Saturday, 30 December 2017



 The best way to watch any movie is to know nothing about it beforehand. Don't watch trailers, reviews etc. Just choose it by title, genre, actor, director, year or whatever and watch it. If you are watching a trailer, review are already spoiling the experience and trance for yourself. Watch reviews after the film if you want to. I'm pretty sure I get more psychological, emotional and intellectual value out of movies due to knowing little or nothing about them beforehand, it is the correct way to watch them, even if the studios, producers, directors, writers and actors disagree. Real life isn't lived with trailers provided before the journey.

Friday, 11 August 2017

Scientific Thought is not Pre-eminent in verifying reality

Objective reality is something other than government science education which carries the normal human errors of thought, knowledge, bias and interpretation along with the limits of perception and measurement....

Secondly, science operates within a culture, operated by groups and individuals, under a government with an ideology and objectives. This means that those individuals and groups promote and engineer their own opinions, knowingly and unknowingly through their study, experiments and teachings. So when assessing 'science' claims and teachings you have to distinguish between mechanical science (which runs the functions of a society, such engineering, farming etc) and that which is ideological...and is about the preservation and propagation of the culture it resides within. As an ideology and it's leaders and proponents will express it and be influenced by it in all spheres. So in reality, every civilization and culture had their own science philosophy...but the juvenile pan-scientism cult followers of today assume that their own science culture is neutral and objective, but that is very obviously a delusion caused by their own erroneous philosophy, psychology, emotions and culture.

So 'science' or reality being true is something other than science books and supposed 'scientists' being truthful, correct or reliable... And that is the trick of the pan-scientism cult...they conflate the two.

Science history is in fact a chronology of inaccurate measurements, erroneous explanations, mistaken observations, debatable conceptions, flawed experiments and false theories. This is indeed why it is subject to continuous difference, debate and change... Supposed established facts and orthodoxy are regularly overturned and abandoned... This demonstrates that empiricism or the scientific thought is not the pre-eminent thought in verifying reality... Science is in fact dependent upon rationality, rationality is not dependent upon science and it is not established by science, but rather by reality, mental capacity and structured coherent reasoning (those matters themselves need a cause). 

The principle of causality that science also depends upon again is not established by science but is rational or a priori knowledge... the same is the case with the principle of non-contradiction... Indeed a scientist worthy of the description will not blindly follow the results of his experiments if they appear to be nonsensical...rather the superior thought method of rationality will cause him to question his results and search for error, or even abandon the results altogether if rationality demands it.

Scientists never prove anything as they would be contradicting their philosophical idol called 'doubt', they deny the reality of the degrees of knowledge dynamically associated with the degrees of evidence, coherent reasoning which can lead to rational necessity and philosophical certainty. 

Friday, 4 August 2017

We are collectively ignorant - Most things we don't know

Despite the delusions of some people, who claim to know what was happening in the universe 13 or 14 billion years ago, we don't even know what is happening now, nor yesterday, let alone thousands, millions and billions of years ago.

We can have theories, calculations, projections, estimations and all sorts of tools of investigation, but many a time the end result is conjecture as the foundations were based on conjecture. Many of our supposed hard facts are in fact built on assumptions which are not definite. But conformity, trust or blind following prevent us from subjecting our assumptions, principles and methods of judgement to critical analysis, rational investigation and intellectual rigour.

One problem is thinking that we know when we don't and another problem is not even knowing that we don't know. How many concepts are considered to be true when under even the most simple questioning exposes them to be wanting?

Slogans are short and snappy and easily transmitted but when held up to detailed criticism or even just held up in the scale of reality, carry no weight.

"We live in a free society" No we don't.... Every aspect of life is dominated by hundreds or thousands of laws, every sphere of our life is restricted.

"Science has proven such and such" No it hasn't it has performed experiments and has a working understanding, always subject to challenge and change... And who do you mean exactly by 'Science'? Who speaks for it? Are you sure it has a voice or that it says anything at all? Science education, organizations, scientists and governmental curricula and corporate funded studies performed by affilliated scientists with a mutual interest, agenda and philosophy is something other than 'reality' or 'science says'.

"There is no proof for such and such" Are you sure? You thought about all the possibilities in a sound and rigorous manner? You asked everyone on earth what they base their position on? Your perception reaches every potential place? You gathered all available knowledge on everything? You understood everything that you were told and have correctly interpreted everything available?

"I know that there is no reality to such and such, nobody has any proof" Really? So you assume that if you don't have knowledge of something then everyone else doesn't also, because their knowledge could only be equal to or less than your own?

"Such and such is nonsense" Are you certain of that? So because your own mind judges a matter to be nonsense, then that must be the case... You are sure because all of your foundations and tools of judgement are rigorously tested, proven and reliable? You have never made a mistake in their utilization? Your principles are never subject to any mistaken application?  

