The Theatre of Politics and the Governance of Normalcy

Quantum Philosophy - The Governance of Normalcy.

When the elected Government is inoperative, and the demonstrative opposition is embroiled in theatrics then one must seek alternatives.

If we abolish paid politicians and revert Governorship to a nonpartisan patriotic civil duty i.e. a custodial position that serves our best interests and that reduces authority; diminishes political dominance and the oppositional political theatrics that produces dogmatic control, then, how different would the politic climate be? Much like the current POTUS waivers remuneration as there is plenty in the personal fund of the POTUS to draw upon. Hence, imposing a congruent rule of scarcity of imbursement, expenditure and service that is extended to the individual regardless of position, status, rank or ability. Moreover, if politicians only received payment for accommodation, food, clothes and travel how many would take up the role?

If politicians were not paid a wage, then how many would be representative for the role? If aspects of parliamentary privilege were eliminated, would politicians still hide behind their mistakes when there is liability of action/s decided upon? When the judgement impacts widely, the outcome/s of such decisions must be apportioned to the decider i.e. accountability for action. Moreover, only when reason, transparency and facts become the religion of Governance will complications be solved.

Fanciful belief: Equality and Liberty – incompatible notions i.e. imperfect concepts

The concepts of “Equality” and “Liberty” are as incompatible as oil and water. Fanciful notions that create discord are the antithesis of harmony. It is impossible for a society to have complete “Liberty” and “Equality” as the two are mutually exclusive and are oppositional to patriotic moral aspiration/s. Therefore, a societal fraternity of patriotic aspirations permits the idea/s of our moral obligations to the other to evolve and change with the generational formation/s of civilisations. Hence, the first division i.e. Equality and Liberty are the start of indiscriminate determinism which defines the differing finalities within that system of belief – eventuating in opposition. Now, let us look at these fanciful notions in more depth.

Liberty

Free from arbitrary or despotic Government or Control
Freedom from foreign rule; independence
Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, power or right of doing, thinking, speaking

Equality

A state or quality of equal correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability, regardless of individual difference/s. (Political ADULT versus Societal CHILD < Prerogative PARENTS = Limited right to each person in their individual categories = The exercised power of a sovereign representative of the individual category - Perhaps one constant, then, in life is that individuals reserve the prerogative right to suspend something once it no longer operates effectively i.e. Government).

And much like how Aristotle and Plato were divided on their understanding of the nature of Nature – the reality - they were only divided by their differing finalities, and their disagreement became one of conjecture. But if these ideas were combined, they would have realised that their argument was one of consensus regarding their individual dissection of the whole. Hence, when a subjective opinion becomes the objective fact i.e. “Liberty” and “Equality”, the outcome will be one of division between the conclusions that are drawn. Moreover, when appreciation, consideration and discernment are the guiding principles of Governance, it allows for a relative truce of the “Equality” and “Liberty” expectation/s.

So, how can one be opposed to normalcy when a universal moral is unimpeded by opposition? When one does away with the love of opposition, once more will patriotic people love the other as they love themselves; there will be no more impartiality, and ties between opposition will unroll and extend. Therefore, is it wrong to destroy in the dark what politicians erect in the light of day? Furthermore, if politicians are determined by ethics, philosophy and economics, why is that their own economic stability is paramount – and the only thing evident - in their decisions? For example, Jacob Reese-Mogg stands to make close to a billion pounds now that the UK has become a vassal state of the EU because most of his clients and investments are from foreign cradles.

Ethics

• Confidentiality (GDPR and Anonymity)
• Consent (Implied/Informed)
• Competence (Researcher is qualified, trained and experienced)
• Deception (Use of)
• Briefing/Debriefing (Use of deception/Explaining deception used)
• Withdraw (The right to)
• Protection (From physical and psychological harm)

When reviewing ethics alone, one can see that they have become a tool that allows politicians to treat the electorate as mushrooms i.e. they keep us in the dark and feed us on shit!! Whereas, if we had a more universal ethic it would permit us to have discernment, consideration and an appreciation for the complexities and elegancies that society exudes i.e.

