by Miles Mathis
First posted November 21, 2011
In the “just checking to see if anyone out there is still awake” department, we have Stephen Hawking's latest project on Channel 4 and Discovery World HD, Brave New World with Stephen Hawking. That right, you didn't read that wrong. You haven't transported into some parallel dimension where everyone is stark raving mad (I am not sure of that, actually). That is what they have really chosen to call it. This is an ongoing series for the UK and Canada, with Hawking as either the host or nameplate. Once again, that is Brave New World with Stephen Hawking.
I researched this series, and I found no evidence this title was chosen tongue-in-cheek. Maybe these people don't read anything but peer-reviewed science journals, and so they don't know that Aldous Huxley was not telling us with his book that the New World was actually Brave. He was not selling the Brave New World. He was not encouraging us to get there as fast as possible.
The 1931 novel Brave New World is the story of a dystopia, much like the dystopia of George Orwell's 1984. A dystopia is the opposite of a utopia, and no one in their right mind would want to live in one. They might as well call this new series Dystopia with Stephen Hawking.
I will be told that Hawking is meaning to tell us we live in a Brave New World whether we like it or not, and had better face the fact. I doubt it, but even if he is, the title is still a psy-op, a psychological operation. Here is how it works, for those of you who haven't taken psychology and/or don't have much intuition. First of all, by attaching Hawking's name to the term “Brave New World,” the term is cleansed. Most people will think Hawking is a brilliant guy with good intentions, so putting his name next to the term is like putting a supermodel in a swimsuit next to a Ford Pinto. Second, although they may or may not say that “Brave New World” is being used as a warning here, its primary function is as a deadening device. If you see it in the title of an “exciting” new science program, the evil connotations of Huxley's book are forgotten or watered down. These are steps in “flipping” the term. Over a pretty short amount of time, and with the right propaganda, they can flip the imagery of the term from negative to positive. Before long you will be begging to live in a Brave New World, since after all it is new and brave. “When will I be able to buy soma on ebay?”
Also tied to this deadening is the idea that the Brave New World is already here. This is like the “there is no going back” idea, or the “move on” idea, or the “history can't be stopped” idea. They are all one with the “you can't stop progress” idea, which is pushed even after the “progress” is shown to be a fall into a pit of corruption (as now). All of these ideas are false, and are promoted only to prevent resistance to the plan, whatever it may be. If you are convinced the future is inevitable, you don't resist it. You don't vote against it. You don't join the protests. You don't even get off the couch.
But Hawking has a plan. He doesn't want to face the future without a plan. He doesn't want to just accept the current situation. No, he wants us to “get off the Earth.” That's right, this is all about space exploration. That's another big red flag, though many of you won't see it. Why is it a big red flag? Well, what could be more anti-environmentalist than admitting defeat? Hawking says,
Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain lurking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space.
Well, Hawking may be “lurking” here, but I am not. I am living here, and would like to continue to do so. He sees no hope here and is ready to write off the Earth as a bad investment. This is how he puts it:
Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill. But our genetic code still carries the selfish and aggressive instincts that were of survival advantage in the past. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million.
That mirrors the current philosophies and contains a grain of truth, so it is perfect propaganda. But it is also false and overly alarmist. Although some of our instincts are a problem, others are a sign of hope. We made it through the last century, which looked like a bad bet about 50 years ago. And our population is NOT growing exponentially. It is growing too much, but not exponentially. It is growing linearly or arithmetically.
If you check the actual charts, you find that world population growth was only a power growth for a short time in the middle of the last century, after which it flattened out. Exponential growth is parabolic. Any straight line on the graph is linear, even if it is steep. Right now, the growth is actually below linear, since we are seeing a fall in the growth percentage.
Since about 1971, the rate of growth has fallen from about 2.1 to about 1.1. That means that although the population has not flattened, the rate of growth is actually curving down a bit. The linear growth is not as steep as it was forty years ago. This means we are already meeting United Nations 2004 medium projections, or possibly even the low projections. If we take the low projections, world population will peak at 7.5 billion around 2025 and begin falling around 2040.