Just because we reject something with our minds it doesn't necessarily mean that our minds are correct. Our minds are limited and people vary greatly in their intellect or in their principles and mechanisms of thought. Just because we don't understand something, it doesn't automatically mean no-one else can understand it. We should not assume that everyone else is intellectually equal or inferior to ourselves.

It may well be that we reject and deny many things due to our extreme mental delusions, our emotional states, our lack of coherent thinking and the cultural, ideological and political influences that hinder clear judgement and prevent sound reasoning and thought.

Some things are unknowable due to their nature, somethings are known due to their nature, some things are known by many but not by few and many things are known by few and not by the many. 

Not knowing what we think we know can be as costly as not knowing what we need to know, even though we know that we don't know it. But just because we know that we don't know, it doesn't mean we can't know and just because we know and we know that we know, it doesn't mean that there isn't more to know or doesn't mean that we can't know even if we think we know that we can't know.

STARING REALITY IN THE MIRROR - Perception, Belief & Reality

Belief can be either emotional, based on feelings, conjecture, blind following etc or it can be intellectual, based on rational thought, evidence.
Reality exists, but your perception is subject to doubt, but the existence of reality is not subject to doubt. God either exists or does not exist...that is a rational fact (in fact for those who engage in rational thought the existence of God is a rational fact)... There is a knock at your can't see who or what is making the knock... It is a rational fact that something is making the knock, unless it is your mistaken perception, mishearing...but even that will have a cause also, as causality is a rational fact. People have their beliefs and perceptions but external to all of that is the truth, objective reality... So the discovery of that will not just be based on perception but rational thought, as rational thought can eliminate or affirm what is beyond the limits of perception, outside of it's scope and free from it's delusions and errors.
Your denial of the reality does not stop it existing and your ignorance of the reality does not stop it existing and your perception or knowledge of it's existence is not the cause of it's existence. One person believes God exists and another person denies that God exists, they can't both be right, due to the principle of non-contradiction... Two things which nullify the reality of one another can not coexist in the same instant. You are either alive or dead, you can not be both, unless you are talking metaphorically or referring to different attributes or using different definitions or meanings.
If people were to use rational thought to establish their beliefs they would not arrive at such false beliefs or doubtful ones. It is amazing that people use rational thought in their daily lives for trivial matters but they abandon it for the most important matters and are happy with following social-media slogans, conjecture, emotions, fashion, populist idiocy, uninformed commentators, false authority and imagination.

My video on clarity might help a little:-


We are all trying to open doors, close doors, find doors and walk through doors. Why? Because we want to get out of the place we are at and enter another place. Is it better in the next room? Will we find what we are looking for beyond the door? Is this the right door to open or is it the disaster door? 

 How many doors have we opened in the past and regretted it? How many doors did we open to find nothing inside? How many doors did we wish we had opened earlier? Did we think before opening any of these doors or did we just open the door to breathe or get a change of scenery? "Better the rubbish you know than the rubbish you don't know..." Is one of my sayings ('rubbish' is a substitute for the normal word I use) ...but we open those doors hoping not find rubbish, but is that a realistic expectation?

We walk through the door and we bring with us our own beliefs, character, objectives, perceptions, abilities, history, criteria for action, methodology, knowledge, motives, emotions, psychology, desires, instincts and thought process... So will we experience a major change when we are who we are?

Perhaps we will just bring our problems with us, maybe our main problem is 'us' or at least our conception of 'us'. 

We open the newly discovered door with excitement, but after a while we find ourselves again, we run away from one problem to another, a bit like the little guy with problems in the Dr Seuss story who runs to Solla Sollew the place where there are no least very few... 

This life though is a place of struggles, difficulties and tests we will run from test to another but that doesn't mean that a new door opening wont bring about beneficial change in circumstances and experience... It just isn't guaranteed to be significantly better or different, it could be worse. 

Therefore it helps to prepare for what is on the other side of the door.


There is a large trend in public office, government, the judiciary, law enforcement, the new age movement and the wider public towards legalization of drugs and a soft approach on drug use or abuse.

This move has come after decades of mass manufacture of all sorts of drugs and a general failure to prevent drug dealing, addiction and drug related crime... It has been taken as a collective attribute of the human condition, with it's problems.

Many proponents of legalization state the problems with existing policy and promote the benefits of drug use or the move towards a more tolerant drug taking culture. This has gained popular support of course with the many drug users and addicts in society as well as some victims of drug use and crime who don't see way forward in existing policies and can't think of better alternatives.

This though does not mean better alternatives don't exist, on the macro and the micro level. On a philosophical level, we should ask why so many people in society want to escape their present reality by turning to drugs. 