Universal Ethics and Discretionary Consideration

1. Appreciate what the “thing” brought with it.
2. Begin each endeavour without an expectation.
3. Be what you need to be, when needed.
4. Create the room for growth and be responsible for that growth.
5. Be critical of the message, not the messenger.

Political Fraternities

A body of people associated for a common purpose, interest or joined by similar backgrounds, occupations or tastes. If one now associates this premise with the theatre of politics we now witness, then one can see that politicians have fraternity of agreement and are directing the path as they see fit. For example, if one looks at the outcome of the 2019 General Election there were two bad actors that ensured the Conservative victory. J. Corbyn and J. Swinson were the bad actors that not only engaged in fantasy politics, but also did everything in their collective power to make themselves look incompetent and unable to lead, whilst B. Johnson put forward a deal that not only makes us a vassal state of the EU, but also directs the path toward an outcome that all the parties are in agreement with. Therefore, how can there be representation when the script has determined that “we are damned if we do, and damned if we don’t!!”. The fraternity that politicians enjoy must be extended to the people so that WE have our own representation and voice to change the political climate to more of a transparent, fraternal and fairer environment were change is beneficial and aims to emblazon our patriotic identity to the rest of the world.

Temporary privileges

Parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom
A legal immunity enjoyed by members of the House of Commons and House of Lords designed to ensure that parliamentarians can carry out their duties free from interference i.e. free from certain accountabilities The privileges are freedom of speech, freedom from arrest on civil matters, freedom of access to the sovereign and that 'the most favourable construction (i.e. self-interest) should be placed on all the Houses’ proceedings. Parliamentary privilege is however something that forms part of the law rather than putting Members of Parliament above the law – for example, these rights and immunities do not extend to crimes unrelated to their office. But, if these immunities do not extend to crimes unrelated to their office, then how can politicians be exempt on a civil matter that has the same consequences to those that are Governed? A crime is a crime, regardless who committed it, there must be accountability. Therefore, if parliamentarians enjoy unobtrusiveness of duty, then this notion should also extend to the individual. The reasoning here is that the individual is affected by parliamentary action/s and subsequent performance of such duty is impeded by restrictive interference/s and controlled opposition i.e. the Theatrics of Politics. Moreover, bureaucracy is the mask of intent e.g. self-interest. And, as a wise man once declared: Bullshit (i.e. bureaucracy) baffles brains!
Amalgamated political perspectives

We need borders and boundaries (Conservative) but also need the freedom to move between and within this borders and boundaries (Liberal) so that the individual can perform at their optimum i.e. create the room for growth and be responsible for that growth as a fraternal representative of primitive morals. How can there be diversity when an individual adopts another’s sovereignty? When this is the case, then diversity is lost when mimicry diminishes individuality. The drive toward moral aspirations and a “move back into the woods to be whole” i.e. a primitive equality and liberty of undisputed right to that which was designated by our natural environment of autonomy. Moreover, a natural law of unobtrusiveness from Governance.

Ideas = Concurrence (Will change)
Beliefs = Opposition (Will not change)

The Theatre of Politics

Rationally in this context does not mean that actors are always careful to calculate the costs and benefits of every decision they make. Instead it means that political actors have an identifiable set of preferences over policy or political outcomes, and when faced with a political choice they will tend to choose the option which they prefer (which yields the highest ‘utility’). So, for example, if a voter prefers Party A (Brexit Party) to Party B (Conservative) and Party B to Party C (Liberal Democrats), but there is no candidate from Party A standing in any election that is decided to be beneficial and in the self-interest of the political dominance, the voter will rationally vote for Party B rather than Party C. And when this reality is demonstrated in the current political auction, we know that we need to destroy in the darkness what “politicians” erect in the light.