Of course I am not claiming we have no problems. Nor am I claiming that we are on the low projection. I can't predict the future any more than Hawking can. What I am pointing out on my science site is that Hawking doesn't even know the difference between linear and exponential growth. In my paper on exponential inflation, I made this same point in regard to a famous physical theory. These top guys don't even know what words mean anymore. They don't know the difference between powers and exponents, as I showed in that paper, and here we see that again. Not only is the world population growth not exponential, it isn't even a power growth. It isn't cubic and it isn't even squared. It was to some low power for a few years in the middle of the century, but never exponential. Right now, the growth isn't even linear. It is sub-linear or to some low power down. In other words, the curve has gone from slightly concave in around 1950 to slightly convex now.
Unfortunately, the statisticians and fearmongers usually push the chart to make it look parabolic and therefore exponential.
That looks parabolic, but only because they have compressed the horizontal in relation to the vertical. Compare it to the chart above, and you see that if we zoom in a bit, and don't cheat on the horizontal, the growth rate is nothing like parabolic.
This is very important, and doubly important with Hawking, since a genius should know better than to push math like that. If Hawking doesn't know what exponential means, we are in serious trouble.
We are in serious trouble. Because this implies that Hawking is just one more puppet of the propagandists, pushing math, graphs, and arguments on purpose. It is all about money with these people, and since their global warming scheme to profit appears to have failed, they are ditching the environment for the time being and going back to space. According to Hawking, we need to spend billions on new missions.
When I say that the global warming scam failed, I don't mean that environmental concerns are not real or pressing. I mean that these people had no interest in solving environmental problems, real or unreal. They had an interest in making money from a perceived threat. If you want to solve environmental problems, you pass laws, you don't raise taxes and create carbon trading schemes. If you want to stop specific smokestack emissions, for instance, you ban them. A ban doesn't cost anything. Or, it costs a few days in Congress while the people write the bill and vote on it. When we see taxes and carbon trading as the solution, we know we are dealing with another ponzi scheme and another way to milk the middle class. These fraudulent solutions aren't a dead deal, and we can expect to see them raise their ugly heads again and again until we put these people in jail, but for now they are putting them on the back burner in favor of more upscale porkbarrel deals dressed as top science. That is why Hawking has been tapped to sell us on space exploration.
Remember that Hawking is a top physicist, and these guys just sold us a ten billion dollar collider which has done nothing but explode. Beyond that, one of the BraveNewWorld segments is on SNOLAB, an underground project more than a mile below the surface of Ontario, another billion dollar project. SNOLAB was built to study neutrinos and dark matter, we are informed, but since I have shown neither exist, it is not clear what is going on in the pit. Hawking has also just accepted a post at the Perimeter Institute, Waterloo, where Leonard Susskind and other top names also sit at times. This project, supposedly funded by Blackberry inventor Mark Lazaridis, is basically another big hole in the ground, figuratively speaking, into which money is thrown. Canadian taxpayers have already seen hundreds of millions of dollars of their money lost into this hole, with nothing to show for it but more spy technology—which will used to track them.
But this doesn't stop the scientists from proposing more expensive projects. As soon as the Large Hadron Collider went online, the physicists involved immediately began telling us they needed a bigger one. Apparently ten billion dollars and 500 TeV isn't enough. These same people went on the pages of Scientific American with an article called, “What we could do with a trillion dollars.” And this new BraveNewWorld series, sold to us by the builders of the new dystopia, has episodes that start off like this:
Science turns superhero as it battles to save the planet and preserve the human race. In California, physicist Jim Al-Khalili sees how the power of the world's largest laser could create a fuel to answer all our needs.
Science as superhero? They can't turn up the propaganda any more: the volume is already on maximum. But the analogy is empty, since these superhero scientists can't even do basic math anymore, much less save the planet. They don't even know what “exponential” means. I have shown recently that they have forgotten how to calculate a simple margin of error. They haven't solved the vacuum catastrophe, although it has been sitting around for about a century and is a catastrophe in prediction of 120 orders of magnitude. They solve most of their problems by borrowing from the vacuum, which is a cheat that even a ten-year-old could spot, or by falling back on virtual particles, which aren't physical. Physics is no longer physical, but it plans to save the planet. Maybe if the planet becomes virtual, they can save it with a computer model.
