Positive Health Online

Green Economy

We need to go green. Sustainability is one thing, but a green economy, even if the cost is more than we can bear, is a must. Massive amounts of money are being pumped into the idea of a green economy. Even though the definition of what is considered to be a green economy is a bit vague, it is being pushed as the only way to live if we are going to save the planet. And that is something we need to do if we want to ensure our own survival.

Sustainable Development

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sustainable_development.svg

We want green electricity. Essentially what is meant by this is that electricity should no longer be gained from burning fossil fuels. So electricity created by more natural means of wind, sun and water power is the alternatives that are being suggested, although nuclear power plants also classifies as a green industry as it is not emitting any CO₂.

We want to shorten the supply chain. Transporting products across half the world from their manufacturing site to the consumer market must be a thing of the past. This will create a lot of local jobs and although the price of the product will increase it is a price the consumer is willing – he has no other choice – to pay. It will also mean less travel, which results in less CO₂ emission.

Saving the planet, as in taking specific actions to restore a natural ecosystem, seems a bit strange inasmuch that the planet has been around for a lot longer than humanity has. It has survived on its own accord so many catastrophic events that it seems a ludicrous idea that an individual is saddled with the responsibility to save the planet. The way we are going to save the planet according to the authorities is by collectively changing our habits. Many of these habits have been put into place by the industry. Our habit of using plastics does not come from individuals but from a manufacturing industry that has flooded human society with a non-biodegradable products, and yet it now is the task of the individuals not to use plastics anymore. Not the task of the industry no longer to produce it! Saving the rainforest is a task of the individual, not of the industry. The public needs to feel responsible to rectify the damage that has been done by the industry for big profits. The profits is money the industry has taken from individuals and now the same individuals are being presented with the bill for the clean-up of the damage the industry is leaving behind.

Green power must be the future and is per definition a much better solution than the old fossil burning way of generating power. If you don’t emit CO₂ whilst producing electricity it will help to save the planet. Nuclear power stations leave behind massive amounts of radioactive material which will take thousands of years to naturally deteriorate and lose their radioactive power. This material is simply dumped at the bottom of the sea or buried deep into the earth. Fracking as a way of producing gas which can be used to power our electricity plants provides an ideal way of storing this material in the cracks and crevices that are being created by shaking the rocks beneath our feet in order to extract the gas. Dumping radioactive waste in those holes will, so the industry hopes, extend the time before the earth will fall away underneath the feet of human settlements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Circles_of_Sustainability_image_(assessment_-_Melbourne_2011).jpg

Caption: This image shows the sustainability of the metropolis of Melbourne across the four domains of sustainability - economics, ecology, politics and culture - as developed by the UN Global Compact, Cities Programme. sustainability sustainable development circles of sustainability The image was developed by Paul James using Adobe Illustrator, based on the Cities Programme template

The batteries that are being used to store electricity, produced by solar and wind energy, also create lots of problems. The mining of the raw materials leads to contamination of local water basins and salinization of freshwater. There are also serious issues surrounding child labour, deforestation and toxic pollution of the environment with even birth defects as a result. It turns out that, although electrical vehicles pump out less CO₂ whilst driving them, the manufacturing of electrical vehicles produces significantly higher CO₂ figures than its petrol counterparts. At the end of its life many parts of the batteries could, in principle, be recycled. However, that market is predicted to be very small and not attractive due to the fact that it is complicated to recycle lithium and it is highly toxic. On top of that, recycled materials are much more expensive than mined equivalents. The huge investment needed for a relative small return makes it very unlikely recycling of storage batteries will become common practice.