Mass drug abuse points to deeper problems in the culture, ideology and foundations of a society and civilization, it points to problems in the social, economic, educational and cultural norms and systems of a society. On the level of the resultant crime and disorder stemming from drug addiction and other matters it points to political, judicial and law enforcement failings... it doesn't mean necessarily that the concept of prohibiting drug abuse is incorrect.

Once people jump on a bandwagon for a particular trend they will readily propagate a list of benefits... But they should consider all the harms that exist already in association with it, as well as those harms that are likely to arise with further facilitating it.

Friday, 16 June 2017

The Most Fireproof High Rise Design in Response to Grenfell Tower Tragedy


Following on from the disgraceful and preventable Grenfell Tower fire tragedy in White City, London... I have designed what I believe to be the most fire safe/fire proof high rise/tower apartment block in the world. I believe that 3 or 4 of the 15 or so fireproof design features I have included have never been done before. I am still working on the conceptual diagrams. Within hours of this infuriating tragedy one of the key features came to me, but yesterday yet another life saving feature occurred to me which is relatively cheap in construction. Will governments and councils include these life saving fireproof features or do they want to save money instead of lives? #GrenfellTower #FireproofTowerBlock

Friday, 10 February 2017



[conformity club - zayd depaor]

I guess surgery is not the only thing 'cosmetic' in nature today, it seems that so much of what makes up modern society is cosmetic. I think the best way to escape conformity is to question everything and develop a more comprehensive method of thought, judgement and analysis. If someone has fixed principles based on a reasoned foundation, then I don't see them being easily duped, bribed, blackmailed or intertwined into crowd-comfort.

One of the main mental chains keeping people in intellectual, social, political, economic and spiritual slavery is conformism. Blindly following people, crowds, society, governments, media, education, ideology and individual concepts and ideas.

Conformity is often born out of cowardice, being unwilling to differ with the majority, fearing you will be isolated or victimized.

Conformity is also born out of intellectual laziness, copying others is easier than actually thinking and evaluating ideas.

Conformity can also be born out of dissident voices being silenced by government or locked out by the mainstream media. People only hear one tune being sung at them all day and night, so it is the only music they know of. We are all used to pantomime phony debates, that are presented to us in the mainstream. The establishment view being well represented and the opposition being a weak representative or in reality not being a genuine or credible opponent.

Conformity is dangerous to an individual and society as it strips the individual of intellectual independence and the society of variety, critical analysis and individual input and creativity. Conformity creates drones, slaves, server units of an elite. The public mind becomes monopolized by the few directors of ideas.

Conformity leads to the oppression of the mind, body and spirit. Conformity breeds conformity, every instance of delegating thought to others acclimatizes the brain to not thinking, so it becomes more difficult to think the next time it is required.

All the mess we see around us is usually because people conformed and collaborated with oppressive and autocratic structures. People conform to bad ideas, false beliefs, nonsense concepts, misguided ideology and artificial knowledge and then wonder why the political, economic and social conditions are failing and destructive.

To escape this conformity to chaos requires stepping aside from the downward spiral and viewing reality as it is, away from the spin, without a blinkered view. We should ask ourselves whether things make sense, are they rationally sound, where is the benefit, where is the evidence? We should question our own motives and relationships, what are we doing? Are our thoughts our own or are they just harmful, malicious implants? The media is owned by who with what agenda? The education is mapped by who for what? The fashions and fads are being driven by who on the basis of what? The slogans being circulated, do they make sense, are they true? The common concepts that people are clinging to, are they in accordance with reality or fantasy? Are the foundations and branches of society sound, coherent, clear and correct or baseless, contradictory, confused and erroneous?

Wednesday, 8 February 2017

illegitimate Star Wars prequels and sequels

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...filmmakers changed their minds and ruined their stories... recently, in a world very close to home.

Only the original unedited first three Star Wars movies are legitimate Star Wars.... all the other prequels and sequels are illegitimate and phony.

 As for those who think they are legitimate, genuine and authentic, then they are wrong. They show they do not have artistic, filmmaking, cinematic, narrative-coherent, integrated-visionary judgement...they are just consumers. People can like what they want, but only the original three films are legitimate. I only watched 20 mins of the first prequel and rightly boycotted the rest of the commercial, social engineering, populist distortion. They can fool some of the people but not all of the people.

You can't start changing the whole character, culture and technology of a story after you have told it.

You can't start changing scenes after you have announced, advertised and presented them.

Sure, you can make alternate versions with these cuts and remakes, but to eliminate the original history of the story, the original vision that people held in their minds, emotions and be replaced with some fashionable, artifically forged, rubbish? No.

