stalin, and that it was the ultra-conservatives who ‘dunnit’, and that Socialists ‘dindu nuffin’ . Somehow National Socialism is not real ‘socialism’, in the same way that Islam is a religion of ‘peace’ and climate change is ‘settled’ science.

But of course, if you never allow the opposition a platform, then, by default, your lies become the paradigm.

Note: In my first year of Chemical Engineering at Uni, I was told that oil is not a fossil fuel but the action of marine bacteria on organic matter (but this cannot be so because it supports the idea of a ‘flood’). One might want to research abiotic oil.

The addition of tetraethyl lead to gasoline allowed petrol engines to run at more efficiently at higher compression ratios. Yes, the lead comes out of the tailpipes, but in what is known in chemistry as a complex, and complexes do not necessarily have the pathogenic properties of their elemental constituents, the lead from tailpipes was not poisonous…

But unleaded gas was necessary for catalytic converters to work, and many important people made a lot of money. Catalysts do not just turn carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide as we are told, but also turn sulphur dioxide into sulphur trioxide (sulphuric acid and hence ‘low sulphur gas’), and chlorine into phosgene (WW1 poison gas). Cynics should read the article here.

MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.

120 thoughts on “Lies and Liars”

  1. Thank you for another great posting that I can forward, not because I agree with everything presented, but because we agree on everything presented that is IMPORTANT… and I get better results insisting that a friend HAS to read something like this, than Herbert Hoover’s FREEDOM BETRAYED.

  2. I believe Israeli security at airports could teach the West how to control the ‘terrorist’ without all those X-rays and pat downs, but that would put some people out of work and cause some badly needed introspection.

    I took to filtering my water when I lived in town, I now live out of town and rely on tank water which is free, when it rains, and generally safe to drink, although I still filter it.

    The powers to be have been lying to us for a very long time. Generations have grown up on those lies and it can be at times very difficult to get them to see that – but I won’t give up trying to convince them of that while I still have breath in this old body of mine.

    I remember my first car – an old Ford that required constant attention to keep it on the road – but cars then were far easier to maintain then they are now and far cheaper. I too learned that oil was the product of bacteria which at that time also verified the Flood, an honest Geologist would tell you that THE Flood did happen as they are aware of the ground strata that proves it.

    Great essay MC, keep safe.

    • OK folks, I live in SoCal where tetraethyl lead was first added to gasoline in the 1930s to prevent the deposits in gasoline from sticking to the valves, especially the exhaust valves. However, the lead mixed with the soot from the tail pipe that also contained oil and turned our skies brown. I had to leave in 1970 because I could not breathe, literally. I returned in 1975 against my will as the result of the market meltdown that followed Nixon’s resignation as the electorate was put in its place by the Elite. I used tobacco to minimize the foul taste in the air while I worked and dealt with the shortness of breath.
      The only reason that lead was not removed earlier was that the engine heads were made of cast iron. The engines couldn’t run without stellite (super-hard) valve seats as the vales would eventually weld themselves to the seats. keeping the stellite seats in the heads was another matter as their thermal coefficient was different than cast iron and they would fall out, just ask someone who owns a boat about that one.
      Datsun/Nissan along with a bit of help developed the aluminum cylinder head with hard faced valves and seats that solved the problem. Controlled fuel injection that was closely monitored along with catalytic converters instead of the garden hose that was the carburetor became mandatory in 1980. We are 37 years on and we can see the mountains and breathe the air and the trees aren’t dying. So what’s not to like? Sadly, government never stops when it succeeds but continues to push on with even greater failures so that the Elite who believe that the world owes them a living will have what they feel is owed.
      BTW, I was apprenticed to an automotive machinist for five years on a part-time basis and watched first-hand the changes taking place, including the demise of the smog pump that was burning up exhaust valves.

  3. Well said. Wonderfully well said.

    And an answer of sorts to one question.

    A wild speculation: I have often had the impression that the controlling elites want a return to feudalism. In that era, even the rich had very little money, their currency of influence was power. A return to feudalism would enable these worthies to escape the consequences of their own depradations on the currencies for easy big money and other forms of corruption. Their willing allies being those who vote for more free stuff.

    [ other corruptions: crony capitalism, legal schemes to eradicate competition, and many more. If I try to name them all this will not be a short comment and I still will not get them all named.]

    • So, what would designer feudalism look like? Some form of socialism I suppose. The elites might want a central govenment to protect them from the damage they have done everyone else.

  4. A very strong and convincing essay, MC.
    What always impresses me about your country is its ability to remain safe, clean and prosperous while being surrounded by poor and hostile neighbours (and we know what destructive ideology lies at the core of them being poor, hence hostile through envy).
    Especially the fact that Israel succeeds in remaining a democracy, while att the same time keeping all the necessary safety measures against terrorism and illegal immigration, should teach something to other Western governments.
    In Europe, the audience has since long become aware that multi-culti and so-called “diversity” are not at all a blessing, but rather a curse, and this change of opinion is due to the fact that we all got confronted with the malefic effects of the doctrine of Islam, which is not at all a “religion of peace”, as the official propagandic lies proclaim.
    It’s already striking that none of the other (and more genuine) religions, like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism, are ever called relions of peace, although they would qualify more for this description.
    The elites finally caught up in understanding what the common people already knew, hence a new doctrine was formulated by the EU elite, which appeared to be more existential than ideological, and which states that multi-culti is so-called “inevitable human destiny” (although only white Judea-Christian peoples are forced into it), that mass-migration cannot be stopped “anymore”, and that we’ll have to accept higher crime rates and the risk for terror attacks as a “part of modern life”, as the (moslem) mayor of London and some (socialist) German ministers coldly and cynically stated.
    Israel developed a succesful policy to address these issues, which proves to the world that the official statements of “inevitability” made by the EU elite are false, hence not existential att all, but every bit as ideological as the previous lies about multi-culti’s so-called “blessings”.
    This is one of the many (unjustified!) reasons why these corrupt left-winged bureaucrates demonize your country.
    A small EU member state like Hungary succeeded in doing the same, keeping mass migration at bay and terrorists out, and is being demonized too now by the EU and the left-winged elites in media and academics (or what’s left of the latter).
    Australia is a third country that manages quite well, but their geographical position is much more benevolent.
    The rest of the Western World would need to learn more from Israel and Hungary, before it’s too late.

    • Israel managed to stay afloat and prosper by a tremendoues application of effort and “mowing the grass”. But even more so by fertility commensurate with ability, which means having more children as you prosper. Europe is upside down in that regard. Religion means havuing a future beyond yourself. Atheism and agnosticism means there is no future once you dies. Israel is a God-directed country

      • Religion can be a controlling factor within a culture that tends to stymie a culture’s spiritual and cultural evolution. History shows us that Christianity and Judaism were not always beneficial to their cultures.

        We are all individuals and we were deliberately made that way so that each one of us can fulfill their own destiny within this world. All forms of religion are Man made systems of comfort and control for the masses, especially for those who do not wish to dwell too much on the spiritual side of life, but it is our Western sense of individualism that enables those of us who are able to appreciate that God dwells in all of us who are able to comprehend that all we need in life is there for all to read about in the one book.