Additionally, as the “Prisoners Dilemma” illustrates: “when our only option is to decide between these two evils, WE will always choose that which affects us least”. This explains a number of empirical regularities in politics, such as why parties in two-party systems tend to converge on the average (median) voter; why interest groups who represent narrow economic interests tend to be more able to mobilise than interest groups who represent broad societal interests; why policy change is much easier in parliamentary systems; why coalition governments between parties with similar policy preferences can be as decisive as single-party governments, and even why some forms of governments lead to greater wealth redistribution than others. Hence, the utility of one party winning as opposed to another, multiplied by the probability that the citizen will be pivotal in determining which party wins. However, the ‘equilibrium’ of the prisoners’ dilemma game is a ‘sub-optimal’ outcome, or an outcome that is not the best possible collective outcome. One key insight of rational choice theory, then, is that individually rational behaviour can sometimes lead to political and policy outcomes which are not collectively desirable.

Clearly, the best collective outcome for the political domain would be if the people remain quiet so that individually determined behaviour can be led to political and policy/legislative outcome/s which are not collectively desirable for society but are collectively ideal for the political domain. And much akin to the French regime changes during the industrial era and the use of anarchism as a deliberate political tool demonstrates, that the secret strings (e.g. wealthy donors and lobbyists) have been set in motion by leaders and must remain free from interference and kept between themselves e.g. Chatham House Rules and Parliamentary Privilege i.e. politicians will never talk about them because politicians have structured the system to work towards self-interest and an imbalance of interference, which, is extended to politicians by the sovereignty of the individual i.e. the very people they want complicit, individually determined and/or silent. Moreover, the political behaviour of the voter is determined by their political preference to ensure society is directed into the preferred path i.e. A deal and the overturning of a democratic vote to ensure society is damned if they do vote, and, damned if they don’t.

The ‘Dark Triad’ of political thought

The unfortunate factor of political thought and the Modern Theatre of Politics is the use of Machiavellian theory and Polybius. These ideas are based in interconnectedness of nations (Polybian Cycle) and the efforts toward self-interest, regardless of whom gets hurt along the way i.e. the means justify the ends. People who score high in Machiavellianism (Machiavellian theory named after the political philosophy espoused by Niccolò Machiavelli) are cynical (in an amoral self-interest sense, not in a doubtful or sceptical sense), unprincipled, cold, believe in interpersonal manipulation as the key for life success, and behave accordingly. Scores on measures of Machiavellianism correlate negatively with agreeableness (r = −.47) and conscientiousness (r = −.34). As these results are weak to moderate correlations the results may suggest that individuals with these traits are knowingly orchestrating a directed path that follows the lead of self-interest. Machiavellianism is also significantly correlated with psychopathy and characterized by manipulation and exploitation of others, an absence of morality, unemotional callousness and a higher level of self-interest. Knowing this, could society truly trust a Politician?! Looking at the diagram below it is evident that Politics and Politicians have fallen prey to the Fraud Triangle/Diamond and the intent and actions of Modern Politics/Politicians demarcate the mess society is left with after Governance of Political normality.

Diagram 1. The flow of the “Dark Triad” and the “Fraud Triangle/Diamond

Hence, tyranny, "governance by the few" i.e. Politicians who work only for themselves and anarchy become the outcomes of a Government of Political normality, which is designed to be weighted in the favour of the few, and the many, sadly are left to pick up the pieces of what opportunities remain. Furthermore, when delving deeper in to the Polybian Cycle it is evident that interconnectedness is the final goal of self-interest. The three main features of the Polybian cycle are first, that the decline of regimes is natural and inevitable; second, that the main degenerative mechanism is the forgetfulness of successive rulers; and third, that the nature of each regime depends entirely on which preceded it. Therefore, the pre-decided solution to the problem is based on the reaction. The reaction being the key moment where advantage is taken of the weaknesses it demonstrates, therefore providing unexpected benefit i.e. Hegelian Dialectic. So, anything that preceded it was completely dependent on the mechanisms of decline and forgetfulness – not the normalcy of society, but the normality of inevitability and the benefit of unpredictability. What is even more scary, is that when one looks at the malevolent features of the “Dark Triad” (see diagram below) the qualities society identifies in Modern Politicians becomes more than apparent i.e. the Political actors of these regimes are by and large facilitated and regulated by self-interest and can often exhibit irrational motivations like ambition, goodwill and contempt. Moreover, the moment Politicians pursue their own (or their factions') interest over the common interest corruption emerges, usually, based on money and power instead of merit, which leads to officeholders governing for themselves. The laws have a tendency to change under corruption (the Politician will turn them to their advantage) but its institutions remain stable, thus creating a gap between the institutions (including the Bill of Rights) expressing the "first principles" of a free state that – in reality - is based on the political classes preferences and self-interest of directed path.

