Science fakery destroys faith in the High Priests of Scientism Religion

THANK YOU Daily Bell for this article!
http://www.dailybell.com/news-analysis/36196/Real-Tragedy-of-Science-Public-Faith-Declines-as-Fakery-Grows/

The Internet is the best peer review system there is. ALL of a researcher’s peers that want to can look at it, self-appointed watchdogs can pick it apart or demand to see the source code behind the programs. Last year there was a new resolution of what they call the “P versus NP” problem hit the Internet like a lightning bolt because it’s one of the few big centuries-old math propositions still waiting a solution. It was disproved within about 24 hours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem

Now this false religion of “scientism” is exposed, the idea that “science” is some kind of magically divine occupation that elevates its faithful above reason, above its inferiors, and its truths are higher than any “religious” or Biblical truths.

Science is done by scientists, and without even considering the corruption factor, their rules are neither better nor make them better than anyone else, and even magical invocations of “scientific method” chants cannot make them more than human.

Climategate, the treatment of Joao Majeigo at the hand of peer reviewers, the shameful persecution of anybody who treats intelligent design science by the same rules as others, the shameful pharmaceutical “science”, the use by political tyrants of economists to rob us all, are increasingly seen by the rest of us. Find the transcript from Michael Crichton’s great talk about the ossification of science into religiosity from his talk to U-Cal students titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming”.

He holds up the famous “Drake Equation” that justified SETI to the most scathing ridicule, and blames the new science authoritarianism.

Cold fusion moves into mainstream (finally! Maybe Eugene Mallove did not die in vain): http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/15/cold-fusion-moves-into-mainstream

Low-Energy nuclear reactions:
http://lenr-canr.org

Fire From Ice, by Eugene Mallove:
http://tinyurl.com/pvb6luq

Advertisement

Ayn Rand hated God: Was there some occultism hidden there somewhere?

In my opinion, Ayn Rand was a great wordsmith and hid her worst motivations behind subtlety. In John Galt’s rant against God’s dealings with Adam and Eve in the Garden, in my opinion, she let slip a peek into her real motivations. (Those complaints match the doctrines of declared, outed, overt self-described organized Satanists. Who claim they are not a religion or religious, and who not only deny being “mystical” but publicly condemn what they call “mystical” beliefs.)

Even in her championing of selfishness, though, there were two huge irrational jumps. She tried to bring motherly love under the “selfish” banner, for example, and even said altruism was selfish because it made the giver feel better. Logically that’s a veiled way of saying everybody’s selfish, and that in turn is a way to make somebody feel less guilty about being selfish.

But Ayn Rand let loose cannon-sized blasts against “giving”.

But defining every single thing under the sun that a human can do as selfish is the same thing as saying the word has no meaning at all, since there is no longer any way to distinguish it from anything else.

I think Austrian economists like von Mises and Rothbard (by the way, both were atheists) make no such determination (as part of the economics, anyway) but rather say rather realistically that there’s no way to make the distinction, all you can do is observe “human action”.

But Ayn Rand, having made everybody feel better about selfishness or being selfish, goes on then to condemn charity outright, and rightly blame the cultural valuation of charity on Christianity and on God.

Seeing that Ayn Rand was by no means stupid or lacking in logical faculties, it is impossible for me to avoid the speculation that her writings on freedom for capitalism –and of course selfishness– is subordinate to her blasts against God and against “charity”.

But there is no way to avoid the God she hated, nor the laws of the universe he established. “Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.”-Proverbs 21:13 The same book of books also says “Thou shalt not steal”. So the Bible is talking about voluntarism, but even though the free will he gave us leads to selfishness, He also made us to feel better when we help somebody.

Atheist ethic, government, the state is evil as thief and war is murder

There are no “atheist ethics” as in because he’s an atheist precisely because there is no possible a priori basis for an ethical philosophy.

