Home   |         NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

If Corbyn wins, Britain will be a utopia within 20 years, if Corbyn loses, Britain will be a near-universally-jew-hating white-racist cesspool with less than 1% non white population in the same timeframe.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: TJ Coles tells us:

<<

The establishment British media, be it the BBC or the privately-owned Sky News, have marginalized ordinary Britons who are critical of the neoliberalism, known as "capitalism." They and their allies in the right-wing print media have done so, in large part, by slandering the political representatives of the poor as "Marxist lunatics" and so on. But now, even elements of the establishment are beginning to recognize that the neoliberal system is collapsing itself.

The government-funded British Academy, a research institute for humanities and social sciences, reports that Britain has "a particularly extreme form of capitalism," in the words of Professor Colin Mayer. In the age of Orwell, the BBC can report this with one hand and with the other continue to its pro-government propaganda. In this context, it is little wonder that British culture and public services are utterly dire. Given the relentless media and political assaults on Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the only political party (Labour) that can and will change some of this system, Britain's "extreme capitalism" is primed to get a whole lot worse if the Tories win this coming election.

>>

He points out:

<<

Professor Mayer of the British Academy says that the neoliberal - or "capitalist" system, as he and his colleagues call it - "has failed to deliver benefit beyond shareholders, to its stakeholders and its wider community." Failed is the wrong word. The system was designed by the ruling classes for the ruling classes. Mayer adds: "Most ownership in the UK is in the hands of a large number of institutional investors, none of which have a significant controlling shareholding in our largest companies." He concludes: "That is quite unlike virtually any other country in the world, including the United States," where even small-time employers and employees can at least pretend to be market players by owning stocks and shares.

With an election campaign underway, the ruling Tory party has published its manifesto. The shadow of "extreme capitalism" looms over the manifesto. The manifesto promises more of the same. It is notable for its lack of social care policy for the elderly. Nigel Edwards, the Chief Executive of the UK's semi-privatized health service, the Nuffield Trust, issued a statement in response: "I was bitterly disappointed to see yet more unnecessary delay on social care, without even a policy proposal as a starting point for serious reform." Edwards concludes that "There is already a cross party consensus that action must be taken, and we don't need more contemplation of options that are perfectly clear: we need action." But unless privatized, social care doesn't serve "extreme capitalism," quite the contrary.

The shadow of Britain's "extreme form of capitalism" darkens the future of the bottom quarter. The Resolution Foundation is a think-tank set up to tackle middle- and lower-class poverty and relative poverty. In response to the manifesto, it estimated that by the time the Tories call another general election in 2024 (god forbid they win this one), child poverty will hit a 60-year high of 34 percent if trends persist, affecting an additional 1.3 million children (approx.).

>>

Coles concludes:

<<

By relentlessly hammering Jeremy Corbyn and by blotting out Labour's socialistic policies with the endless coverage of "anti-Semitism," BoJo the Racist Clown, political opponents, the mainstream media (both state and private), so-called liberal journalists and presenters, and individuals like Rabbi Mirvis, are personally and institutionally ensuring that under the inevitable consequences of its "particularly extreme form of capitalism" (British Academy), Britain will get worse and worse for ordinary people.

We expect the few who benefit from Britain's "extreme form of capitalism" to vote in their own interests. But the biggest tragedy is that enough reactionary elements of the working-classes will swallow the anti-Corbyn bile, believe that BoJo will "Get Brexit Done," and vote against not only their own interests but, even worse, use their voting power against the interests of the wider society.

>>
Direction of resistance / implied resistance: Now imagine in 20 years, when Britain is literally like Darfur of yesterday, when it has become a pure tin pot dictatorship, with the vast majority in abject slavery and a tiny minority with unchecked material power. And everyone remembers that it was 'anti-semitism' smears which were used to make sure this happened - and most of non white Britain has, by then, long fled, to better societies (as is inevitable if Corbyn loses). Surely it's obvious that in the near-all-white society, which will still have jews in it, not much less than today's white-jewish-British society - most people in Britain are going to blame and hate those jews and indeed all jews.

I guess that's the sort of outcome you can expect when you commit the hubris of calling an anti-racist racist and supporting racists as anti-racist.