        Churches are empty today because those who still ‘preach’ within those empty houses are no longer able to put out a meaningful message.

        I agree with the sentiment within your comment, but disagree that religion per se, provides us with a future. It is God who instills that sense within us, not a Man made religious system.

  6. Intereseting article. I can’t tell how much of it true because some of these things are unknown to me.

    However, I believe that oil is a fossil fuel.

    And I do hope you finally found yourselv.

    • fossils were made by the sudden onset of extreme hydraulic pressures that infused the skeletons with fine silt turning them to sandstone. We have the Petrified Forest here in Arizona and the tree fossils have been studied and the conclusion was reached that the water had to have been at least one mile deep for the observed fossilization to occur.
      Extreme heat and pressure is able to break down the proteins and form hydrocarbon chains. Cargill has been disposing of their processing wastes with this method for years. Where do you think you get biodiesel from?
      Here in California, the well loggers (well condition recorders and surveyors) found saltwater at 3,800 feet in the Taft well fields. Nearest saltwater is 150-200 miles southwest. Go figure. With all of its oil Saudi Arabia must have been a rather lush paradise back in the day.

  7. Further, I would like to comment on Hungary since I am an American citizen but a Hungarian by birth. Yes perhaps the “controlling elites” do want control. But we don’t have to agree to it. Know what I mean?

    And I hope you have all found yourselves, despite the difficulty these days. Eh, I am glad I am old since I feel very sorry for young people coming up in the very weird world we live in these days.

    Have a good day!

  9. Most importantly about catalytic converters they emit nano-particles that are able to cross the placenta-blood barrier and the brain-blood barrier, thus directly implanting themselves in the fetal brain and the newborn brain. Hence zillions of loci of inflammation are set up in the developping brain, likely enough causing the tremendous increase in Thinking maladies aere children are afflicted with, from frank autism to subtle discalculia.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129915/

  10. This is a really strange opinion, that leaded gasoline is OK.

    “Since the banning of leaded gasoline for the majority of uses in the United States, the average level of lead in the blood of Americans has decreased by over 75%. This is particularly significant as the negative effects of lead when introduced into the human body are far reaching, extremely severe, and potentially permanent. The half-life of lead in the body is also quite long- weeks in your blood, months in your soft tissues, and years in your bones. Further, unlike many other poisons, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “No safe blood lead level has been identified.”
    In 1985, the EPA estimated that over 5,000 Americans died every year from heart disease caused by lead poisoning.
    In 1988, a report was given to Congress by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry on childhood lead poisoning in America. It concluded that every year from 1970-1987, as the EPA’s phase out of lead in gasoline was taking place, 2 million children a year had their blood-lead levels reduced to below toxic levels. The report estimated that, from 1927-1987, a total of 68 million children had a toxic exposure to lead from leaded gasoline.
    Since lead is a naturally occurring heavy metal, unlike carcinogens like pesticides, waste oils and radioactive materials, it will not break down over time. It does not vaporize or disappear.”

    http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/11/why-lead-used-to-be-added-to-gasoline/

    • Good comment on lead. I always look for new articles by the inspiring MC — however lead does seem to be a disaster, especially for children. Hayek even comments that regulation for public safety is a good idea.

  11. Baron and Dymphna,

    this blog is obviously yours not mine. But as a regular reader and appreciator, I’ll give a little feedback, and to you not MC, since I already know that MC won’t be moved.

    As editors, I’d confine MC to his political views in articles on this blog. They are cogent, rational, well-argued and well-evidenced.

    Unfortunately, he has a tendency to want to add strange and sometimes destructive scientific opinions to his work. We witnessed what happened last time he felt the need to throw into an otherwise good essay a dimissal of the phenomenon of vaccine-related herd immunity, which phenomenon is totally uncontroversial among serious scientists and is about as well evidenced as anything else in science.

    Lead in gasoline leads to lead in blood; lead in blood leads to impaired intelligence among children. Proven. MC wants us to believe otherwise in this article, but this is proven; it’s not climate change.

    I can’t evaluate his scaring of us about fluoride in the above article. Maybe there is truth in it, I can’t dismiss it. But the problem is that I don’t respect his scientific opinions, based on experience. So I’m not going to put in the energy to carry out research based on what he says. So if someone is going to get me concerned about fluoride, it won’t be MC. He has blown his chances to do that, with his anti-herd-immunity and pro-lead-in-gasoline opinions.

    So I would encourage you to put an editorial filter on this kind of stuff. I think it’s better for all of us — you and the blog. This kind of stuff is just going to derail his useful political points.

    • I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on this.

      I don’t always agree with everything our correspondents send, and I don’t think I should agree with it all. If everything here were simply a rehash of my own opinions, prejudices, and preoccupations, this would be a pretty boring website.

      This is especially true where it concerns the most contentious political issues of the day. They are contentious precisely because opinions on them diverge widely. Those issues don’t get settled by suppressing one side or the other in the debate, but by airing the debate fully, over and over again, until the arguments that have the most merit prevail.

      The same is true of controversial scientific issues. I must remain an agnostic on most of them, because I simply don’t know enough. In many cases I might possibly be able to acquire the information necessary to help me form an opinion, but I don’t have the time. So I like to see all the argument and contention; it helps keep me (and everyone else) informed.

      If MC had argued for the existence of phlogiston, or that flies spontaneously generate in piles of dung, or that the sun is carried around the Earth on the back of an enormous zebra, I would probably have politely declined his essay. But the issues he brings up are not so easily dismissed, at least not by me.

      In my own lifetime I have seen any number of issues move from “settled” science to their complete opposite. Two examples: the dangers to human health of a high-fat diet, and the fluoridation of drinking water. Both issues are still contentious, but forty or fifty years ago there was no mainstream argument against either of them. Fat was dangerous — especially butter! — and everybody ate as little of it as possible. Fluoride in the water was good because it reduced the incidence of dental cavities, and only right-wing kooks opposed it (as well as Chief Justice Earl Warren and US membership in the United Nations).

      Now there are serious, reputable scientific studies that support the opposite position both on dietary fat and on fluoride in the water. It’s possible to question the “settled” science of forty years ago without being considered a total nut job.

      For all I know, the same may be true of leaded vs. unleaded gasoline. It may be that there is a trade-off, and that the lower blood levels of lead may be outweighed by other, unanticipated consequences of removing the lead from gasoline. I’m not knowledgeable on the issue, but I’d be interested in hearing the arguments and seeing the facts laid out clearly and without polemics.

      I don’t see any value in suppressing these discussions. If the arguments in favor of the low-carb high-fat diet had been suppressed, I would be thirty-five pounds heavier than I am now and not nearly as healthy. Yet twenty years ago any dissent on this issue would have been sneered at and completely dismissed.

      The consensus can change, even on scientific issues. And sometimes it should, when enough evidence accumulates. But by stifling all discussion on selected issues, enough evidence will never be available to enough people to prompt a change in the consensus.

      • Actually, I don’t at all believe that these ideas should be suppressed, and I believe they SHOULD be discussed, but there is definitely something to be said for not mixing controversial ideas of one type with unrelated ideas of another type.