Calling it an “atheist ethic” because he’s atheist is like calling Hitler’s ethics a “German ethic” for being German or a “Christian” ethic because he supposedly was formally a Catholic as a youth, or a “Jewish” ethic because he was a relative (son or cousin) of a Jew (according to three different Jews I’ve known, two Orthodox and one Conservative).

The non-aggression principle is logically what mathematicians and logicians would call a “corollary” to the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule says Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Of course that ALWAYS includes the non-aggression principle: You yourself NEVER want your neighbor (or a stranger) to do to you harm.

There is a distinction between “the state” as institution and the actions of individual rulers. The distinction is that “the state” is an abstraction, wherein “the state” cannot do anything at all unless the “individuals” who enforce the state (enFORCE the state) do it, supposedly on behalf of the state. So the abstraction is ONLY the sum of the actions of the individuals who are “members” of “the state”.

War by “the state” is always murder because it is “the state” that does it by force, whether by conscription or by stealing the resources to pay for the havoc it causes. James told us plainly where wars come from, the is, the lusts within us.

Read the last verses of Matthew 17, where Jesus says the rulers of the earth that collect tribute are always corrupt by definition and the rest of us are “not free” because we are not the children of those rulers.

When Paul referred to the state authorities as servants of God he was referring to those who ACT like it. Caligula does not qualify. Nero does not qualify. Obama most certainly does not qualify, ungodly pagan he is. Hillary Clinton, who threw every symbol of Christianity out of the White House and replaced them with demons and gargoyle statues, also does not qualify. Ahab and Jezebel, Caiaphas, Hitler, ANY of them.

THE ONLY CIVIL LAW GOD EVER GAVE US, the laws of Moses, BANNED GOVERNMENT. The Judges were raised up by God to drive out the oppressor until Israel demanded their own brand of oppressor, a king. Go read what God thought about that.

What is God’s scripture say about governments?

The standard of THE Truth is God’s word, and God’s word points to the individual as the center and pivot and where his concern concentrates for salvation.

Romans 13 is the scripture most used by Christian government apologists for the welfare/warfare/sin-banning state, but those mandates for Christians apply to the governments that earn a Romans-13 status through their protection of Christians. D. C. long ago told God to get lost and started pushing God out of government and banning them from sharing their faith.

So the imperial capital in Washington, D. C. has lost God’s protection and so has “America” for letting it all happen and for violating the Golden Rule and for all its welfare and oppression of the poor.

Jesus lashed the money changers out of the temple at the painful end of a nasty whip he made himself for maximum punishment. Congress invited them to take over the country in 1913 and put the devils themselves in charge of the entire economy.

Romans 13 disqualifies the US as such a government. So does 1 Peter 2. Today’s governments all around the world, including the United Nations, does not punish evildoers but makes them our rulers and kings.

Ayn Rand was influential in her book, but von Mises was already writing his stuff, and Rothbard after him. The CHRISTIANS in America became rich and increased in goods and fell to what Solomon fell too, thinking they had no need to desperately seek God on matters of war and “the state” and they fell under the spell of 501c(3) and IRS muzzles.

So since Christians abdicated their duty to seek God on the matter, they didn’t even blink at the false balance of the Federal Reserve and then Roosevelt’s gold confiscation and then Nixon’s coup de grace against economic sanity. So God had to raise up a few atheists to hold the educate until “the Remnant” catches up, as Ron Paul calls them.

When the “elders of Israel” demanded a king, God said they had rejected him. Each of us has to answer to God, atheists and Christians alike. Put not your trust in man, whose breath is in his nostrils.

The laws of Moses banned government altogether by omission and they did perfectly fine with mutually agreed arbitration. Often the men God rose up that drove out oppressors and invaders did it. Other times it was priests. God let them have a king to keep them from melting into irrevocable paganism, and to preserve the messianic line, and to show us through the histories and poetic books and the prophets that man is a mess AND NOT EVEN THE RELIGIOUS or devout can be trusted to rule righteously over others.