 

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: I mean on top of all else I've said on the topic, from Burka-hating Boris to the Tinges Are Funny Corp, figure this (as the Americans say) - I was banned for the 30 days up to the election, from facebook, for saying, correctly, that facebook and twitter are "the last outpost of white stupidity" - and Rachel Riley, who desecrated an iconic photo representing anti-racist white Britain's support for victims of white supremacist apartheid south Africa - she is not even banned from Twitter for doing it, not for a nanosecond, let alone fired from her high profile job. Unification: Anyway? You think that bad guys win? Think again. This final thought from my recent notes, giving you some idea of how now, with about 10 days to the election, the universe has, with my efforts, helped me reach a state of the art of financial science which enables me to make money off the markets without even having any budget to invest (other than a temporary 'loan to myself' of 50 quid, which only need by loaned to myself for a few hours at a time, rarely). There is such a thing as 'elite' - but it's not what the Blairs and Rileys and Trumps and Nixons and Farages and Johnsons recognise it to be:

<<

SKID ROW TRADING METHOD:

(1) you need the Ace of Algorithms (which I have)

(2) the rest is easy:

The rest:

I can now 'lend' myself, or rather my trading account, money merely to keep trading, ie any time I can let 50 quid rest in that account, I can open a trade if necessary. I must never ever withdraw any profit made on the account (calculated on paper) but can take my 50 quid back out whenever I want, at the cost of not being able to trade, then, until I can put it back in. The algorithm generates a guaranteed profit over almost all 'short-ish' bursts of 'time'. Thus what I'm doing is merely lending myself money, sometimes, ie lending it to my trading account, to keep the business process alive; any profit yield from it will remain in the trading account and before long the money I've lent myself will have generated a profit, which will enable, therefore, trading to always be going on, whether I can lend myself more money or not. It appears that I probably really only need to lend myself the first 50 quid, repeatedly, until 50 quid profit has gelled up. Nonetheless, it may also 'make sense' to continue to 'lend' myself money in this way. It would appear, from internal intuitive mathematical reasoning I JUST carried out in a nanosecond or less, that it would be a FAB plan. Imagine when I start lending myself 200 quid regularly. Well, that's not much to imagine, as I will not increase trading size until I have more than 1 lot of 200 being traded with, lent or profit. The idea, on that front, is to increase the trading size every time I have 200 pounds, ie for every 200 in the account I'll trade 10p per point. But I only need 50 to cover the actual trade at that size, and since I'm lending myself the entire 200 quid at any given time, to begin with, I'm really only lending myself the first 50 quid to keep the trading connection 'alive' 'permanently'. Once that 50, lent, drawn back out, lent again, drawn back out, etc, has produced 50 of profit, then THAT 50 can just sit there. The next amount needing lending would be a further 350, then, ie to 'lend' myself the 400 to trade at 20p a point with, until a full 400 has been yielded. Anyway, a version for less intelligent minds or minds less/un able to comprehend what my own mind does and has attempted to codify in language form here in such a manner as to enable you to know what I know. If communication is unsuccessful it is unintelligent to then ascribe to me and what I know some value, some perjorative judgment, because that is taking deficiencies of nature, possibly yourself and possibly myself, deficiencies entirely unrelated to the matter described, and just arbitrarily make a brand new judgment 'based' on that deficiency, clumsily, with no rational connection between the 'evidence' you use and the judgment you make. Anyway, the primary purpose of this bit of prose is to re-inform me, when I get up again tomorrow, of precisely what I have articulated to myself both in i-language and, subsequently, in higher (of a 'lower order', to use the bbc jargon about importance) level forms, the latter primarily to give me better capacity to re-grip these ideas without relying entirely on the intuitive or hidden aspects of mind and will which undermine any primitive attempt to use the mind in a way similar to the way one uses a filing cabinet or computer, ie some sort of easy to store and retrieve data facility.

>>

So you see if the tories do beat Corbyn somehow this time, if all the racism has worked, if all the using of jews as a universal weapon against him, if the weaponising of all jews, adult and children alike, has worked for the corporatist fascist white-imperialist racist scum, if they beat Corbyn - well - you see my financial power is something which cannot be challenged by people whose future hoarding depends on not only maintaining the system which I benefit from but enhancing it in my favour even further.