      • Let me add another angle on this.

        For quite some time I was one of the main organizers of an online forum, which was devoted discussion or what I’ll call Subject X.

        People would find a reasonably big audience there and would want to talk about Subject Y, where Y is any number of subjects.

        They would tend to get told that we aren’t for Subject Y. Many community-members would argue for the WORTHINESS of Subject Y as a subject in general, as something people should know, as if that was a reason for allowing its inclusion. In the beginning I tended to agree somewhat. As time went on, I began to yield more to what I perceived as the greater wisdom (and experience) of the other organizers.

        Subject Y may be worthy. The problem was that it was DILUTING subject X on our platform. The best policy I concluded in time was ‘yes it’s worthy but does not belong here’.

        When MC adds non-political theories to his articles, I think he’s adding them because he thinks they are worthy. They have a diluting affect on his article though for the purposes of this blog. I for one, am loath to forward his articles as a result of them, which is not true of typical articles on this blog. I see hints of the same sentiment from other subscribers.

        Multiple unrelated points reduce the EFFICIENCY of his article.

        There are a few tacks you could take. You could say ‘MC, if you want to submit scientific stuff, please submit it in an article by itself and I’ll consider it’. Or you could say ‘MC, we don’t take controversial scientific stuff’.

        This doesn’t mean that I think you should strictly confine yourself to one thing. I appreciate the forays into poetry and Bach, for example. The question of what fits here is a creative and artistic question, not a scientific question.

        It’s rather that I think that whatever the forays are, they should still serve the blog.

        I feel a bit bad that I have criticized MC on his stature as a scientific writer. Part of the problem for me though is how much I respect his political writings.

        What if you had a great tenor who was a really lousy stand-up comedian, but thought he was a great stand-up comedian and insisted on adding stand-up comedy to his singing act?

        If he was a crappy singer, this would matter nothing. The better a singer he is, the more this matters. Wanting to take the stand-up out of his act may seem cruel. But it is kind. And those who try to take the stand-up out of his act may well be more like friends to him than others, and have better respect for his work.

        I think I’m being ‘like a friend’ to MC:

        MC, take the science out of your political essays. They are stronger without it. You’ll make a better name for yourself without it. You will reach more without it.

        MC, write separate scientific essays if you want and see if you can publish them on prominent blogs. If you can’t, that’s a very strong sign that your political essays are better without them.

        • Your point is well-taken.

          MC has been a diligent contributor to this blog for almost five years, so I allow him a lot of leeway, much as I do with any of the others. (Especially the translators, who work so hard for so long. When they want to do something different, I say, “Sure,” because they deserve it. Unless it’s something totally appalling, which it never is.)

          • I’m sure the late George Orwell would not be the only one to view with concern the prospect of such an “editorial filter”.

            It seems to me that MC’s juxtaposition of political and religious matters with scientific ones is not only acceptable but valuable and thought-provoking, given his underlying point that ‘the elites are lying to us’.

            Science is never ‘right’. It is at best ‘slightly less wrong than before’, being always shielded from the full picture by the limits of its measuring systems. It is thus no more accurate, nor less subject to dangerous manipulation by vested interests, than politics or religion.

            It is in the interest of “wealthy and powerful people who stand to profit from our ignorance and credulousness” to pigeon-hole these subjects into arcane specialist blogs that only arcane specialists read, thus keeping the hoi-polloi forever ignorant of their interlinked significance in the big picture.

            Unlike the political Left that he justifiably condemns, the clearly erudite MC is not bullying us into believing assertions, he is simply floating them for us to consider, within the context of a whole. I thought it a most fascinating and stimulating piece, and I thank him, and you for presenting it.

        • The whole of science is now deeply politicized. As a consumer, it pays to do as much research as possible, and use our own experience in the world to discern the best path.

          My chronic fatigue may well be based on the replacement of lead in petrol with other, possibly more harmful substances.

          I spent a long insomniac night reading the links MC left to back up his propositions…and I gave up fluoride a long time ago. Also bromine, which is found in brominated wheat flour. For that matter, I function much better without any wheat at all.

        • Did you follow the links, or do you just know these things? I suspect every criticism that you fling at me also applies to your entrenched views too. But you wish go over my head to silence mine whilst I would like to hear you defend yours. The previous article you refer to was about believing the narrative and I especially put in contentious matters. The object of the exercise is to get people thinking and researching things for themselves. If you follow my links you will find that they are not unsound science, even if they might be unsound Science (religious science). What they are is the science that is not heard outside of learned papers and scientific and engineering periodicals.

          • OK, MC, let me try to put this in a more useful way.

            I love your political writings.

            As a scientific-minded person I find it very hard to get beyond your categorical dismissal of herd immunity.

            I made an analogy to you as a great tenor (political writer) who mixes his act up with that of a poor stand-up comedian (science writer). Let’s suppose I am TOTALLY WRONG about your science writer capabilities. Let’s suppose that you are TOTALLY RIGHT in all these controversial scientific things you say.

            Now the problem is that your act is of a great tenor plus very good stand-up comedian, in the same act. This is still a problem. Those who say I am trying to censor you are putting up a straw man. I’m not. I’m trying to clean up your political writing act. Not eliminate your scientific writing act, which I think belongs elsewhere.

            Your audience will have a varying understanding of science and scientific method. If you mix your political writings with EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL scientific writings, it’s going to cause problems among those of us who take science seriously — REGARDLESS of whether you happen to be right or wrong in those scientific writings.

            The problem is that whether you are right or wrong you are MIXING DEBATES when you write like this. You’re distracting people.

            Now I can just feel the straw man coming up that I am against breadth. Please don’t bother. The problematic thing is not just the mix but the nature of the mix.

            What if you wanted to add CONTROVERSIAL CLAIMS on the merits of, say just as an example, free love to your political writings? Why not?

            Because the controversial nature of those claims will distract from the purpose of your article. No matter how ‘right’ you might be in such controversial claims, you’ll still be the tenor who is adding stand-up comedy to his singing act.

          • It is the deeply politicized “science” of today which has become stand-up comedy. A Comedy where the basic tenets of the scientific method are ignored in favor of a rigidly-enforced “consensus”. That’s what happens when government interferes via money or power. The best example I can think of in the US is the FDA’s decision to totally ban sodium cyclamate as a permissible artificial sweetener and yet allow aspartame free rein.

            Fifty years later, we remain the only country to have done this.

            And there is the medical science of “healthy” low-fat/no-fat diets to treat heart disease. Or for grins and chuckles, read over the American Diabetes Association’s “diet plan”…

            Or how about the settled science of anthropogenic climate change, which fails to take into account the actions of the sun and/or volcanoes on our changing climate?

            Or “gold-standard” treatments for cancer that have failed to do much beyond enrich the government-medical complex.

            No politics in science? Tell that to Galileo.

        • Cautious Billy-Bob, I agree with what you say. The fundamental points are diluted by other points that are arguable.

          • Bingo. Scientific debate should remain just that: debatable. The current “consensus” mode is driving competent men away from science. Too many unproven hypotheses are put forward as the final word instead of going forward to further investigation.

