Matter as Condensed Space

In my final analysis of aether physics, I come to the conclusion that everything is of the aether, including space and time. This may seem like a long shot. However, we need only look at pictures from space to find evidence that go a long way towards confirming my thoughts. In particular, we find that galaxies look like condensations of space in ways similar to clouds being condensations of water vapour present in our atmosphere.

The conventional explanation for galaxies is that space is full of dust and atoms that lump together through gravity, and that galaxies form in areas rich in components required for this to happen. However, gravity cannot on its own form planets and stars, let alone galaxies. Such objects are more likely created electrically by Birkeland currents in space. Matter is drawn together into z-pinches that in turn create hot spots where radiation and matter can be created out of aether.

This is not as controversial as it might sound because empty space is known to produce gamma rays as well as electrons and positrons when under electrical stress. This has been confirmed in laboratories. It's also observed in astronomy, and in lightning strikes in our atmosphere. The only controversy is the assertion that this mechanism may be primary in the creation of galaxies.

In my theory, aether and space is the same thing. It's a fluid in which everything down to the subatomic is immersed. When energy is added to this fluid, its particles get excited into radiation, and when radiation gets "overheated", it turns into inertial matter. This too is similar to conventional theory. There's a general agreement on the existence of three energy levels where the lowest level is an aether, or aether-like soup of virtual particles, the second level is radiation, and the highest level is inertial matter.

The idea that galaxies are in large part created out of condensed space is not as outrageous as it seems, and observation appears to confirm this. Galaxies look very much like clouds.  They look like they are the result of condensation, and my theory as well as conventional theory allows for this to be the case.

Spiral galaxy

By The Hubble Heritage Team (AURA/STScI/NASA) NASA Headquarters - Greatest Images of NASA (NASA-HQ-GRIN) - http://nix.larc.nasa.gov/info;jsessionid=1sl2so6lc9mab?id=GPN-2000-000933&orgid=12 http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-1999-25-a-full_tif.tif, Public Domain, Link

How They Rob Us

While it's clear to most people that money kept in a bank will loose purchasing power over time, the exact mechanisms for this is not all that well understood, nor is it clear that there are other ways in which we are being robbed of our savings.

But the scheme devised to impoverish the vast majority of us to the benefit of a small elite is not all that complex, nor is it a big secret. A clever component of the scheme is that it's relayed to people as if it is in the general interest of everybody to keep it. There's no lack of people willing to spend hours of their time defending this scheme. Anyone suggesting the abolishment of central banking or a return to a gold standard is sure to get a storm of objections from just about anyone with an academic degree in economics.

The scheme that they defend is that of a flexible money supply, as opposed to something anchored in a limited resource such as gold. This, they claim, is important for price stability and the smooth operation of financial markets. However, what it really means is that there will be monetary inflation, and that there will be price inflation as a consequence. Asset prices go up faster than they otherwise would.

But any price gain at or below the increase in money supply is not a gain. It's a loss. If an asset goes up 5%, but money supply goes up 10%, that asset is down in relative terms. However, there's a 5% nominal gain to the asset owner, and hence a fictitious profit that the state can tax as capital gains. Monetary inflation allows the state in this way to confiscate savings from savers. There's either a loss directly from monetary inflation, or a loss through taxes on gains that appear larger than they are.

The way to win in this system is to buy assets, not with savings, but with money borrowed cheaply in a bank. If bank interest is at 2%, anyone with a nominal gain above 2% will make a profit, even if the gain is below monetary inflation, of say 10%. A 5% return will in this case yield a 3% gain on the borrowed money. If the entire purchase was done with borrowed money alone, this 3% is free money, created out of nothing. What is a loss to the prudent saver becomes in this way a gain to the speculative investor. The investor pays capital gains tax on a real 3% profit while the prudent saver pays capital gains tax on a fictitious 5% gain.

Most people don't fully understand the difference between borrowed and saved money, and the unfair outcomes of the current system are therefore difficult to see. The error in thinking lies in an assumption that money is inflexible, and that the gains had by the speculator come entirely as a result of a willingness to take on risk through bank borrowing. The system looks fair because we forget that money is in fact made cheap to some and expensive to others through monetary inflation. Those in the privileged position of easy access to cheap credit are given an advantage to everyone else.

Central banks help the privileged at the expense of the common saver, and the state takes advantage of this by further impoverishing savers through capital gains taxes and taxes levied on assets held by savers. As a result, there is today a tiny class of super-rich individuals who own almost everything in the world, and a middle class that's but a shadow of its former self.

Seal of the United States Federal Reserve System

By U.S. Government - Extracted from PDF version of the Federal Reserve's Purposes & Functions document (direct PDF URL [1])., Public Domain, Link

Inching Towards Secession

As noted in my post on personal secession, only two conditions need to be met for secession to be the de facto state of affairs:

1. Tribute is no longer paid upwards in the political hierarchy
2. Money is issued and kept independently

To this, we might add that centrally issued laws and regulations are regarded as mere guidelines. Only locally issued laws and regulations are followed up and enforced.