Not even 1% of the scum who oppose Corbyn can match me, let alone beat me, on the trading floor. This is what happens when you do the right thing - no matter what, the universe will protect you. If the people of Britain do not get Corbyn as their Prime Minister I can only conclude that the universe felt that they are just too far away, universally, from repenting from their racism and imperialism. Many documents on this web site can help them repair that - just do a bit of reading my fellow South Africans(!).

Next up, that finished Bovary script. As for the Nixon anti-semitism stuff from Alex Cockburn's book, well, perhaps you should buy the book. I have no immediate plans to get that work done, ie transcribing the key bits here.

The universe is marvellous. It was during this 30 day ban from twitter that this amazing twist in my trading occurred, ie where suddenly I can now make money with a budget of, essentially, zero pounds and zero pence. Money out of thin air pretty much. Thanks to the power of my 'ace algorithm'. There's a bit more to mention beyond that extract from my notes. Eg if I put in 50 and lose 4, and need to take my bucks out, I take out the 46, but when I next 'need to put in a 50' I put in merely the 46. That perhaps goes without saying for some minds but not all. Anyway, good luck dear Britain. I hope the universe sees fit to put Corbyn in number 10. Either way, the universe has, apparently, taken care of me - I guess I have, thusfar anyway, "done the right thing".

I know I know, there are still many readers, out of anyone reading this, who still don't quite get what I'm saying, what is 'new' here, what new change has happened. Well, it means that the sequence of trades leading to my first billion, leading to my first 1 pound, of profit, in a single sequence leading to billions, has now kicked off. Just the fact that I am now waiting for the next trade and if it comes when I can 'lend' it 50 quid temporarily, I shall trade it. The Brook Green Chapati Co is finally born. Since yesterday, 8am London time, I've entered like the dragon. How come? Because, as I said, as is absolutely significant, I can now generate profit using a budget of effectively zero pounds and zero pence. The chess clock is on.

Another way to explain that: I can now 'lend myself 50 quid', interest free, and use it, giving it back to myself whenever I need it and re-lending it to myself again whenever needed, if possible (otherwise one just waits for the next trade, and it changes nothing, in terms of probability, not one thing), to generate the first 50 pounds of profit, which can then power onward motion. All I have to do to ensure the system works is never draw out the profit. I can lend myself 50 quid until I have 50 quid of profit, then I don't need to lend myself anything at all and can let it slowly build up - but when it's 200 I can see if I can lend myself a further 200, on and off, whenever I need (withdrawing it whenever I need, same as that 50). In other words after I reach 200 in profit, with no money lent to myself and not paid back, I can then lend myself 200, and trade at a faster rate, and so on. One may need lots of experience with trading and with financial spread betting and options trading and with ideas like the notion that you should risk no more than 2 percent of your overall budget on an individual trade, ideally, coupled with the idea that a budget is not merely what you keep in the account at any given time if you are truly intellectually honest, intelligent and disciplined. Anyway, so there it is - I can lend myself 50 quid, giving it back to myself any time I need it, or all but at most 4 or 8 quid, at the start, but as time goes by, before long, without a doubt all of it, leaving, from then onwards, a small, rising, residual profit in my trading account still, at such times. And when that 50 quid loan has generated a full 50 quid profit I won't need it, I can merely use THAT 50 until it has reached a tally of 200 (all profit, at this stage), and then I can, if by then I have managed to scrimp and save, lend myself 200 quid, potentially, not necessarily even putting it all in at any given time but being willing to put it in if really necessary (highly unlikely to be necessary, ever, even if it is, 'in spirit', being 'lent' by me to me at that point - ie the account will merely contain 200 in it but I'll trade at that point as though it has 400, and only if it loses more than 100 of that 200 in the account would you even need to add any of the 200 to be 'lent' and top it up to the theoretical 400. And thus when the 200 lent has helped bring the overall tally to 400, perhaps one would continue to lend oneself 200, and move it up by another 10p per point. That would be far more sensible than, say, bumping it up to a 400 pound loan from self to self - ie there's no reason to do that, and it's clearly not something one could merely find manageable just like that. So I think at that stage I'd move it up by 10p. Of course separately to this I should try to save money, and if I were able to lend myself a full 400, saved up, at any given point, lending it with no need to take it back (but fully intending to immediately repay it, to myself), that would then definitely be the right thing to do - ie all the above does not even take into consideration the possibility of saving additional money and so on - since, after all, the primary goal, a necessary goal, is to be able to carry out the trading sequence with literally no money other than the 50 quid you can stick in there, just for a few hours or a day or so, at most, at a time, spaced out by weeks, often longer.