I fail to see how this laser is going to save the planet, either, since these physicists don't know what light is. They think that the photon is a point particle with no mass, no radius, and no spin. Do you think someone who didn't know what meat was could save the planet with hamburgers? Not likely.
All these new projects are just public relations ploys. They are advertising campaigns with nothing underneath them, like a pretty box of new Cheerios with no Cheerios inside. And that is the best I can say of them, since we find with more study that many of these campaigns are more like a new box of Cheerios with poison inside. A “science” episode linked from Stephen Hawking's Brave New World is titled “What the Green Movement got Wrong.”
The film's leading protagonists, former anti-GM [Genetically Modified] activist and author Mark Lynas and Stewart Brand, a pioneer of the original green lobby, face critics from today's green movement in front of an informed studio audience.
No, what we see in the segment is a debate purposely spun to make an uninformed audience think that Genetically Modified crops may be a way to combat global warming. In other words, this BraveNew World segment is probably paid for by Monsanto. All the possible positives are inflated, while the negatives are buried. Top scientists are being paid (perhaps indirectly, through these consortia like Perimeter) to propagandize and lie for big corporations. If you are surprised by that, you haven't been paying attention to the news.
Which brings us back to Blackberry legend Mark Lazaridis. Like so many of these guys, Lazaridis' resume has big holes in it. As an EE major at University of Waterloo in 1984, with no degree, he was suddenly awarded a $600,000 contract by General Motors. The government threw in some more money (just to be nice, you know how the government is always giving private citizens money to launch non-military or non-spy businesses), and RIM was born. RIM released the inter@ctive pager950 14 years later and the Blackberry came out in 2003. Fourteen years? From studying the literature and court cases, it appears it took that long to steal the technology from truly private firms. They couldn't just steal the technology overnight, as the CIA and Zuckerberg did with Facebook. As a late example of this, you may ask yourself what happened to the Palm Pilot? In 2002 everyone has one, then a few years later the company is gone. Hewlett Packard buys it for 1.2 billion in a cash deal, and then kills it. Not “kills it” as in “absorbs it.” No, Hewlett Packard actually quit making their own webOS devices at the same time. What kind of business move is that? You buy out the competition and then stop making your devices as well? Why not just throw your 1.2 billion dollars into the ocean? HP also bought EPS, 3PAR and 3com, only to announce in 2011 that they were exiting the PC business. To do what, join the NSA? To see what is going on here, we can go back to BraveNewWorld, and look at its episode on mobile phones:
Physicist Kathy Sykes explores how our mobile phones can give experts access to our every habit and action: a brave new world in which it's hard to keep a secret but where urban planners can build cities around our needs.
Wow. Still not trying to hide much are they? They aren't afraid to call it the Brave New World, aren't afraid to call it Homeland Security (see Hitler), and aren't afraid to admit that they are spying on us with mobile phones. You will say, “Wait, I thought Blackberrys were encrypted.” Yes, they are encrypted about as well as a crossword puzzle. It turns out that the whole encryption thing was a smokescreen, since although several countries like India initially threatened to ban Blackberry because they weren't hackable by the government, India later said they had broken the encryption, so nevermind. Most users apparently only read the first part, and were fooled into thinking their devices were too secure for the government. But since India either broke the code or was given the codebreaker, we may assume that all devices are being hacked at all times by all governments. We may also assume that this was the whole point of the device from the beginning, all the way back to 1984 and Lazaridis' initial contract with the government and GM. We may also assume that this explains the mysterious crash of Palm. It looks like RIM said a bigger yes to the CIA than Palm did. The analogy is Facebook, which said a bigger yes to the CIA than MySpace did.
This matters here, because my assumption is that CIA is now funding Perimeter, but hiding behind Lazaridis again. Which means that the CIA and MI5/6 are probably funding BraveNewWorld. Do you think it is just a coincidence that BraveNewWorld is selling Monsanto and Blackberry, and telling us how great it will be when the “experts” spying on us can build cities around our needs? Let me ask you this, Do the current experts seem interested in your needs? Or do they seem interested in the needs of few corrupt people to get even more obscenely wealthy, by stealing everything you own?