Atheists have their own examples of the same thing with the most brutal and murderous regimes of all history, with Hitler and Stalin both, though Hitler had a touch of occult paganism, Alice Bailey and all that, and the old Germanic gods. Pol Pot, Mao, Kim il-Sung.

Something is off with Ayn Rand, I think she was there to give free market defenders an alternative to Christianity but her anti-God rant in the mouth of John Galt’s pronouncements had nothing to do with freedom from socialism, and taints it all.

Rothbard was upset with the anti-God fanatics among Ayn Rand’s followers and many libertarians. But wer are many. Satan showed the Lord ALL the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time and said they were ALL his and Jesus quoted no verse contrary to that. All of that is not worth our souls.

In Matthew 17 you can real what Jesus thought of taxes (“tribute”). Render unto Caesar every coin he made with his stolen conquest spoils? He paid the taxes so they wouldn’t bother him, so he could go on and fultill the scripture.

His kingdom is not of this world. Jesus does not convert by sword, he converts by reason. He does not even try to eliminate sin by stoning the adulterous woman, the laws of Moses and the Pharisees of the Old Testament proved that it is impossible. “Neither do I condemn thee”. That’s why the Alexandrians corrupted their texts of the story and left that part out. Nowdays, Christians want condemnation for drug use, adultery, and all that by the force of Ceasar’s law.

“Oh, Pharoah, please protect us”. “Oh Caligula, please protect us”. “Oh Obama, plead our case with Sudan”. HOW’S THAT WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? Lord, help us and show us the wisdom of scripture.

Do copyright or patents really reward the real creators?

Gary Kildall and the PC Operating System
http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/gary-kildall-40th-anniversary-of-the-birth-of-the-pc-operating-system/ Well sure they are the new Microsoft/Oracle “Intellectual Property” trolls. They always have been. Microsoft was/is just more honest in their dishonesty.

They don’t care about the constitutional purpose of copyright and patent. The constitutional purpose has a contrary effect, like most other government inventions do. (Minimum wage for the poor merely creates more poor at the bottom of the pay scaled while inflation (currency devaluation) robs all of us of the purported and self-vanishing “benefit”.

Anyway, Microsoft own the intellectual capital, so-called, of its creative employees. Google lets its developers lots of free range creation but owns the fruits. Hollywood Music industry signs up nobody music makers under onerous terms that leave them doing concerts later on to pay their bills. Go read Courney Love’s rant about that.

Ideas can be atomic (water freezes at 32 F) or complex (computer operating systems). They are ideas or collections of ideas or groups of ideas that in conjunction do fancy things (like radio). The patent office and the courts trying to find a “natural” standard will never ever work. It’s all arbitrary.

So Kildall, the grand-daddy creator of the original PC operating system, CP/M, of which most of the rest are clones with stuff piled on top, except maybe for IBM’s OS/2. Tesla was robbed by politically protected companies in the U. S. A. and the US government and courts of the credit due his own work until long after he was gone and his name still has difficulty getting into the history books. Tucker and his Tuckermobile are only remembered today by those who happened to see the movie “Tucker”.

Time to end this charade and set the economy free and stop granting government monopolies. It’s dead anyway, and individuals are discovering the joys of sharing knowledge and ideas freely. And the benefits. Government granted monopolies only create new opportunities out of the box, but we’d get much more of that without the government suppression of the benefits.

The Beerware open-source license

I have come across what might be the very best open-source license.

From wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware

Poul-Henning Kamp‘s beerware license is simple and short, in contrast to the GPL which he has described as a “joke”.[2] The full text of Kamp’s license is:[3]

/* *

Why I believe in Austrian economics

Bryan Caplan has written a piece criticizing Austrian economics, apparently preferring the “neoclassical economics” of Hayek over Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. I’m going to parse out my reaction to a couple of the points he thinks he made:

“Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist”
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, arguing for Rothbard’s approach, makes a subtly stronger claim: “Pareto-optimality is not only compatible with methodological individualism; together with the notion of demonstrated preference, it also provides the key to (Austrian) welfare economics and its proof that the free market, operating according to the rules just described, always, and invariably so, increases social utility, while each deviation from it decreases it.”[21] (emphasis mine) Strictly speaking, however, Rothbard could only claim the welfare effects of government intervention upon “social utility” are indeterminate; i.e., since the victim loses and the intervener gains, it is impossible to say anything about social utility without making a verboten interpersonal welfare comparison.