Anyway, one way to handle the complexity and powerful content in this document is to merely see me as one of many negative things, make this a personality contest, see this as a battle between your ego and my image, and not treat it the way you would treat a very difficult homework from a very knowledgeable teacher. That is a standard response. No question there. On the other hand you can read this doc, and linked docs, until you really understand what I have explained. After all, whether or not you understand my words, I understand my thoughts (and words). Judging me, when the problem is the failure of reality, one way or another, to enable you to understand my thoughts, is a different direction to the one you must take to keep on the track of evolution.

I will further inflame some readers or potential readers here by adding even more words to the 'page'. One of the things some of the people who come quite close to being able to learn from me or people like me but who fail, dramatically, all have in common is their sense that when faced with many pages of my writing they are being insulted, tormented and forced to waste their precious time.

Indeed to them I should actually spend 80% or more of my time crafting what I say for the benefit of its readers when I, instead, in fact, spend 98% of my time thinking and learning and devote less than 2% to communicating, and when doing so report rather like an extensive lab experiment log, rather than a p.r. person or other soaped up speaker.

Indeed this is something which reading the numberwang doc below, or at least the scientific extracts within it, can shed a LITTLE light on but really you need to extensively watch/read Chomsky's material, across the ages, on language and thought and related topics. Otherwise you really won't find it easy to understand why what I am saying is both spot on and key. Key because the point is that either you get good work done, or you masturbate your ego, not both. Good work means disregard for external validation and judgment, indeed the clarity required is internal and since external clarity (Chomsky's works point well at the fact) is always to some degree imperfect, often VERY imperfect, it is rather ignorant to spend most of your time on that and almost no time on the thing (relatively speaking) you are actually communicating ABOUT.

Another way Chomsky talks about the same issue, in lay terms, is the idea that if you are being taught something new to you you WILL need to be subjected to potentially lengthy evidence-delivery and if you are closed to that you have no business pretending the ideas you already hold, correct or false, have any value. If the scientific method, as Feynman calls it, is something you are willing to ignore, on a whim, based on who you hate, who makes you feel insecure, how much work you need to do, how much scarcity you face, how whatever - if for one or other reason you ignore evidence because it is expedient or convenient or simply a knee-jerk response to ignore it, nothing you actually say or think is really reliable and all sorts of problems will always befall you in your life, you will never reduce the volume but instead, over time, see problems take up more and more and more of your spacetime usage, to move towards coining a more useful description of these things than the outmoded terms most modern languages still rely on, themselves often remaining entirely stubborn about accepting that time is not a 'linear' thing. Which are good words to end this doc on, clearly. Well, if you get my point.

It's important that I do my work properly, with no excess regard for external comprehension, and it is important that Corbyn becomes PM, that the 'sea change' comes, that Palestine is no longer 'forgotten' by Britain, whilst its princes pretend (to themselves) otherwise.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

Supported by points:

1.101.1

13 versions:

1. Server time: 10:23:22 on 3/12/2019
2. Server time: 10:24:40 on 3/12/2019
3. Server time: 10:39:47 on 3/12/2019
4. Server time: 10:46:30 on 3/12/2019
5. Server time: 10:48:36 on 3/12/2019
6. Server time: 13:45:33 on 3/12/2019
7. Server time: 14:5:28 on 3/12/2019
8. Server time: 14:25:52 on 3/12/2019
9. Server time: 14:27:49 on 3/12/2019
10. Server time: 15:59:33 on 3/12/2019
11. Server time: 17:7:4 on 3/12/2019
12. Server time: 11:48:32 on 4/12/2019
13. Server time: 11:51:27 on 4/12/2019

Related points:

References:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/02/uk-election-how-propaganda-props-up-britains-particularly-extreme-form-of-capitalism/
https://www.facebook.com/CounterPunchOrg/posts/2728207040570951
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.