    • I was a contributor to the correspondence following MC’s comments about vaccine-related herd immunity. As then, I agree with Cautious Billy-Bob that MC’s curious scientific opinions detract markedly from the soundness of his political statements. This is to be regretted, as his views are thus more likely to be dismissed in their entirety.

      • If his views are to be dismissed in their entirety because one disagrees with part of them, that shows once more the politicization of thinking. That point of view is eating away at the foundations of our ability to reason.

        • Dynphna, I am not sure you get the point.

          If he had a very controversial opinion on the value of free love, should he add it to his political writings?

          No-one is saying that there is no place for his scientific opinions, except as projected in straw men here.

          Nor has anyone said that his views are to be dismissed in entirety because of some elements.

        • Yes, as I said, this is to be regretted. However, perhaps, where there are substantial flaws in the scientific opinions aired then it is inevitable that the co-expressed political points will become imbued with some degree of doubt as well. I do wonder why MC has to embellish and thus contaminate his unambiguously straightforward political critique with any venture into science at all.

          When a new scientific hypothesis is formulated scientists will argue furiously about it. In due course well designed and controlled experiments yield results that tilt the argument one way or the other. Eventually sufficient evidence is accumulated to allow a consensus to emerge, admittedly most grudgingly on the part of some of the “losing” side. What is wrong with consensus when it has been reached through due methodical and logical process? To suggest that a scientific controversy exists (as Creationists do about Evolution) when it no longer does is to abandon reason and critical thinking.

          • Yet there is actually controversy about the value of fluoride vs. the harm it causes. Reputable scientists who are competent and established in their fields have conducted studies with results that run contrary to previously accepted conclusions.

            Unfortunately, the verdict on fluoride has been politicized to such an extent that the contrary evidence is treated negatively, as kook and fringe material, when this is hardly the case. As a result, it is all but impossible to purchase a non-fluoride toothpaste in mainstream supermarkets or pharmacy chains.

          • What you describe used to be the Scientific Method. It isn’t anymore. A medical doctor who did post-grad studies in bio-chem (among others) planned to be able to do post-graduate work on nutrition. But no university she applied to was interested because there was no profit to be had. She quit the game and became a family practitioner. Her patients were more than willing to be guinea pigs in hopes of getting better. Her nutrition ideas work.

            So do the ideas on diabetes diets by Dr. Bernstein, an endocrinologist, whose work has kept diabetics alive and well. He thinks he is the only Type One diabetic diagnosed in 1946 or 47 (he was 12) who is still alive and working. And playing tennis. Or was, last time I looked, when he was in his mid-70s. He was an engineer who bucked the system by going to medical school to understand his own disease and how to treat it.

            Yes, indeed, many scientific controversies exist. If they didn’t, science would ossify.

            There is consensus on the Law of Gravity, thank Progress. And on the Laws of Thermodynamics. But at the bottom of physics there appears to be a series of cosmic jokes. For example, the fact that observing something changes it. Who knew? Or what happens to particles when they’re observed:

            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

            I love physics. Laws written by a jokester.

    • I have to agree with you.Lead poisoning is a real thing.Lead based paint had to be banned for that reason.Lead poisoning causes lower I.Q in children,stunted growth , behavioral problems(such as moody ,aggressive ,angry or hyperactive behavior) hearing problems and learning difficulties .

      In adults lead poisoning can lead to changes in behavior,mood personality and sleep patterns,memory loss ,difficulty thinking clearly muscle weakness, difficulty maintaining balance when walking and headaches.

      In severe cases lead poisoning causes seizures ,paralysis and coma and even death .So far from being part of a malevolent irrational conspiracy removing lead from gasoline is an urgent public health imperative .

  12. Fluorine is not the same thing as fluoride. Otherwise an excellent article.

    • Fluorine is the element, which becomes a fluoride salt when combined with a metallic element. Please look it up as confirmation.

      • I would like to say a word to my technical critics, in an essay like this one I cannot go into any depth on scientific subjects. but before you rush in, be an angel and read the links first. This essay is about lies and liars not fluorine and gasoline. The links provided tell alternative stories and may or may not be the real truth you be the judge. You are free men and women, free to believe whatever you like, as am I.

        As for arguments about platforms, read the other comments well, especially where someone is trying to remove MY platform. He may or may not have valid arguments, but he has no right to try and silence his opposition, that is called bullying!

        • Would like to see (what I believe) the overwhelmingly positive effects of fluoride in a counter and referenced article.

        • For information on contaminants in U.S. Drinking water… a small PDF file…

          https://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet_on_Fluoridation.pdf

          My brief thoughts on publishing lists of links. If we search diligently on almost any controversial subject, we will
          find links that support our views and links that disagree with those views. With a little cherry-picking we can “prove” the earth is undergoing massive climate changes because of our bad habits. Or “prove” whatever we want to prove. I’m inclined to look for data rather than jibber-jabber. This link is connnected to data from the National Science Foundation. These are non-partisan volunteers…
          experts who are not beholden to anyone. No deep knowledge of science is required to read what’s there.
          Enjoy!! We are blessed with excellent drinking water. Yes, there a few anomalies that appear in the news. That’s what the news is all about… ads plus anomalies.

      • Chlorine is also an element, a highly toxic gas that when combined with the metal sodium becomes sodium chloride, or ordinary table salt! The fact that elemental fluorine is a very nasty substance does not mean its compounds are also nasty, which is what you seemed to be implying

  13. When all this […] comes to the inevitable conclusion; It will start all over again. Read the work of Pitirim Sorokin.

  14. Thank you for the political views expressed. Islam is a danger to the whole world, including places (like my own country, Brazil) that apparently are, now, out of its influence. Although we (and Latin America in general) may have graver and more immediate dangers at present, it seems clear that this evil ideology threatens the whole of mankind. Its spread is, unwisely, helped by most leftwing political thought. Let us hope and pray God that enough people see the truth before it is too late (some say it is, already, too late).
    All of us, in my opinion, should think that to tolerate each other (as we should) is not the same as to agree and to let each other do as he or she likes. Also tolerance, like everything, must have some limits. Why shoud there be laws otherwise?
    Thank you for your attention.

    • Good to have a commenter from Brazil. One of our former “informers” wrote comments and emails about life in Brazil as a Norwegian ex-pat. I think your country is quietly becoming a refuge for the first-world people who find their own countries uninhabitable.

  15. If the “Religion of Peace” ever did manage to achieve universal status they would starve to death because there would be no more productive sector.

    • There is a stream of thought from some who place much value in a spiritual life that suggests Islam was introduced to counter the effects of Judeo/Christian influence within the then known world.

      Any ideological system, such as Islam or Marxism, designed to counter Judeo/Christian influence will always be one of the predatory type that consumes as it undermines in order to prevail.

      But what happens when such a predatory system runs out of prey? It will then turn upon itself, eventually destroying itself, as even now we see Muslim doing to other Muslim throughout the world.

      I often refer to Islam as the Devil’s religion because the Father of Lies is also the most psychopathic and vindictive hater of Human kind, especially those who are Christian or Jew.