It follows from this that a central government can hasten a secession movement by levying excessive taxes, debase the centrally issued money supply, and issue laws and regulations that go against the interests of peripheral entities.

Seen in this perspective, Texas and Mississippi just inched their way one step further towards secession by declaring the end of plague related rules and regulation, all issued and recommended by central authorities. We can also assume that these states are paying less in tribute to the central government than has previously been the case because of plague related restrictions that have now been lifted.

The overall picture is one in which the central government is loosing control of peripheral states much in the same way Rome lost control of its peripheries during its decline. In some instances, Rome continued to send money to the peripheries even after de facto secession was established. This is similar to the relief packages being sent out from Washington DC these days. Money is sent out to the peripheries in a willy-nilly and indiscriminate manner for no other purpose than to extend and pretend that the union is still intact.

The fact that many states have already established a return to constitutional gold back money should be of further concern to Washington DC. But this too is wilfully ignored by central authorities. Instead of actions to the contrary, the dollar is being debased at an alarming rate. A collapse of the dollar is all but ensured. Secession seems increasingly likely, but no-one is willing to bring it up as an issue. More likely than not, secession will be ignored even when it no longer can be denied. There will be a state of affairs in the US, similar to that of late antiquity in Europe. Political figures will continue to pledge their allegiances to the union. There will be all sorts of lofty proclamations, but no-one will be paying any tributes, and money will be issued and kept locally.

Rome

By Canaletto - Web Gallery of Art:   Image  Info about artwork, Public Domain, Link

Fashion Statements

It has finally dawned on me why every era is so distinct in its styles and fashions from previous eras. The change in style is not merely a desire for something new. It's a rejection of the past. The new style is to some extent born out of necessity. It draws a line between those that desire to cling on to the past and those that desire the liberty to do something else. Fashion becomes in this way more than mere style. It becomes a statement of intent.

This occurred to me due to my constant need to defend myself from unwanted attention. There's an army of hobby fascists patrolling the streets these days, and I'm particularly targeted because of my foreign appearance. Those who resent foreigners go for targets like me. All they need is an excuse, like me not wearing my mask properly. In the face of this, I can choose to conform to the wishes of the fascists, or I can signal through my clothing that I'm fully prepared to stand up for myself. My changing dress code is not born out of a desire to be different. Rather, it expresses my desire to be left alone.

Others in similar situations may come up with dress codes for themselves with similar messages. A common message is thus created through clothing. Picking up on the signals of likeminded individuals, we home in on a common code that puts us apart from the rest. If sustained and successful, it becomes a fashion statement. But no-one set out with fashion in mind. The statement wasn't crafted in an office somewhere. It came about spontaneously out of a need to break away from something unpleasant.

With this in mind, we can now see the contours of a future style. This style will contain references to violence. Walking with a cane, as the dandies did in early Victorian England, might come back into fashion. Skull and crossbones insignias may become a hit too. Jackets will carry references to armour and war. T-shirts may carry messages of death and afterlife.

None of this needs being very gloomy. The dandies were well dressed guys. Their style was radically different from the super-feminine style of late 18th century. High heals, lip stick and wigs for men were all rejected in favour of something much more masculine. The fact that their style carried on with a few references to the past, such as lace trimming on shirts and silk bow ties, may make the dandies appear feminine by today's standards, but they were in fact radical machos.

Similarly, we'll see people like myself break away from the current style of humble worker meets gay man-bun hipster. I plan to update my wardrobe with garments that carry the right message. If I can't find the desired garments in stores, I'll add the message myself by embroidering or affixing the desired symbol onto what I have.

I don't plan to wear uncomfortably warm clothes for summer, so I will have to device some way of combining the desired message with the comforts of a casual wardrobe. However, one thing is fairly certain. I'll be carrying a cane (or a whip!) on my walks. I don't want any more people stopping to tell me off for not doing what they happen to have heard on TV.

Dandies with cane and whip

Public Domain, Link

The Origins of Civil Behaviour

It's not generally known that violence, or rather the potential for violence, is at the root of all civil behaviour. We shake hands before commencing a meeting to show that we carry no weapon in our hand. We greet people with a friendly good day to express the absence of intent to harm. In Europe, when greeting women friends, we lean forward, touch cheek on cheek, and give a courteous kiss in the air as a sign of respect and affection. All of this is to demonstrate that we are in no way intent on doing anything violent or hurtful.

Implicit in this is that we can be violent if we so choose. We could smash in some skulls and force ourselves on women. But we don't and we won't. We're peaceful, respectful, helpful and friendly unless someone approaches us in ways less than civil.