Simple text version.

If Corbyn wins, Britain will be a utopia within 20 years, if Corbyn loses, Britain will be a near-universally-jew-hating white-racist cesspool with less than 1% non white population in the same timeframe.

TJ Coles tells us:

<<

The establishment British media, be it the BBC or the privately-owned Sky News, have marginalized ordinary Britons who are critical of the neoliberalism, known as "capitalism." They and their allies in the right-wing print media have done so, in large part, by slandering the political representatives of the poor as "Marxist lunatics" and so on. But now, even elements of the establishment are beginning to recognize that the neoliberal system is collapsing itself.

The government-funded British Academy, a research institute for humanities and social sciences, reports that Britain has "a particularly extreme form of capitalism," in the words of Professor Colin Mayer. In the age of Orwell, the BBC can report this with one hand and with the other continue to its pro-government propaganda. In this context, it is little wonder that British culture and public services are utterly dire. Given the relentless media and political assaults on Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the only political party (Labour) that can and will change some of this system, Britain's "extreme capitalism" is primed to get a whole lot worse if the Tories win this coming election.

>>

He points out:

<<

Professor Mayer of the British Academy says that the neoliberal - or "capitalist" system, as he and his colleagues call it - "has failed to deliver benefit beyond shareholders, to its stakeholders and its wider community." Failed is the wrong word. The system was designed by the ruling classes for the ruling classes. Mayer adds: "Most ownership in the UK is in the hands of a large number of institutional investors, none of which have a significant controlling shareholding in our largest companies." He concludes: "That is quite unlike virtually any other country in the world, including the United States," where even small-time employers and employees can at least pretend to be market players by owning stocks and shares.

With an election campaign underway, the ruling Tory party has published its manifesto. The shadow of "extreme capitalism" looms over the manifesto. The manifesto promises more of the same. It is notable for its lack of social care policy for the elderly. Nigel Edwards, the Chief Executive of the UK's semi-privatized health service, the Nuffield Trust, issued a statement in response: "I was bitterly disappointed to see yet more unnecessary delay on social care, without even a policy proposal as a starting point for serious reform." Edwards concludes that "There is already a cross party consensus that action must be taken, and we don't need more contemplation of options that are perfectly clear: we need action." But unless privatized, social care doesn't serve "extreme capitalism," quite the contrary.

The shadow of Britain's "extreme form of capitalism" darkens the future of the bottom quarter. The Resolution Foundation is a think-tank set up to tackle middle- and lower-class poverty and relative poverty. In response to the manifesto, it estimated that by the time the Tories call another general election in 2024 (god forbid they win this one), child poverty will hit a 60-year high of 34 percent if trends persist, affecting an additional 1.3 million children (approx.).

>>

Coles concludes:

<<

By relentlessly hammering Jeremy Corbyn and by blotting out Labour's socialistic policies with the endless coverage of "anti-Semitism," BoJo the Racist Clown, political opponents, the mainstream media (both state and private), so-called liberal journalists and presenters, and individuals like Rabbi Mirvis, are personally and institutionally ensuring that under the inevitable consequences of its "particularly extreme form of capitalism" (British Academy), Britain will get worse and worse for ordinary people.

We expect the few who benefit from Britain's "extreme form of capitalism" to vote in their own interests. But the biggest tragedy is that enough reactionary elements of the working-classes will swallow the anti-Corbyn bile, believe that BoJo will "Get Brexit Done," and vote against not only their own interests but, even worse, use their voting power against the interests of the wider society.