There is no way to deny that the free market increases utility over state interference in the free market processes, for two reasons: any transaction, for any selected individual, based on coercion, has two consequences.

Any coercive “tax”, for example, reduces the trade opportunities for a subset of the affected individuals. Take any set of individuals, say A, B, and C. Along comes Mr. D and lays a tax on them. That reduces the opportunities for all three of A, B and C to increase their net value, according to whatever their *individual* perception of value is, to the extent that would have happened without D robbing the “tax” from them.

Say A and C would have “paid” that “tax” for the same thing D used it for, the net value is less because B sees a degrade in the value.

If you want to include theft as a legitimate value to calculate, though, all bets are off and I’m sure this is Mr. Caplan’s mistake. There are no humans so omniscient as God as to judge the value for everyone as optimal no matter what, even considering only the opportunities that government must steal in order to give resources to third parties as in a welfare state.

No doubt Rothbard’s arguments rest not at all on some so-called imaginary “objective” measure of value that a Keynesian needs, or any welfare-supporting argument. You have to pretend you don’t understand the logical construction of marginal value based in the action taken.

And action taken is not “behaviorist”, if you mean “behaviorist” in the sense of any arrogant pretension of assuming any knowledge about patterns or motivations as most non-Austrian economists. You can measure what *did* happen, but you cannot measure what *might* happen with enough certitude to justify dictating to individuals what they can or must do. Even if you had a utilitarian argument in favor of it (which falls before the logic of “human action” principles), it fails the coercion test.

This is an important point, because it shows that Rothbard’s welfare economics provides a much weaker defense of the free market than usually assumed. In particular, Rothbard’s own theory strips him of the ability to call any act of government “inefficient.” By denying the ability to endorse state action in the name of efficiency, Rothbard also implicitly denies the ability to reject state action in the name of efficiency. This is no logical flaw in Rothbard’s theory (although it does reveal a logical flaw in Hoppe’s presentation of Rothbard’s theory), but it’s political implications are rather different than commonly assumed: Rothbard’s welfare criterion justifies agnosticism about – not denial of – the benefits of statism.

So Capman thinks he has shown a weakness in Rothbard’s welfare economics and he has done no such thing. The indoctrination of government institutions and centuries of self-justifying kings and rulers is strong in the training of youth.

It will not last, it cannot.

Some big bankers: Punish bad people, not companies

‘SOB’ bankers should be punished: Wall St watchers:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102519842

…..While Ellis took a harder tone, he did note that most people on Wall Street are ethical. “It’s a very small fraction of people, and usually with a very small fraction of their time, that did things that were really crummy,” he said.

Still, Ellis was highly critical of certain behavior before the financial crisis. “We have had some real SOBs,” he said….

Well, it’s always thus.

But why just banks? Corporations are creations of “the state”, creations of governments. So when corporations grow in power and influence over a country’s economy, it’s the people who crave political power who are also riding piggy-back on them.

So instead of pretending that companies make bad decisions, which is really a hit on the stockholders, which like one of the Wall Street “watchers” quoted in the article at the above link, why not direct the punishment at the people who did the deed?

There are some of the demonstrators and jokesters who marching say they’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them. Maybe the American people should have roared and demanded that they execute those banking corporations that suffered from their own evildoings on Wall Street. That would have punished some of those bad guys too, going down in the same ship.

Actually, they could have let them all go bankrupt like they did Lehman Brothers.

But wait, Americans did indeed roar. They roared back to naught effect, because the government is no longer “We the people”.