Shortening the supply chain looks like we are evolving in the direction of more local products and a local market chain. You may have the impression that this will benefit local people, local businesses and self-employed people. This could be true if those would still be in existence. Not the virus but the measures our governments have taken have ensured the total collapse of traditional local businesses, of local markets. You will be able to buy local products in the supermarket, virtually the only remaining outlet. Local production will then be determined by the demand of the super chains, not the demand by the customer. Only international internet companies will be able to supply you with goods from other places as they can still move products because they have their own transportation network. You will be able to order a product on the American amazon site but it will be delivered by the UK amazon site, making it look as if it is a local distribution. A regular American company will no longer be allowed to deliver to the UK as that is in breach of the trade agreement of the new world, but if you are big enough and have facilities in almost all countries you can distribute whatever you want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diagram_of_equal_opportunity_formal_model.png

The "formal" conception of equality of opportunity focuses on fairness at the competition stage for a post or position, with clear rules to judge the most able person with criteria related to the position sought. The "starting point" is when two persons apply for a position; and theoretically either applicant may win the position.

Equal Opportunities

Making education a lot less expensive through the use of internet schooling makes it look like equal opportunities for all. Financially stretched families will now be able to afford higher education for their children and they, in turn, will be able to enter the job market without huge loan repayments around their necks.

Working from home gives the impression that even when you cannot afford a car you are able to hold down an important job ‘in the city’. Or, people who need to be around for their children or ageing parents will still have the opportunity to continue being employed in a highly responsible job. People lacking social skills will no longer be excluded from responsible jobs as they no longer have to meet other people in person. The job market becomes a more even playing field.

Governments will guarantee a minimum income for every individual, irrespective of its contribution to the job market. There will be a safety net, a social security system, that will ensure that everybody has a financial opportunity to live. Medical care and social assistance will be provided by the group for the benefit of the individual. There will be solidarity amongst the entire society because nobody will be missing out on anything. All this will be financed by the government.

Nobody talks about the income of the government anymore. Various open and covert tax schemes have not been successful in balancing the books for a very long time. Even penny pinching and austerity measures did not alter that trend. The proclaimed threat to the entire world population did. Now it no longer matters what a government has to pay as long as there is the prospect - nothing more than the thought that it is possible – of saving one life. We have determined that a human life has no limited value and whatever it takes, the entire society must be ready to sacrifice it on the altar of solidarity. Anybody questioning this attitude is branded a heretic, discriminating against something or somebody.

This new society will be all inclusive. It will be offered to the citizens almost at no cost whatsoever, if we line all the promises up. And all that will be asked for in return is solidarity with your fellow citizens, with your fellow citizens of the world, except if they are Chinese or Russian or North Korean or …

If we mean by ‘equal opportunities for all students’ that everybody should have the opportunity to attend university or a highly specialised technical school, then the only way you can achieve that is by lowering your academic standards or your required skill standards. On the other hand, if you mean ‘giving every child the opportunity to develop their talents at a time and at a pace they determine themselves’, then you will have to stop putting them all together on one conveyer belt. Expanding the number of students attending one lesson from 30 or 40 to a few hundred will push them all down the same corridor, the one line of opinion, the one way of understanding life. Creating true equal opportunities, opportunities that will directly relate to individual happiness, one needs to allow a person to be themselves, not having to fit a certain profile. Every profile of any human being will work in a life where variety is the spice of life. All the same is bland, uninteresting and bound to die soon.

The job market will be ruled by the data that has been collected about you. This will include your medical records, your internet search behaviour, your habits, your preferences, your anger themes, your vulnerabilities and your strengths. They will be able to select the perfect, to them, the perfect person for the job without there being a need for a lengthy and annoying solicitation round. Whatever they want from the employee at that time in that position they will ensure they’ll get. No more strikes. No more riots. No more open conflicts. It seems that everybody is happy.

Those that aren’t happy, because they are not allowed in a job, will have to be happy with what they are being given. Without the social security they would not be able to live, so being grateful is appropriate here. Again nobody shows any signs of unhappiness, which means that everybody is happy.

Governments will not have to pay out the vast sums of money they hand out. People are basically being rewarded for their loyalty and although people nowadays think in terms of being paid money for their services that will no longer be necessary. If you are on social benefits the state will provide a basic living for you. This means that you get a roof over your head, some food on the table and something to do. So all the government needs to do is provide you with a kind of voucher system. If you give them some of your time and you watch and like (thumbs up) the programmes, you get to stay in the accommodation and they will deliver the food they have decided that’s good for you.