>>

Now imagine in 20 years, when Britain is literally like Darfur of yesterday, when it has become a pure tin pot dictatorship, with the vast majority in abject slavery and a tiny minority with unchecked material power. And everyone remembers that it was 'anti-semitism' smears which were used to make sure this happened - and most of non white Britain has, by then, long fled, to better societies (as is inevitable if Corbyn loses). Surely it's obvious that in the near-all-white society, which will still have jews in it, not much less than today's white-jewish-British society - most people in Britain are going to blame and hate those jews and indeed all jews.

I guess that's the sort of outcome you can expect when you commit the hubris of calling an anti-racist racist and supporting racists as anti-racist.

I mean on top of all else I've said on the topic, from Burka-hating Boris to the Tinges Are Funny Corp, figure this (as the Americans say) - I was banned for the 30 days up to the election, from facebook, for saying, correctly, that facebook and twitter are "the last outpost of white stupidity" - and Rachel Riley, who desecrated an iconic photo representing anti-racist white Britain's support for victims of white supremacist apartheid south Africa - she is not even banned from Twitter for doing it, not for a nanosecond, let alone fired from her high profile job.

Anyway? You think that bad guys win? Think again. This final thought from my recent notes, giving you some idea of how now, with about 10 days to the election, the universe has, with my efforts, helped me reach a state of the art of financial science which enables me to make money off the markets without even having any budget to invest (other than a temporary 'loan to myself' of 50 quid, which only need by loaned to myself for a few hours at a time, rarely). There is such a thing as 'elite' - but it's not what the Blairs and Rileys and Trumps and Nixons and Farages and Johnsons recognise it to be:

<<

SKID ROW TRADING METHOD:

(1) you need the Ace of Algorithms (which I have)

(2) the rest is easy:

The rest:

I can now 'lend' myself, or rather my trading account, money merely to keep trading, ie any time I can let 50 quid rest in that account, I can open a trade if necessary. I must never ever withdraw any profit made on the account (calculated on paper) but can take my 50 quid back out whenever I want, at the cost of not being able to trade, then, until I can put it back in. The algorithm generates a guaranteed profit over almost all 'short-ish' bursts of 'time'. Thus what I'm doing is merely lending myself money, sometimes, ie lending it to my trading account, to keep the business process alive; any profit yield from it will remain in the trading account and before long the money I've lent myself will have generated a profit, which will enable, therefore, trading to always be going on, whether I can lend myself more money or not. It appears that I probably really only need to lend myself the first 50 quid, repeatedly, until 50 quid profit has gelled up. Nonetheless, it may also 'make sense' to continue to 'lend' myself money in this way. It would appear, from internal intuitive mathematical reasoning I JUST carried out in a nanosecond or less, that it would be a FAB plan. Imagine when I start lending myself 200 quid regularly. Well, that's not much to imagine, as I will not increase trading size until I have more than 1 lot of 200 being traded with, lent or profit. The idea, on that front, is to increase the trading size every time I have 200 pounds, ie for every 200 in the account I'll trade 10p per point. But I only need 50 to cover the actual trade at that size, and since I'm lending myself the entire 200 quid at any given time, to begin with, I'm really only lending myself the first 50 quid to keep the trading connection 'alive' 'permanently'. Once that 50, lent, drawn back out, lent again, drawn back out, etc, has produced 50 of profit, then THAT 50 can just sit there. The next amount needing lending would be a further 350, then, ie to 'lend' myself the 400 to trade at 20p a point with, until a full 400 has been yielded. Anyway, a version for less intelligent minds or minds less/un able to comprehend what my own mind does and has attempted to codify in language form here in such a manner as to enable you to know what I know. If communication is unsuccessful it is unintelligent to then ascribe to me and what I know some value, some perjorative judgment, because that is taking deficiencies of nature, possibly yourself and possibly myself, deficiencies entirely unrelated to the matter described, and just arbitrarily make a brand new judgment 'based' on that deficiency, clumsily, with no rational connection between the 'evidence' you use and the judgment you make. Anyway, the primary purpose of this bit of prose is to re-inform me, when I get up again tomorrow, of precisely what I have articulated to myself both in i-language and, subsequently, in higher (of a 'lower order', to use the bbc jargon about importance) level forms, the latter primarily to give me better capacity to re-grip these ideas without relying entirely on the intuitive or hidden aspects of mind and will which undermine any primitive attempt to use the mind in a way similar to the way one uses a filing cabinet or computer, ie some sort of easy to store and retrieve data facility.