To answer that, we may look at one more episode linked from BraveNewWorld, entitled “Master of the Universe.” Every title here is more offensive than the last. In it, Hawking asks “do we still need God?” Good Lord! I am not a Christian, but even I find that offensive. What Hawking and a lot of other scientists need is some perspective, and the majority of religious people have considerably more perspective than they do. Religious people, and sensible people in general, do not title anything Master of the Universe. They do not sit around and claim that they are near to a Theory of Everything, especially when a closer look shows they know almost nothing. Our closer look above proved that Hawking doesn't know what “exponential” means. Beyond that, Hawking's specialty is black holes, and much of his fame rests on his books and on some debates he has had with Roger Penrose. But Hawking knows nothing about black holes. Black holes are still completely theoretical, and no one knows a damn thing about them. This is true about a large part of theoretical physics, but it is blindingly true about black holes, which are thought to be hidden behind event horizons. Hawking has spent a majority of his time in the past two decades theorizing wildly about wormholes and singularities and things like that, for which we have exactly zero data. So what is all the theorizing based on? Math. Hawking assumes that Einstein was correct with his field equations and that all the famous updates to the field equations are also correct. But almost none of this is based on astronomical observation. And when they do get some data, they immediately forcefit it into the math, rather than fitting the math to the data. They have been doing that for almost a century, so that even if I hadn't already dug out the holes in the field equations, the odds they were right were effectively zero. Since I have made some important corrections to the field equations, we know they are wrong. We don't know what a black hole is, but we know the math they have been using all along is wrong.
I will be asked, “How are you any less arrogant than they are? You think you know things they don't, so doesn't that make you even more deluded than they are?” Not a chance. I claim to have corrected some things they missed, but I have never claimed to be a Master of the Universe, to be near a Theory of Everything, to know anything about God or gods, positive or negative, or to be a superhero. I have never talked about what I would do with a trillion dollars. I would be thrilled to continue to have $20,000 a year to live on. I would be thrilled to be able to continue to paint and write a few papers. But I am quite aware that I know almost nothing about the universe. I think I know a spot more than these people, but I am no closer to being a god than my dog is or than a porpoise is. I am not even a master of myself, or of my backyard, much less of the universe. If I have any positive quality, it is the continuing ability to be revolted by what physics and the modern world in general has become, and to want to knock some sense into it.
We see how corrupt these people are again in “The Man who Killed Christ,” a stomach-turning piece of agitprop linked from BraveNewWorld. Again, I am not a Christian, but I have enough sense to be revolted by pointless slander. If atheists like Richard Dawkins want to argue that the gospels are inconsistent, illogical, or unappealing to them in any way, that is certainly their prerogative. I happen to agree with those sentiments in many ways. However, it is both cruel and inconsistent to actually go in and argue in favor of Pontius Pilate, as “some of Britain's most eminent theological and Roman scholars” do here. That's right, this episode is filmed mainly to turn the knife in the hated creationists. These scholars have no more evidence for their theory of Pilate than the Christians do, they just want to be nasty. They want to argue that Pilate had good reasons for crucifying this man, apparently forgetting that we don't currently crucify people for peaceful free speech, even when it is anti-government. But of course the UK, like the rest of Europe, doesn't care about free speech (see David Irving); and US scientists, being in the pocket of the government, don't appear to care either. You don't hear physicists here doing much to defend the Constitution. So if Pilate was a fascist, they can only support that, I suppose.
But the episode is even more revolting than that, although it is hard to crescendo from transparent fascism. As I said, it is wildly inconsistent, since 1) why would scholars who believe the Bible is myth bother to study or refute it as history? Why devote your life to arguing the finer points of something you don't even believe in? 2) If the Pilate stuff is mainly fact, then Christ was at the least a political martyr for a decent cause, and religions have been built on less than that. 3) Whether or not Pilate killed Jesus at the behest of the Jews or for his own reasons is hardly to the point. The documentary claims to rehabilitate Pilate from weak “handwasher” to strong Roman administrator. But either way he is still a fascist pig and Jesus still a victim of the State. As a non-Christian, it doesn't make me like Pilate more or Jesus less. In fact, I like Pilate more in the Biblical account, because at least there he has some human conscience. He comes off better than the Jews who want Jesus' blood because he told them they didn't need priests. Pilate would obviously prefer to save Jesus, but can't find a way to do it diplomatically, both due to these priestly Jews and to Jesus' own words.