Jobs will be rewarded with privileges. When the government is very happy with your performance you may be allowed to travel to the coast for a weekend or to get a pair of fancy high heel shoes. You have become a commodity for the government and only by supporting the government will you be able to survive as all essentials are fully controlled by the authorities. If you fail to be given food or water or shelter you will not find anybody who is willing to share anything with you because the solidarity only extends to ‘the real people’, not the rebels and hooligans. Everybody, those within the system, is equal as we all have a place to stay, food on the table and something to do. There is a definite gradation in these which will encourage some people to strive for more and better, although even that is capped and monitored by the authorities.

Everybody is part of this government society and is a stakeholder in the business, in the job they are in. They benefit from the good performance of the corporation like any investor would have in the old days. However, it will cost the company far less to keep all their employees happy than it did keeping their investors happy. Now all the investors want is to keep their power over that aspect of life their business deals with. Businesses will no longer be in competition with one another but they will form a balanced ecosystem where only camaraderie and synergy exists. Equality at that level. Equal opportunities to them. The rest are the grey masses, equal and indistinguishable from one another.

Map of important emerging infectious diseases by Anthony Fauci from NIAID updated in 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Examples_of_Emerging_and_Re-Emerging_Infectious_Diseases.jpg

Analysis

Authorities tell us that in order to maintain our health

• We need fresh air.
• We need plenty of movement.
• We need contact with nature.
• We need (physical and mental) contact with fellow human beings.
• We need to limit screen time.
• We need a purpose in life (a reason for living).

Those same authorities tell us that our health is in danger and they order us

• To wear face masks and to breathe in our own expelled air, with a CO₂ level that is hundreds of times higher than what they consider to be detrimental to our health when they measure the CO₂ in the atmosphere.
• To stay indoors where we have limited opportunities of sustained and prolonged movement.
• To avoid contact with wildlife.
• To avoid contact with other human beings, including family.
• To work online, to study online, to shop online, to keep in touch with others online, to basically live online.
• To close our businesses and to give up our hobbies.

Why do we believe them? Why do we still credit them with the knowledge to keep us safe when the recommendations for our survival directly oppose their own health recommendations? Because they tell us that the benefits of their recommendations, or more accurate their enforcements, far outweigh the risk to our health posed by the minor and temporary disadvantages of the safety measures they implement. It is an argument that the medical profession uses all the time. They know they are using highly toxic stuff as cancer treatment but the benefits far outweigh the risk posed by this toxicity. They admit that vaccinations cause serious damage to children and adults alike but the benefits far outweigh the risk posed by their toxicity. They know that antidepressants increase the risk of suicide but the benefits far outweigh the risk of the side-effects. So this type of reasoning is common amongst the profession that currently rules our lives.

In order to get some idea how true such a statement is we need to retrace the steps that got us to this statement.

It begins with the idea that a new infection is going around the world, infecting billions and killing millions. However, official death records show no specific increase in numbers during ‘the height’ of this pandemic, which begs the question whether this can truly be called a pandemic. The authorities put out figures of bed occupancy in hospitals and intensive care units, which they do not compare with figures for the same periods of the year for the past twenty years. They also ‘explain’ lower numbers, which actually means less pressure on the system, not more, by the fact that they have closed down wards, suspended normal hospital activity, in order to cope with the deluge of infected patients. Firstly, we cannot know whether there has been a significant difference in the figures as they do not publish those. Only figures are being pumped out during this ‘crisis’ and only in relation to this ‘crisis’.  Secondly, we cannot know the underlying reason for admissions to hospital or the illness a person is clearly suffering from because at the same time as having this infection in the world, measures have been implemented that have had serious consequences on peoples’ lives, causing serious illness and distress. We can’t distinguish one from the other. Add to this the fact that the world population has been living in tremendous fear of death and that factor alone will be responsible for a lot of human suffering and ill health. Again, numbers cannot be separated out from what the authority lets us know.