      • It is apparent to me that it is not just Infidels that Muslims hate, but any human they perceive to be insufficiently vile to qualify as a Muslim. Thus, as you say, they will keep killing and killing, even their own kind, until only one is left. He will then look in a mirror, despise what he sees, and kill himself. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.

        I think Islam is humanity’s cancer, and the only thing that will stop it destroying its host is a ruthless surgeon with the courage to cut it out and burn it.

  16. I’ve wondered about fluoridation for decades, because it was started so long ago when scientists knew very little about such things as they do today.

    • Legalisation of pot will bring about a population of questionable reasoning. I only see anti -fluoride campaigning in pro-muslim, pro drugs, anti-western culture camps in Australia. Article sounds like a PETA article.

      • We already have such a population. That’s why pot is being legalized so quickly.

        I am anti-fluoride but not pro-Muslim, etc. PETA is pathetic.

        The case for fluoride is NOT settled science.

        • My 5 cent’s worth? Not worried. The CEO and I have been drinking distilled water for 35 years now, and no, we’re not dead, as a research chemist suggested we should be. Both in excellent health, 82 and 78 yrs.

          For those who don’t know, distilled water is a powerful solvent.

          BTW, drinking water almost everywhere has been ‘purified’ with varying amounts of chlorine–nice. We’ve missed that (and the flouride) for 35 years!

          • I only got ‘off’ the fluoride in water gig when I realized that it is also used as a main ingredient in rat poison!

            For crying out loud folks need to wake up!

  17. Islam was nothing but an early pre-Marxian form of violent socialism, where the (working)
    🙂

    Nope.
    Islam is the set of rules transferred to human society from archaic, predator pack/pride prototypes from primate societies.
    Patriarchy, harems, duels, warrior cult, pedophilia, vendettas, sacrifice of “dispensable” males in tribal wars, executions by mob, etc.
    Slavery is, it looks like, the most progressive element.
    Stoning is probably the most ancient type of execution, sanctified by the wisdom of countless ancestors, from here to erectus and beyond.

    Koran has appeared when all that caveman’s jazz met literacy.
    …

    • Mohammed was illiterate. He asked that nothing be written down after he was gone. Obviously, not a long-term thinker.

      • in the core of any religion is crystallized tribal mythology.

        the archetypal “heroes” from these myths are role models, sources of the rules of conduct.

        first words of the Bible if I’m not mistaken, are “in the beginning, there was Word”.
        this is straight reference to the appearance of spoken Language, oral tradition, i.e. first untensive, transferrable “information technology” not related to genome.

        Muhammed and Islam probably aren’t the worst case of evil tribe.
        Aztecs’ religion was even bloodier.

        ..everything depends on what type of schizophrenic is recognized as superior hero.
        Jesus was OK-ish.
        Nietzsche – bearable.
        Camus – great.
        Cohen brothers… we’ll see. 🙂
        …

        • Me, I like Matthew 5. Kind of the Christian Constitution.

          And John’s esoteric gospel begins, as a parallel to the beginning of Genesis, “In the beginning was the Word”…

          So yeah, I like Jesus. His stuff never gets old, just like the Psalms never age. I don’t need the miracles, but I do need the words.

          Poor Nietzche: a brilliant mind paralyzed by despair and syphilis. As for Camus, I much prefer Gabriel Marcel, his contemporary, and also a member of the French Underground. A sunnier, wiser man who came to value the transcendent without having to pin it down with dogma… There are several Marcel societies in the U.S. Camus? Not so much.

          Marcel penned one of my favorite quotes, “Life is not a problem to be solved but a mystery to be lived”. It gets me through the rough spots.

          • No, Nietzsche didn’t have syphilis — he had a tumor on his right optic nerve that got bigger until it messed up his brain. (I don’t really have the right to comment here because nervousness about online payments has prevented me from contributing, but I really feel bad about this persistent degrading falsehood.) Anyway, here’s the key link:
            http://www.leonardsax.com/Nietzsche.pdf

        • I believe there is a school of thought claiming that “in the beginning, there was Word” refers not to language but to the initial sound vibration that began the formation of the Universe.

          In which case one could equally well claim that “in the core of any tribal mythology is misunderstood religion”.

        • Actually, AY, I contest your claim that the Aztec’s religion was ‘bloodier’ than Islam.

          When evaluating the dangerousness of a set of ideas, there are ironies as there are ironies in the dangerousness of a microbe.

          Which has a higher kill-rate per person getting it, ebola or smallpox?

          Ebola, by a mile.

          Which is more deadly?

          Smallpox, by a mile. Why? Because it spreads better, because it doesn’t kill so quickly or efficiently. So it creates big epidemics, while ebola outbreaks are more likely to die out while still small.

          Similarly, Islam is more deadly than the religion of the Aztecs.

          200+ million dead and counting, WAY higher than that of the religion of the Aztecs.

        • Nope. Genesis 1:1 reads, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Any references to words in Genesis 1 are all, “Then God said,” just before He created something or spoke to man.

      • Nothing was, it was all made up after the fact as an apologia for Bedouin brigandry. The “Grand Manuscript” in the Ankara Museum is a palimpsest in which around 15% to 20% of the words on the vellum were bleached and then written over as seen under ultraviolet light. Islam can’t even agree with itself nor could Mahomet, who was probably schizophrenic as the result of all his delusions.
        Then again, there are the words that are “God-breathed” that had stood the test of time and its perditions. I prefer those as they are more credible, even on their face without research. Of course, the deeper you dig….but I am getting off the subject (saddle sore).

        • Much of that research on the Koran, ironically, was done in Germany. See the book on our sidebar,What the Modern Martyr Should Know. I corresponded with the author, who did not choose that dumb title for the English version.

          They’d destroyed paper-making areas so were reduced to re-using Christian paper, ‘bleached out’…some of the lettering of the old liturgies would bleed through.

  18. A great essay in general, thank you MC. I disagree with this :

    “But of course, if you never allow the opposition a platform, then, by default, your lies become the paradigm.”

    Say that Judeo Christianity is platform for a country. It does not follow that there must be lies in that platform / paradigm. It does not follow that UNCONDITIONALLY there are lies in a platform. Else, no country can have a platform.

    Secondly, it does not follow that the country (whatever it is) MUST allow Islam to be a platform. We know the consequences. Suffice to say that one your particular claim is an overgeneralization; suicidal and becomes lies too. That one of your particular claim must be qualified.

    • There are plenty of examples in history of the retrograde influence of Christianity when it is the ONLY platform allowed. I am a Christian, but I sure don’t want to see any more theocratic Irelands or Spains. Italy? Enh…they always had a Swiss cheese kind of belief. But lots of superstition.

      • I get your point. This is my point : we should not overgeneralize. In general, ‘opposition’ is allowed. But Islam as opposition is not allowed. Partial opposition.

      • I add that socialism too should not be allowed as opposition. Hinduism ,bBuddhism are ok. If anything is allowed as opposition ; all your criticisms toward whatever governments just show cognitive dissonance. At one you criticize the government that allows (and nurtures?) such ideologies, yet you criticize any government that does not tolerate such (opposing) ideologies.