Changing original movies and eliminating the original vision is one act of destructive butchery. Another act of fabricated inauthentic nonsense is when you make prequels and sequels that betray the nature, culture, coherence, integrity and vision of the original story. You can't say "The world is like this, a supernatural horror or sci-fi war between tradition and corrupted modernity, step inside..." and then later down the line, say "I've changed my mind, now we are in a cowboy comedy or a party political broadcast for the socially corrupt, morally degenerate party." If you want to do that, then just become a politician, be part of the government education system or work for the mainstream media in the sphere of political and social commentary.

How about if song writers, musicians and composers start eliminating their original published versions, changing both the meaning and the sound in some new concoction which retains the same title?

How about if two people get married and after the wedding reception, contract, vows and marriage ceremony, the husband says to the wife, "What I mean now is that you are not a wife but a house maid?"

When a filmmaker releases a movie to the public, not to a preliminary test audience before the movie is completed, he is making a contract with the viewer. He is effectively saying, I want to take you on a journey in a world I have crafted, do you want to come with me? Do you want to accept and be part of what I show you? Do you want this to be part of your conceptual tapestry, your cultural experience, your artistic, psychological and emotional memory? Do you accept this to be part of your social and experiential background? They then accept and watch it and the movie becomes part of their history and a socio-cultural reference point, it may well be a basis for important conceptual allegories and symbolism they may draw upon in the wider world.

So on the basis of that heavy mental implant being accepted, the viewer, the observer, wants to relive the story again, perhaps to share the experience, message and key moments with a new audience. And then he finds the key scenes missing or changed. His trust has been betrayed, history has been wiped, the vision has been smashed and the trance broken.

You are sitting with your wife, friends or children, wanting to show and share with them an experience and suddenly you find yourself robbed. Where the hell did this scene go? Who the hell corrupted the vision? Who has vandalized this story? This is unforgivable, what is this rubbish?

If you do this as a filmmaker, as a director or whatever, then you will no longer be trusted. Your next movie, you want people to buy into it? You want them to have confidence in this story or is that just some experimental junk which you will play with after you sold it? No, you will be just be regarded as a cheat now, a liar, a fraud. You are not a filmmaker but a story breaker.

If an audience accepts this sort of thing then they themselves do not understand the cinematic experience, they don't understand the necessary coherence and continuity of story telling. If they accept this then they are in fact illegitimate viewers, they are invalid spectators, they are inwardly deaf, dumb and blind. They are probably the sort of people who like to see a trailer before a movie or listen to a critic's review before seeing the movie themselves.

And as for all those new 'actors' in the recent illegitimate star wars prequels and sequels who think they are part of the Star Wars world...Sorry, you are not part of it, you are just part of some fabricated counterfeit commercial joke.


10 Reasons Why the 5p Bag Charge is Idiotic

1) It hits the poorest in society the hardest, those who have less resources to ruin the environment with

2) Reusable Bags are a haven for Bacteria, not a good idea for your fresh food

3) Plastic Bags were used as bin liners, now people will just be buying more bin liners

4) Plastic bags had many uses and were cheap or free to apply to those uses, now the payment has to be made...they will be less available and there will in fact be less recycling in relation to those extra uses and other resources will be used. Perhaps the park drunks who at least gathered their litter into one bag and placed it in the recycle bin will now instead leave their litter scattered everywhere and it wont get recycled

5) The bag charge hits those who pollute less, cyclists and pedestrians who need more bags because they are actually carrying them over a distance rather than lifting them from their trolley to their heavily polluting car. All the car drivers are not complaining about the charge as they don't carry the bags any distance anyway.

6) A poor person doing a family shop may need 12-16 plastic bags in one shop to do the shopping as bags may need to be doubled and tripled and they don't hold much anyway. 80p added to a shopping budget means 80p less for food or any other necessities. The idiotic politicians, who often don't do their own shopping and have no idea about counting pennies, as they have high salaries paid by public taxes before setting themselves up in high paying jobs due to their government insider-info, are unaware that the "5p wont break the bank" is actually false. It is not 5p a year or even a week, but on every unit needed, every shopping trip and every transaction necessary. It can be a significant charge on the poor, or even on the rich man who didn't consider the bag charge who is out of cash.

7) A poor person may only have £1 on them for a few items...but now they need the bag or bags also to be paid for, this may mean they go home without shopping as they didn't have the money for the bags. Many people are so poor that they only have small change on them.

8) Pedestrians and cyclists now have to take up their carriage space or pockets with plastic carrier bags... This may deter them from eco-friendly travel, they might take bus, car, train or taxi instead.

9) People will have less money to spend on eco-friendly products.

10) Precious time is wasted messing around with packed bags and with additional bag-charge transactions, this is a drain on more resources and costs the economy more.