But these people making the film are blind to all this, being fascists themselves. In their warped worldview, showing Pilate as merciless murderer is a rehabilitation. He is just doing his job and doing it well, somewhat like Heinrich Himmler, one supposes. Jesus was a revolutionary and had to be crucified for the good of the State. So these filmmakers and scholars aren't just turning the knife in Christians, they are turning the knife in Constitutionalists and Republicans. It looks to me like they are making excuses before the fact for things they are about to do. Our own governments are preparing to send in their Pontius Pilates to crush rebellion (read home-grown terrorists), and we are being told that they will just be doing their jobs.
Yes, the propaganda has gotten very bald and very transparent, and I think it is clear that Hawking is now one more face of it. I have always had very little respect for Hawking, but I respect his intelligence enough not to think he is a dupe here. It doesn't look to me like he is a dupe, it looks like he is a paid promoter along with all these other state-sponsored scientists.
Which brings me to my conclusion. Hawking started us off way above by recommending we leave the Earth. I recommend he leave the Earth, since he cares so little for it. But those of us who stay should remember that problems can still be solved. I don't believe these scientists have any real desire to solve the Earth's problems or to save the planet. It would appear they only desire to continue to profit from it, in whatever way it will yield. But that doesn't mean the problems are intractable, or that we must accept the future we have been sold. We CAN stop progress, when it clearly isn't progress. The first step in that stopping is stopping these salesmen of the future, these propagandists and liars and thieves. They have raped the Earth and they are raping us, openly and with evermore abandon. And they are doing it because they have seen that they can. When they stole a penny, we looked away, so they stole a nickel. When they stole a dime, we looked away, so they stole a dollar. It is the theft that has become “exponential” in the last two decades, and we are all accomplices in that theft, since we continue to look away. No, it is even worse than that, because many of us don't look away, we vote for these people and idolize them and give them prizes and buy their books and watch them on television. We fall to this pathetic propaganda like ignorant children. We think we are masters of the universe, but we can't even manage the self-control to get up and turn the television off, or to cancel the subscription to the magazine.
But that hardly matters, since majorities never did anything in history and still don't. Controlling majorities has never helped these fascists, although they are obsessed with controlling majorities. No, the problem is they can't control themselves, and they always overreach. As the last example, we can look at the Nazis, who had the war won but decided they needed to attack Russia as well. The German people didn't restrain the Nazis, the Nazis destroyed themselves. The same could be said of Stalin and the later Communists. They overreached and collapsed. Like the Nazis, they wanted world domination and couldn't manage it. And we see the same thing happening now. The rich here in the US were already raking it in in the 1990's under Clinton, but that wasn't enough. They already had a bloated CIA and military, the world was already dotted with our bases, but it wasn't enough. The banks were already stealing freely from the people, but it wasn't enough. The CIA had already been running the media since the 1950's, but it wasn't enough. The success just made them hungry for more. So they repealed Glass-Steagall and all other regulations, pulled 9/11, started wars in a dozen places, dismantled the Constitution, and installed the new police state. All I can say is, IS IT WORKING? Have they created a successful system of control and theft, one that is self-perpetuating so that their children can steal as easily as they have? No. They are killing the host. You can't tax or steal from people that are huddling in concentration camps or living off welfare. You can't loan money to people who are in jail.
So while their subsistence base diminishes, their appetite does not. They don't know when to stop. Like junkies, they keep going until they hit the wall. What wall is that? I don't know. Could be Russia or China or both, could be financial meltdown, could be a military coup, could be class warfare between the rich and superrich, could be Mother Earth biting back. All we know is that “the mighty will fall.” They always do. There are no masters of the universe in this part of the galaxy.
Comments