>>

So you see if the tories do beat Corbyn somehow this time, if all the racism has worked, if all the using of jews as a universal weapon against him, if the weaponising of all jews, adult and children alike, has worked for the corporatist fascist white-imperialist racist scum, if they beat Corbyn - well - you see my financial power is something which cannot be challenged by people whose future hoarding depends on not only maintaining the system which I benefit from but enhancing it in my favour even further.

Not even 1% of the scum who oppose Corbyn can match me, let alone beat me, on the trading floor. This is what happens when you do the right thing - no matter what, the universe will protect you. If the people of Britain do not get Corbyn as their Prime Minister I can only conclude that the universe felt that they are just too far away, universally, from repenting from their racism and imperialism. Many documents on this web site can help them repair that - just do a bit of reading my fellow South Africans(!).

Next up, that finished Bovary script. As for the Nixon anti-semitism stuff from Alex Cockburn's book, well, perhaps you should buy the book. I have no immediate plans to get that work done, ie transcribing the key bits here.

The universe is marvellous. It was during this 30 day ban from twitter that this amazing twist in my trading occurred, ie where suddenly I can now make money with a budget of, essentially, zero pounds and zero pence. Money out of thin air pretty much. Thanks to the power of my 'ace algorithm'. There's a bit more to mention beyond that extract from my notes. Eg if I put in 50 and lose 4, and need to take my bucks out, I take out the 46, but when I next 'need to put in a 50' I put in merely the 46. That perhaps goes without saying for some minds but not all. Anyway, good luck dear Britain. I hope the universe sees fit to put Corbyn in number 10. Either way, the universe has, apparently, taken care of me - I guess I have, thusfar anyway, "done the right thing".

I know I know, there are still many readers, out of anyone reading this, who still don't quite get what I'm saying, what is 'new' here, what new change has happened. Well, it means that the sequence of trades leading to my first billion, leading to my first 1 pound, of profit, in a single sequence leading to billions, has now kicked off. Just the fact that I am now waiting for the next trade and if it comes when I can 'lend' it 50 quid temporarily, I shall trade it. The Brook Green Chapati Co is finally born. Since yesterday, 8am London time, I've entered like the dragon. How come? Because, as I said, as is absolutely significant, I can now generate profit using a budget of effectively zero pounds and zero pence. The chess clock is on.

Another way to explain that: I can now 'lend myself 50 quid', interest free, and use it, giving it back to myself whenever I need it and re-lending it to myself again whenever needed, if possible (otherwise one just waits for the next trade, and it changes nothing, in terms of probability, not one thing), to generate the first 50 pounds of profit, which can then power onward motion. All I have to do to ensure the system works is never draw out the profit. I can lend myself 50 quid until I have 50 quid of profit, then I don't need to lend myself anything at all and can let it slowly build up - but when it's 200 I can see if I can lend myself a further 200, on and off, whenever I need (withdrawing it whenever I need, same as that 50). In other words after I reach 200 in profit, with no money lent to myself and not paid back, I can then lend myself 200, and trade at a faster rate, and so on. One may need lots of experience with trading and with financial spread betting and options trading and with ideas like the notion that you should risk no more than 2 percent of your overall budget on an individual trade, ideally, coupled with the idea that a budget is not merely what you keep in the account at any given time if you are truly intellectually honest, intelligent and disciplined. Anyway, so there it is - I can lend myself 50 quid, giving it back to myself any time I need it, or all but at most 4 or 8 quid, at the start, but as time goes by, before long, without a doubt all of it, leaving, from then onwards, a small, rising, residual profit in my trading account still, at such times. And when that 50 quid loan has generated a full 50 quid profit I won't need it, I can merely use THAT 50 until it has reached a tally of 200 (all profit, at this stage), and then I can, if by then I have managed to scrimp and save, lend myself 200 quid, potentially, not necessarily even putting it all in at any given time but being willing to put it in if really necessary (highly unlikely to be necessary, ever, even if it is, 'in spirit', being 'lent' by me to me at that point - ie the account will merely contain 200 in it but I'll trade at that point as though it has 400, and only if it loses more than 100 of that 200 in the account would you even need to add any of the 200 to be 'lent' and top it up to the theoretical 400. And thus when the 200 lent has helped bring the overall tally to 400, perhaps one would continue to lend oneself 200, and move it up by another 10p per point. That would be far more sensible than, say, bumping it up to a 400 pound loan from self to self - ie there's no reason to do that, and it's clearly not something one could merely find manageable just like that. So I think at that stage I'd move it up by 10p. Of course separately to this I should try to save money, and if I were able to lend myself a full 400, saved up, at any given point, lending it with no need to take it back (but fully intending to immediately repay it, to myself), that would then definitely be the right thing to do - ie all the above does not even take into consideration the possibility of saving additional money and so on - since, after all, the primary goal, a necessary goal, is to be able to carry out the trading sequence with literally no money other than the 50 quid you can stick in there, just for a few hours or a day or so, at most, at a time, spaced out by weeks, often longer.