  19. There are technical errors in chemistry cited this article. The worst I’ve noticed is that catalytic converters change carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide. The purpose of catalytic converters was and is to burn hydrocarbons in the exhaust steam. These hydrocarbons (like, for instance, benzene) managed to pass through the engine without burning. Putting them into the atmosphere causes smog and real health problems. Sure the converters will burn (oxidize) carbon monoxide, but that’s not their purpose. When tetraethyl lead was banned more hydrocarbons got into the exhaust stream. Hence the need for converters.

    As some have noticed, lead in our blood is very harmful. Among other things, lead causes IQs to decrease. Yes, the amount of lead in our blood has fallen dramatically since lead was banned in gasoline.

    The fluoride story is more complex. Way back in time someone noticed that regions that have naturally occurring fluorides in drinking water also had fewer cavities. After much haggling it was
    determined that small amounts of fluorides do reduce cavities.
    The author claims that fluorides are harmful to us. Anything in excess is harmful, so only small controlled amounts are added to our water.
    There’s no relationship between fluorides and uranium… except this.
    We deliberately make uranium hexafluoride for the purpose of separating certain isotopes to make atomic weapons and rods for
    nuclear power plants. No one makes uranium hexafluoride for sale.

    I’m a retired chemical engineer (M.S. Degree) as well as a degrees
    statistician. I worked in the chemical industry for 40 years and consulted for 10 more years. My advice would be this. There’s a lifetime of learning ahead of you. Please learn a lot more before you
    tell us your opinions about chemicals.

    Hey, I agree. We’ve been lied to about Islam and climate change.
    Our politicians are crooked. It’s a mess out there.

    • One more comment. Let’s not haggle over fossil fuels. The name itself is misleading. The hydrocarbons we need come from all sorts of dead and decaying plantsand ancient animals. Even from modern garbage dumps where pipes have been installed to capture methane gas we use to warm our homes.

      For a real eyeopener do some research on the beautiful impressions of plant leaves found in chunks of coal. So, coal… a fossil fuel… has been
      created by decomposition of ancient plants and some animals as well. But it seems to be mostly from plants.

      • Chucky77,

        I appreciate your bringing factual technical information to the discussion.

    • Re: Lead – I would add that about the same time lead in gasoline was removed lead in paint was also removed. Lead in paint 1970 – TEL in gas late ’70’s

      I think that the fluoride debate is still not closed.

    • Thank-you Chuck, you flatter me, and in case it escapes you, I am in my middle 60s and have long experience behind me and not too much in front of me. I love the way you criticize and then go on to confirm what I have said written. Suggest you follow the links, you might learn something. (See, I can be patronizing too):-

      It is now no secret that our atomic bomb program created fluoride waste. It is used to create uranium hexafluoride in the process of separating uranium 235 in ore. There are still rusting cans of sodium hexafluoride in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, contaminating the workers while awaiting disposal. But while the first atomic bomb was being produced, the fluoride waste was a closely guarded secret, and because of its intense toxicity, its disposal became a serious problem. The first waste fluoride from atomic bomb production resulted in run-off that entered local waterways and resulted in “dead” lakes because the fluoride had killed animal and plant life in the lakes.

      By ignorance and carelessness, chemical industries in New Jersey producing bomb-grade uranium during WWII allowed an escape of waste fluoride into the air, severely damaging fruit trees and animal life downwind of these industries. A legal suit brought by people living in New Jersey for their damages was silenced by payoffs to the plaintiffs.

      The problem of disposal of fluoride waste had to be resolved in a manner that disguised its true nature. Thus arose the fluoridation concept. With very little evidence and no adequate testing, a campaign was mounted to trickle away the waste fluoride into multiple community water supplies for the supposed benefit of dental decay prevention.
      http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/fluoridepolitics.html

      This is the alternative view to yours, as an engineer you should be aware that science is never ‘settled’
      .

      • With respect, when I read your essay I honestly thought it had
        been written by a beginner in chemistry. “fluorine is more
        poisonous than lead.” Are we talking chemical elements here?
        Or compounds such as fluorides and lead oxide. I’d happily
        eat a small piece of lead rather than inhale elemental fluorine.
        The fluorides in toothpaste and drinking water are compounds
        (The ide suffix says it’s a compound, like sodium fluoride
        magnesium fluoride, etc). Would we compare elemental lead, a solid, against fluorine, a noxious gas?

        I’m not here to be combative. But I spent 50 years in industry. Much of that was involved in undoing misconceptions in chemistry, engineering, and statistical methods. You have a wide audience here. I’m only trying to help them understand. So long
        as you stayed with politics and social matters I was nodding in agreement. But I just couldn’t skip over some chemical curiosities.

        For instance…

        “But unleaded gas was necessary for catalytic converters to work, and many important people made a lot of money.”

        Our government demanded that tetraethyl lead be removed from gasoline.

        You rightly said it was there to permit higher compression ratios. Without it the gasoline would self-ignite before the spark.
        The alternative was to go to other gasoline formulations…
        like increasing octane ratings. In any event the matter of
        hydrocarbons in the exhaust stream had to be dealt with.
        Smog, especially in California, was unhealthy at best and deadly at worst. We couldn’t continue putting lead in gasoline.
        Enter… catalytic converters!! (Happy music.) Right!! Lead would
        destroy the catalytic properties of the converters. So who made the money? Well, standard oil was making a “killing” by selling
        tetraethyl lead for gasolines. They practically had that market locked up. Being forced to adandon that TEL, they lost a lot of
        money. Several companies developed the new converters.
        I assume they profited from this. That’s the marketplace.

        There was no hidden hand here. Lead had to go… gasoline had to be reformulated… and those wicked hydrocarbon emissions had to be greatly reduced.

        Now for some thoughts on uranium hexafluoride. I’m not familiar with all of the history here. But my engineering spirit tells me this much. I’m certain that recovering the fluorine from uranium fluoride so we can sell that fuorine (as a fluoride,
        of course) would not be economical. It would be far less expensive to just buy fluorine or fluorides in the marketplace.
        The cost and risk of messing around with corroded and
        leaking containers of uranium fluoridecwould be enormous.
        But even if we went that route, what would we do with the uranium… the other portion of the uranium fluoride?
        Risky, dangerous… “no way”. Fluorine is a commodity.
        It’s not so expensive.

        Finally, it seems to me that the expression “fossil fuels” has
        been worn out. We get energy from coal, oil, and natural gas.
        All of these are carbon based. Decomposed trees, leaves, animals, fish, and garbage contain hydrocarbons in many forms.
        All are useful. Coal is mostly carbon. Natural gas contains a lot of methane, hence a lot of hydrogen. I’d rather not hassle over
        which came from what decomposing bodies. God saw fit to provide us with all of these and more. That’s sufficient for me.

        Take care. Be of good cheer. I’ll be age 84 in two days.
        That’s July 4th. Seriously. And I’m still a student.

        Chucky

        • Chucky you sound both well informed and erudite- a true expert in your field .Thank-you for your lucid ,informative and valuable posts from which I have derived immense enjoyment.Happy birthday for July 4th.