Civility is for this reason something different from submissiveness. A civil person is peaceful out of respect, while a submissive person is peaceful out of fear. A society full of fearful people isn't civil, it's submissive, and herein lies my great annoyance with many of my fellow men. Everywhere I look, I see submissive men hiding in fear.

I refuse to go along with this pathetic behaviour, and I have for this reason spent some time in pursuit of a dress code of sorts. After much back and forth, I've come to the conclusion that we have to step back in time and revive some of the references to violence that still remains with us.

First off, there's the stick. It's a reference to the club used to fend off unwanted intruders ever since the age of the caveman. A guy carrying a stick is a dangerous man. That's why men used to carry a cane as recently as the Victorian age. I have no cane, but I have an umbrella that can double as a parasol. If anybody asks, it's in case of rain or sun as the case may be. But in reality, it's my stick.

Second, there's the coat. Old fashion coats carry references to armour. My grey coat is perfect in this respect. It's reminiscent of metal armour. It makes me look taller and stronger than I do in more contemporary clothing.

The reference to the medieval knight is further accentuated by my sunglasses. The eye protection is in place. In the event of something unpleasant, I'm ready for a fight.

Finally, there's the mask of the beast which I currently wear just below my nose. The hysteria has reached such levels of insanity that masks must be drawn that high in order to avoid unwanted attention. But a happy side effect of this is that the reference to the medieval knight becomes all the more apparent.

However, it's not enough to dress right, we must also carry ourselves correctly. There's no point in dressing up like a knight if we don't follow this up with the correct posture. Hunching down and scurrying off in fear is for peasants. Knights walk with their backs straight and heads high. We look at people without fear. We walk the streets expecting to be treated with civility, but fully prepared to deal with those who don't respect this.

Should anyone approach me in the street and reprimand me for wearing my mask incorrectly, I'll pull my mask up, walk up to them with my umbrella in hand and ask them what they want of me. If all they wanted was to reprimand me, I'll tell them that they should be careful about their behaviour. I'm not always in a forgiving mood, and when I'm not, ugly things happen to those who get in my way.

Ready for a walk about town

Science in the New Normal

The vaccine currently being rolled out in Portugal against the plague is a two shot thing. There's first one shot to be taken as a warm up. Then there's a carefully calculated wait until the second shot is administrated. This is the science of it. However, that just changed, and not a single journalist seems to be the least bit concerned. Politicians decided to extend the waiting period by a week or two, and nobody cares. So what exactly happened to the science? Is science in the new normal merely whatever government bureaucrats decides it to be?

The answer appears to be a resounding yes. Science as we knew it is dead. The new normal is one in which politicians decide what the science of the day is, journalists broadcast this without questions, and peasants take whatever medicine is prescribed. If there ever was a doubt that science has become the new religion for the masses, that doubt has now been put to rest.

Smallpox vaccine

By Photo Credit: James Gathany Content Providers(s): CDC - This media comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Image Library (PHIL), with identification number #2674. Note: Not all PHIL images are public domain; be sure to check copyright status and credit authors and content providers. Deutsch | English | македонски | slovenščina | +/−, Public Domain, Link

The Problem With Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is a tendency to look for evidence that confirms our belief. There's nothing inherently wrong in this. If we spend years studying something, we're naturally reluctant to toss it away based on some fringe evidence against it. The logical response to new evidence is to seek to incorporate it into our theory.

I have all sorts of theories that I find logical. They range from physics to the social sciences and economy. I've come to like these theories, and it would be folly to actively seek to destroy them. That's not to say that I've avoided evidence that may contradict my positions. I've considered a long range of theories before coming to my conclusions. That's part of the reason I'd rather look for ways to incorporate new evidence into my world view than change my views completely.

As far as my theories are concerned, my job is not to undermine them, but to defend them. Confirmation bias is in this sense part of my function. It's up to others to present objections, and it's my job to incorporate these as best I can into my world view. I see nothing wrong in this. I freely admit that I have as much confirmation bias as everybody else. It's not a problem.

Confirmation bias is only problematic when people start believing they're immune to it. A sure sign that we're confronted by idiots is that they will insist that everybody but themselves and their preferred theories are biased. But no student of anything is ever free of bias. That's why we have debates. Opinions are presented and debated. Rarely are anyone convinced one way or the other. The debate is not meant to put an end to debates, but to provide inspiration for all sides to improve their theories.

Dogma is in this respect poison. Dogma is opinion masquerading as facts. Dogma pretends to be free of bias. Dogma is where idiots hide out, always pointing their fingers at others for being in an echo chamber full of biased opinions, and ignoring the fact that they themselves are inside the most bullet proof of all echo chambers, namely dogma, the most biased of all modes of thinking.

Fort

By Albrecht Dürer - Collection privee, Public Domain, Link