How did they bail them out? Before answering that question, let’s say a matter of who bailed them out. The only way to escape bankruptcy for those Wall Street banks was to either somehow stiff the creditors, or for somebody to infused a lot of cash, a great amount of cash, into their coffers.

The problem with that first solution was that a great deal of the debt these banks had accumulated was owed to each other. So stiffing their creditors was not an option. None of the financiers had a positive balance sheet, the whole gang of money changers was in on this thing, so they couldn’t find enough cash.

So where do you get a whole bunch of cash when there isn’t any anywhere to be found on the scale you need to bail out all the bad guys?

Why, you go to the boys that caused all this mess in the first place, who set the thing in motion, the only people in the nation, perhaps the world, who can “print” counterfeit money, whether electronic or on paper. You go to the Federal Reserve.

They “print” the money, or create it by pressing the Enter button on a keyboard, and there you go guys.

$17 TRILLION DOLLARS, just like that.

For years they refused to tell us, you know, “We the People”, who they gave that money to.

And the left-fascists demand to know the donors to “right-wing” groups? Here we have a major money-making enterprise, operating in plain view, that any other group of people would go to prison for. Anybody else does it, they call it counterfeiting.

And if any corporation ever dared to do what the Federal Reserve did to save the necks of the bad guys on Wall Street -and remember, their own necks too– the offending corporation would not be the only one to pay.

Forget about only the companies paying in that case. The same gang that empowers the Federal Reserve counterfeiting operation, the one that supports the spending in the Capitol that robs value from every dollar held by every household in the USA, that same gang would get the prosecutors to make the individual people pay.

So it’s a matter of whether you belong to these Insiders or not, it’s looking like, and it has absolutely nothing to do with “equal under the law” or the “rule of law”, even if they themselves are making the rules!

And by the way, every U.S government dollar spent that it does not get by honest taxation, robs not only Americans of value but every other person in the world in possession of dollars. That includes, of course, other nation-states, who after Bretton Woods have made the dollar their reserve currency for international trade.

So what’s happening now? Those nations are now beginning to find ways to get out from under the economic subservience to the dollar. Their own rulers and ruling cliques and cabals and kings got rich, filthy rich, from the convenience of the de facto world currency and from dealings with others in the same system,plus the foreign aid that poured in through which they used to buy and sell and trade.

We find this enrichment of kinds and merchants in one place mentioned a long time ago.

Revelation 18: 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

It’s time to make sure we have prepared, most importantly, according to John 3:16 and Romans 10:9-10.

The Strange Case of Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton

A bit strange that a number of significance shows up in this link: http://stonezone.com/article.php?id=666

Probably just another coincidence.

Boomerang: Chickens will come back to roost

Ryan was right about one thing.

This is another example of the blowback principle. US government (Obama) meddling in Isael affairs and treating Israel like a vassal state (which they are and vice versa too), they blew back.

Nothing like an attack by outsiders to a group with political identity to promote blowback.

Things are building toward war in the Middle East, and you don’t have to be a prophet or understand the prophecies in the Bible to see it.

Israel has 500 bombs ready to go. ISIS (“Made in USA”) wants war with anybody and everybody, just want Obama needs to justify the bombing he could not get before when Americans roared back. Now he’s been bombing because everybody bought the ISIS boogeyman is out to get you.

All ISIS has to do is blow up one mall. End of ISIS if they do it right this time. They won’t. Missiles will fly, World War I, the Sequel.

Deir Yassin, massacre of an entire town by the Likud led by Begin, is going to come home to roost. God is not mocked.

This Israel is a socialist state, all this political theater is choreographed. The narrative is getting out fro under the Power Elite’s control, so they just grabbed the Internet piping infrastructure.

Ukraine is another place where the war industry and the generals supported by them are hot for war. A LOT of generals are quietly pushing against it, just like they pushed (quietly) against the second Iraq War. War is hell, and pushing for it thinking it won’t come back to your back yard is illogical.

You and I haven’t “lived deliciously” but America’s bosses have (both parties).

Rev 18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.