        • I see you still have not bothered to follow the links, and you do not give any alternatives to support your assertions. You are trying to take the moral high ground by asserting what you consider your superior qualifications and experience.

          The object of the exercise is to present alternatives. You have an opinion, but you seek to belittle and discard my opinions and those of the highly qualified experts in field that are quoted, you may be still a student but you are not listening because you consider you know better.

          In the extract on NaF is the link you deny between Fluorine and Oak Ridge and fluoridation of water, see the last paragraph. The Sodium Hexafluoride red herring is of your concoction not mine.

          Please also read the abiotic oil link and the catalytic converter links, and consider what I am trying to put across,
          Thank-you

          • I did read them, M.C. Through a long, sleepless night. That’s a lot of information, and much of it ignored.

            There was a cancer researcher at Sloan-Kettering in NY who was let go because he bucked the settled consensus of cancer treatment as envisioned by Big Medicine. I read quite a bit of his writings after my own breast cancer treatment – which is standardized – and was glad to know that the little I had discovered (e.g., radiation treatment raises a BIG risk for leukemia about 10 years out) helped me avoid some of the torture. I regret the chemo. I think it set up my fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue without doing anything helpful.

          • MC, when your errors are pointed out to you, your tack is ‘you haven’t read my links, have you?’.

            That was your response when you were called on your dismissal of herd immunity.

            These are distraction tactics, no more.

            I’d STRONGLY advise you to keep to your strengths. You may experience that as hostile but it is not. Stephen Hawking and other great scientists are complete idiots when it comes to politics. I’d advise them to keep to their strengths also. Not in a hostile way either.

        • Chucky,
          Check out my post about what the automotive industry had to go through to get cleaner air so you could see the San Gabriel Mountains. Detroit refused to cooperate. Honda replied saying, “You have your lawyers, we have our engineers.” “We will see who wins.” Honda did with its three-valve engine that ran like a striped-ape and didn’t need no catalytic converter. Then there was V-Tec (valve technology) that gave us the on-demand high-lift camshaft (0-60 in 5 seconds in my 12 year old Ridgeline). The point to all this is that we should never stop learning and improving. The lies that are being told are more numerous to count even with MC’s attempt at a big picture analysis. I have come to the conclusion that a spiritual force is behind all this as the lies are simply to pervasive and anticipatory of human responses that would counter them. That is where MC and I agree that something wicked this way comes.

        • Chucky, appreciate your comments!
          July 4th today! Your birthday, my wedding anniversary. (58 yrs) Raise a glass!

  21. The way I look at it, MC totally gets it about politics and Islam, and this is an EXCELLENT example of this understanding. One that I’ve bookmarked with extra starts for future reference, actually.

    As for the other stuff, the truth is, I don’t know about most of it. I’m pretty agnostic about the human effects on climate change. Greenland was warmer than it is now, within recorded history (hence the name *Green*land). No climate change proponent has ever been able to give me a coherent explanation for why this is the case, despite “global warming” (now renamed “climate change”). So my guess is that humans do have some impact on climate change, but how much? Is it significant? Could it even be counteracting otherwise negative trends? I just don’t know.

    My default assumption is that lead in gasoline is bad. I’m willing to listen to alternative arguments, but this would take some serious convincing for me to become convinced otherwise.

    • Yes, Greenland WAS warmer than it is now in the Viking days, but that’s not how it got its name. The Vikings from Iceland who discovered it realized that it was a pretty bleak prospect for settlers, so they gave it a name that made it sound more attractive than it was.

      In other words, Greenland got its name as a marketing ploy.

      • “In other words, Greenland got its name as a marketing ploy.”

        As did the more hospitable environs of “Iceland”. Thank Leif Erikson.

        • Yes. Figurative signs on the ocean, “Ice Land that way” “Green land this way”, potentially one of the best marketing cons in history! 🙂

          I’m not sure anyone fell for it though!

      • I have heard that before, but I thought it was an urban myth. Naming the place “Greenland” because it was actually green makes more sense. It would be good to have a source that confirms the name’s origin.

        • Um, it isn’t green. It’s um, white. Like ice. Unless they have green ice up there….

        • No, it’s in the Eddas. I’ve read them (but only in translation).

  22. Kindness to the cruel is cruelty to the kind.

    This is a Jewish saying, usually cited in reference to a lenient criminal justice system. Or a lenient judge who makes a mockery of justice. But the fact is that it applies to everything.

    Who could be kinder than the maker, the worker, the producer. How so? Because without him there would be no world. What he does is kindness at its most bedrock.

    And who could be crueler than the dependent. Not the helpless dependent. The physically able dependent, the layabout. The leach. What he does by not doing is not neutral, it is the undoing of the world.

    And then along comes the world upside down scheme of socialism demanding that – in the name of compassion – the kind carry the cruel.

    And so the world the worker made crumbles. To the sound of mocking laughter.

    • To some what you’ve laid out is only the beginning of the pealing of the evils onion, but I see something more fundamentally evil at work.

      What do I mean by peeling of the onion? For instance, the plea of the “needy” may touch the kind once, twice, thrice — but at some point only governmental enforcement will bleed the kind after they have learned that acceding to pleas too easily was sorely in error.

      To me envy is the fundamental evil you are seeing. For ages the SJW’s charge anyone who’s been successful with greed in an often successful effort to hide their covetousness. But now they have even become more bold yet nebulous with their demonizing the word privilege. Again because, as you so rightly touched on, the righteous actually produce something while they can only want what others have — especially the sense of accomplishment. “Damn you all for having earned the privilege of self realization.” A dissatisfaction like that is insatiable by those who will not put in the effort.

      It’s been pointed out that the last commandment against covetousness is the farthest from the first (of loving God) because it makes it plain that one cannot love God when one loves oneself so much one covets all that God is believed to be able to do. (And this is true of “believers” and non-believers alike.)

      And in that, all humanity is at risk when rulers covet the ability to overcome Natural Law (essentially perform miracles). As example: The wish to avoid the collapse of the house of cards from printing money. Push all the Lefty economists aside and see that is one of those Natural Laws which ruthless rulers always violate and they well know it will bring down ruin on all their people. They merely wish they pass along before their Ponzi schemes come undone.

      Bottom line. I think it useful to understand how covetousness is the driver behind the evil you highlighted. No need to peal onions when the primal force is known without going very deep.

  23. I could point to threads like these when my wife complains that I get off on obscure tangents, but she wouldn’t pay attention to this, either. Good ones, though.

  24. This was an interesting way to start the day but I can’t digest it all. Too much weird stuff going on here.

  25. Sorry to repeat myself, but a form of democratic socialism can work, as in Sweden before they took leave of their census (sorry!) They produced goods which people wanted, earning an income surplus which was heavily taxed, enabling the cradle-to-grave care which is now failing because of the import of people who largely don’t work and contribute to the tax base.

    • Mark, you’re a socialist, so of course, your point of view would tend toward those tenets. But in the long run such calculations destroy the foundational unit of any culture: the family. People are hard-wired to need one another. Once the govt steps in to provide those needs, some members become superfluous, e.g., men and children.