The reason the authorities give us for the high number of infected people is the fact that they test positive for the virus. However, a virus has never been isolated and without separating the virus from the rest of debris from living material, nobody is able to tell what bits belong to the virus and what is part of some other cellular life. So claiming that a positive test equals an infected person is simply a lie. Besides, science has proven that there are no ‘absolute’ tests. This means that no test, and that includes all medical testing and measuring, gives us an absolute result. The test result is dependent upon the circumstances in which the test is taken, how the test is performed and how the data is being collected. The medical profession knows this as they know that there can be huge differences in results of standard tests done in different laboratories. They know that there are no specific antibodies to be found against any of the diseases they test for. They know that there is no specific immune reaction that can be demonstrated for any diseases they test for.

So if a positive test result does not equate an infected person and if there is no scientific way to diagnose a disease, an infection, what is then left of the pandemic? What we can do is record people with clinical infective symptoms. We cannot prove what has caused their infection but we can, to a degree, clinically determine they are suffering from some sort of infection. If this constitutes a pandemic that then depends on whether it affects a large part of the world. Only the sheer numbers of ill people count. Well, infections happen everywhere in the world all the time, so it would be foolish to name it a pandemic if we cannot establish that all, or most, of the infected people are ill as a result of the same cause, as no test will allow us to prove such a link. Flu happens every year all across the world but is not called a pandemic. All we have left is the number of people suffering from an infection at any given time. But in order to find out if this is something unusual we need to compare it with figures of previous years in that same region. If we are unable to compare like for like, we are unable to draw any conclusions at all. From official figures published in various countries it becomes clear that nothing abnormal, deviant from previous years, has happened in 2020. No more infections than usual.

The threat of ‘picking up’ an infection that might possibly kill you is one thing but the question as to how big that risk is, is a far more important point. If we believe that an infection is passed on under specific circumstances or in very specific conditions, each individual can ‘assess’ their own risk. The authorities inform us that this new infection can be spread from human to human, even without direct contact, from animal to human and from objects to human. Now we have to be afraid of being anywhere near another person, of being in nature in the proximity of animals and of touching objects. In other words, it is no longer possible for an individual to assess the risk themselves anymore. Hence we become totally dependent upon a monitoring system the authority is putting in place and which they tell us will keep us safe. So they require us to let them know where we all are at any given time and as they collect information about every citizens’ health status on a continual basis, they can let us know if any ‘at risk’ person is anywhere close to us or if we enter an area that poses a high risk. This requires strict surveillance of the entire population on their movements and their contacts, which involves the individual to give up his or her right to privacy in order for the authority to keep us all under surveillance at any given time.

The actual assessment of what is and what isn’t a high risk area is only made by the authorities and cannot be verified by the individual. In order to evaluate how big a risk a certain situation holds to a specific individual for that individual to fall prey to an infectious disease (given the story the medical profession tells us about the spreading of infections), one needs two important bits of information. Firstly, one needs to identify where this infectious agent actually is present and active, and secondly, we need to know how much resistance that specific individual has got against the so-called attack of this infectious agent. These pose quite a few problems.

• We have never isolated a virus and therefore cannot determine where a virus, any virus, is present.
• We have never proven a causal link between the presence of an infectious agent, be it bacteria, fungi or viruses, and the specific disease the medical profession claims they have caused.
• We have no test that evaluates the resistance an individual has against any specific disease.

To put this in a nutshell, we do not know where viruses are and what possible viruses are present anywhere at any given time. And even if we did, we do not know what effect they may or may not have on our health. No infectious disease has ever scientifically been proven to be caused by any infectious agent we hear about. There is no scientific proof of any direct involvement of any known infectious agent in our health. On top of which it is impossible for us to assess someone’s vulnerability to any known disease, said to be caused by an infectious agents, as there is no test that can identify the resistance anyone has against falling ill from a specific disease.