Anyway, one way to handle the complexity and powerful content in this document is to merely see me as one of many negative things, make this a personality contest, see this as a battle between your ego and my image, and not treat it the way you would treat a very difficult homework from a very knowledgeable teacher. That is a standard response. No question there. On the other hand you can read this doc, and linked docs, until you really understand what I have explained. After all, whether or not you understand my words, I understand my thoughts (and words). Judging me, when the problem is the failure of reality, one way or another, to enable you to understand my thoughts, is a different direction to the one you must take to keep on the track of evolution.

I will further inflame some readers or potential readers here by adding even more words to the 'page'. One of the things some of the people who come quite close to being able to learn from me or people like me but who fail, dramatically, all have in common is their sense that when faced with many pages of my writing they are being insulted, tormented and forced to waste their precious time.

Indeed to them I should actually spend 80% or more of my time crafting what I say for the benefit of its readers when I, instead, in fact, spend 98% of my time thinking and learning and devote less than 2% to communicating, and when doing so report rather like an extensive lab experiment log, rather than a p.r. person or other soaped up speaker.

Indeed this is something which reading the numberwang doc below, or at least the scientific extracts within it, can shed a LITTLE light on but really you need to extensively watch/read Chomsky's material, across the ages, on language and thought and related topics. Otherwise you really won't find it easy to understand why what I am saying is both spot on and key. Key because the point is that either you get good work done, or you masturbate your ego, not both. Good work means disregard for external validation and judgment, indeed the clarity required is internal and since external clarity (Chomsky's works point well at the fact) is always to some degree imperfect, often VERY imperfect, it is rather ignorant to spend most of your time on that and almost no time on the thing (relatively speaking) you are actually communicating ABOUT.

Another way Chomsky talks about the same issue, in lay terms, is the idea that if you are being taught something new to you you WILL need to be subjected to potentially lengthy evidence-delivery and if you are closed to that you have no business pretending the ideas you already hold, correct or false, have any value. If the scientific method, as Feynman calls it, is something you are willing to ignore, on a whim, based on who you hate, who makes you feel insecure, how much work you need to do, how much scarcity you face, how whatever - if for one or other reason you ignore evidence because it is expedient or convenient or simply a knee-jerk response to ignore it, nothing you actually say or think is really reliable and all sorts of problems will always befall you in your life, you will never reduce the volume but instead, over time, see problems take up more and more and more of your spacetime usage, to move towards coining a more useful description of these things than the outmoded terms most modern languages still rely on, themselves often remaining entirely stubborn about accepting that time is not a 'linear' thing. Which are good words to end this doc on, clearly. Well, if you get my point.

It's important that I do my work properly, with no excess regard for external comprehension, and it is important that Corbyn becomes PM, that the 'sea change' comes, that Palestine is no longer 'forgotten' by Britain, whilst its princes pretend (to themselves) otherwise.



https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/02/uk-election-how-propaganda-props-up-britains-particularly-extreme-form-of-capitalism/
https://www.facebook.com/CounterPunchOrg/posts/2728207040570951
http://opinion.tvhobo.com/owenjones_israel_numberwang.html