      • Lady D, I must agree with Mark here, socialism did indeed work in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, but ONLY there; you must know that.
        E.g. many countries in the west tried to emulate Sweden’s efforts at penal reform in the 50’s and 60’s, among others my native NZ–it didn’t work, because NZer’s are not Swedes. Scandinavians were indeed different, no, not perfect, but different. I know, I lived there, worked with them, married one.

        And now, of course, they’re throwing it all away. Makes me so mad, but because they were so honest, among other things, they had become terminally naive….

      • I don’t feel superfluous! It’s a complicated subject; I remember in Italy and Spain, in the evenings, seeing several generations of a family out together. Is this just because of the weather, or a difference in the psyche?

    • A thank you to Mark H and Dymphna for returning toward what I accepted from the beginning to be MC’s topic.

      My own comments here have almost always been hostile to socialist solutions but I believe that there is room for some socialist or semi-socialist solutions.

      Given that most western nations are at least semi-socialist now I believe we must secure what we have before we try to change it. Allowing unlimited migration of people who wish only to be recipients is not a good survival tactic. Most western nations are also already in debt and few are paying it down.

      My concern about socialism and about the regulatory state, not necessarily the same, is about how much more room for opaque activity these states have. It is not always possible to know how much public assistance goes to the unfortunate in need as opposed to how much taxpayer assistance goes to the already very fortunate. Indeed, it is not entirely clear that the taxpayers are paying much of this at all rather than just passing it on to the grandchildren while congratulating themselves for their generosity to some people with the money of other people.

      So I would like to simplify MC’s topic to a point where he might not even recognize it. I will, for this one time anyway, steer away from politics or posturing.

      I just want an honest accounting of the money. No real business can long survive without it.

    • Thanks also to ricpic and Pascal and all the rest of you.

      A small footnote. If we do indeed count the money and do so honestly, my own wish to publicize the information might have to be put on hold. It could incite real reason for panic.

      Or would it? None of the insanity of our time has motivated concern, except when Milo Yannopolis or Ann Coulter proposes to speak in California…or if Pam Geller proposes to visit the UK….

      Maybe I need to start drinking….

        • I do not know about THAT kool-aid, or gin, but I was just at the supermarket. There I checked the expiration dates and every penny. It’s a way of life I guess.

  26. First I thought I will translate this essay to Hungarian, but the mixing of topics torpedod it. I agree with a previous comment, “opera singing and stand-up comedy” does not mix!

    • it did for the Marx Brothers, Harpo, Chico, Groucho, and Karl. “A Night at the Opera”

    • Indeed .It’s like mixing metaphors , all it does is blunt the effectiveness of the message.

    • Why oh why Oh @Crossware, you have fallen for [an epithet] who seeks to close me down on the basis of a previous article and who has nothing except the status quo, read his posts carefully, apart from the bullying and ad hominem type comparisons he raises nothing of any substance.

      I am trying to get people to challenge accepted ‘settled’ science because as any real scientist knows, there is no such thing.

      The stand-up commedian bit is unworthy, especially as he has obviously not read the links. He has invented a slur, it may be a clever slur, but it is still a slur. If he knew anything at all about opera he would understand that there is a thing called ‘comic opera’ which is all about opera singing and stand-up commedy. I often quote from the works of Gilbert and Sullivan.

  27. Dymphna, I think you are being unduly pessimistic about the state of the scientific method. True, some scientists commit fraud while others make genuine mistakes which they then try to cover up, as do people in all walks of life. Good examples of this are ex-Dr Andrew Wakefield on vaccination (which featured in the discussion of MC’s paper which dismissed herd immunity) and the teams which claimed to have generated stem cells from adult cells by dipping them in acid. Furthermore, financial pressures often result in premature exploitation of scientific discoveries, sometimes with adverse consequences. Nevertheless, scientists are highly competitive and critical, always looking for weak points in the work of their rivals. In this way science is self-correcting. Scientific controversies exist but do not persist.

    As a failed physicist turned virologist I share your views on the extremes of theoretical physics, which I found too abstract and mathematical. For example, I cannot envisage the existence of multiple parallel universes increasing in number exponentially. However, I also had difficulties with the wave/particle duality of light until I watched an informative BBC4 programme presented by the excellent Prof Jim Al-Khalili, who showed that photosynthesis would be impossible if photons were always discrete particles. I am also getting a glimmer of understanding that in order to observe something it is necessary to interact in some way with it, and that this interaction will change it. Any effect is negligible in our macro-world but if electro-magnetic radiation is used to probe subatomic particles this need not be so.

    I must congratulate MC on stimulating the scientific discussion in this correspondence but still share the view of other correspondents that his quirky scientific opinions detract from his clear political message.

    Finally, the correspondence contains much personal anecdote. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not data, which is the stuff on which the scientific method works.

    • PS. Back on track with the core subject of MC’s essay, below are links to 2 TV programmes that should be required viewing for all in positions of power and authority. The first is by the often justifiably maligned BBC on the sexual abuse of vulnerable under-age white girls by gangs of adult muslim men in many UK cities. The second is a Channel 4 production presented by the self-confessed liberal lefty Tom Holland on the true Islamic origins of the extreme violence of IS.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08xdh9r/the-betrayed-girls

      http://www.channel4.com/programmes/isis-the-origins-of-violence/on-demand/63137-001

    • Not one bit of Wakefield’s research has been compromised (yet) and the GMC trial was a biased sham and its verdict overturned by the high court. But that did not make the front page of the MSM.

      Wakefield was struck of because he took samples from children (with consent) at a party, this was considered ‘unethical’ by the GMC, the chairman of this kangaroo court did not declare his ties to the maker of the vaccine, and the principle witness was a journalist with connections to the manufacturer. The high court found in favour one of the co-indicted doctors who carried insurance, the insurance company fought it in the high court and won.
      http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17283751
      or this one:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-259519/Dr-Wakefield-shamefully-discredited.html

      • Wakefield’s article did not report scientific research as such but a case study. His study group was only 12, impossible to randomise, control and blind. Five of the 12 had symptoms of the “new syndrome” before receiving MMR vaccine. None of his findings was repeatable by other teams.

        The BMJ quickly acknowledged that it was part funded by manufacturers of the trivalent vaccine. The journalist was funded by the media. Wakefield had interests in both a monovalent measles vaccine and potential diagnostic tests for the “syndrome”.

        MC, much as I respect your political comments, this was scientific fraud and you are defending the indefensible! which begs the question – Why?

  28. Just watch. The Roman Catholic church is the anti-Christian church whose [pope] supports the muslim killers. The [pope] is calling for a One World order. That is proof of his support for muslims terrorist.

  29. Just watch. The Roman Catholic church is the anti-Christian church whose [pope] supports the muslim killers. The [pope] is calling for a One World order. That is proof of his support for muslims terrorist.

    The fact that my comment awaits moderation is proof that this site is a communist front.

    • I deeply apologize to Your Highness for the fact that the moderation of your comment was carried out with insufficient celerity.

    • I agree with your comments about the pope, but about your comment awaiting moderation….do get a grip, Theresa; there’s a good girl!

Comments are closed.