We must conclude that, both for the individual as for the group, an assessment of risk to become infected with a specific disease is completely impossible because of the many unknowns, not in the least the fact that there is no causal link between an agent and an infection. However, a risk assessment about possible damage linked to the protective measures such as facial mask-wearing, isolation of suffering individuals and vaccinations, is certainly possible. In all those situations we can establish a definite risk, which we can’t as far as the risk of infection is. This makes a statement such as “the risk of infection is far greater than any possible risk caused by vaccines” a total distortion of the truth.

The promise of a new and better world begins with the destruction of the old. The old world and the principles it was built on are being taken down by governments that have built that world and are now offering to build us a new one, a better one. The governments are taking away everything individuals have believed in - they were told it by the government - and they are replacing it with something else, the government is telling them, promising that it will be better. The justification for this robbery comes from the same governments in the shape of protection. They rob you of your opportunities for your own good. And the reason, the excuse, for the robbery is a death threat to your individual life. If one begins the reasoning at this point then the new world can be built up, layer by layer, lie upon untruth. And the public wouldn’t know any different because it all sounds logical, from the moment you believe that your life (your health) is in danger. From the moment you are convinced your health can be invaded by an outside invisible source without you having any defence against it, you can be taken anywhere simply by creating fear.

Your life is being threatened by something you can’t detect, you can’t identify and you can’t demonstrate any effects from. But in order to protect you from it the government you trust tells you in great detail everything it ‘knows’ about this threat, everything that is effective in protecting you from it and how individuals should melt together into one solidarity group – ‘if you don’t do it for yourself, then do it for your fellowmen’. Stay close together and execute the orders we give you. This is a forced and enforced solidarity which allows for individual needs and suffering to be totally ignored. Humanity, whomever that may be, needs to benefit, not you, egocentric little person. And what ‘benefit’ actually means is something you also will be told by the same authority.

The promise of a new world is a beautiful scheme whereby the existing authority no longer has to explain itself and convince a majority of its population in order to stay in power (democratic principle). The scheme is nothing more than rounding up the cattle into one big coral, and in this case they didn’t even have to make use of dogs or horses to achieve it. They simply made some noises. Simple statements, made at the right time in the right direction, brought the human cattle together.

And as with the driving of cattle, the sounds that are being used to manipulate which direction they will be led into don’t have to make sense at all. They do not have to mean anything.

Hence, you can say anything you like. Truth plays no further part in this game. Control is the name of the game.

The new world has arrived, as promised. Everything will be taken care of.

• Fresh air can be produced and circulated through our homes.
• Our movements will be monitored and regulated by constantly measuring and calculating that sufficient mobility is being maintained.
• Contact with nature will be monitored and made safe.
• Contact with people will be monitored and made safe through the identification of non-protected people and an alarm system that warns you of possible danger. If you have been exposed you will be isolated and treated in order to minimize the risk to you and the rest of the population.
• Screens will be made safe to use and will become invaluable for all our activities.
• Every individual who is not directly or indirectly employed by the authority will be used to supervise other citizens. For this service the person will be allowed access to the essentials of life.

The new world will focus on reducing the risk to the individual by monitoring everything, separating most and choosing what to call safe or dangerous. The voice of power.

The new world will be a safe haven to those who are following the instructions of governments, thereby not putting their fellowmen in any danger, as proclaimed by the government. The voice of power.

The new world will be about an enforced solidarity overriding any personal issues. People will be praised and rewarded for bringing any breaches of the rules to the attention of the government. And collateral damage is part of winning the war. It is predicted that vaccinating the world population will lead to 7 million deaths due to the vaccine (Bill Gates), but it is a price we all must pay to save humanity. Says the voice of power.

What the new world is built on are those believes that science has already proven wrong. Science may be slow (it’s a difficult process!) in finding absolute truths but they are very efficient in finding absolute untruths. It is these that the medical profession in its entirety has been constructed on, a building plan that is now being extended to the whole of society across the entire globe.

The launch of the new world is imminent.

The promises we already have; the reality we will be confronted with.