Diagram 2. The malevolent features of the Dark Triad

Interestingly, in Law it states: If the people have no representation, they can stop paying tax. Now, this statement has a “first-mover” problem, because who dares challenge Government and reduce the political elites means of filling their pockets, when being able to re-appropriate taxation (e.g. to the EU and special interest groups) has become the norm for these political elites i.e. the sense of entitlement to re-appropriate has become normality e.g. politicians expenses (each MP and MEP = £200,000 expense account)? Moreover, when self-interest is the governing force by motivation then the desires of those that are meant to be represented are secondary to the directed path.

To govern is…one step away

The interesting component of Governance is the idea of absence in apparent control. To analogise what is intended by this statement would be best described in terms such as a plumber would use:

“the best job is done when everyone believes you have done nothing at all!”

With this quality sentiment firmly in mind, how is best to Govern from one step away? Is true freedom the ability to beneficially compromise to maintain a congruent autonomy that socially determines civil functionality? As Liberty and Equality are not good bedfellows and surreptitiously act as virtues which become abrasive and tyrannous in proof of the alternative, and a “Step in front” approach to restricting Equality and Liberty whilst simultaneously developing a further vail of courteous symbiotic harmony which elicits a misperception in the ‘abundance of both too all’. Well, it suggests that the Government “WE” have elected is inoperative, so alternatives must be found. Unfortunately, the eventuality of this type of Governance there will always be a perpetual loss in the potential stabilization in an underlying unity for finding a possible solution, whether one was sought – or in this case - not. However, all is not lost, all that is required is an alternative way of comprehending the stabilization of this underlying unity…this is where the author believes it resides: (1) superposition, (2) the authors study and practice of Tao Chia (Philosophical Taoism), (3) the authors observations and (4) many philosophical discussions that frequently entered the “politichaotic” (Authors term for how the theatre of politics inhibits probable solutions) and ever expanding bulge in to everyone’s phase-space.

When rights are wrongs

And, what does this say about the additional issue of true freedom and – by extension – Rights? The other unfortunate factor is there are no real Freedoms or Rights, we live under an agreed complicit list of temporary privileges that can be suspended and/or removed at any time that it is deemed in necessary. For example - and this is only one example of numerous: After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour the United States declared war on Japan and entered World War II. Not long after the attack, on February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed an executive order that allowed the military to force people of Japanese ancestry into internment camps. Around 120,000 Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps and had no Rights as American citizens. People at the camps were required to fill out a "loyalty" questionnaire to determine how "American" they were. Those that were determined to be disloyal were sent to a special high security camp called Tule Lake in Northern California. And even though 17,000 Japanese Americans fought for the American Army and despite the unfair and harsh treatment, the people in the camps were peaceful. After being freed, the internees were only given $25 and a train ticket home.

The interment finally ended in January of 1945. Many of these families had been in the camps for over two years. Many of them lost their homes, farms, and other property while they were in the camps. They had to rebuild their lives. In 1988, the U.S. government apologized for the internment camps. President Ronald Reagan signed a law that gave each of the survivors $20,000 in reparations. He also sent each survivor a signed apology. So, temporary privileges not Freedoms or Rights. Moreover, an example of when Rights are Wrongs.

Amongst the various debates - and posed questions - the author has been able gain much insight and align thought on the concerns of (i) subtle Governance, (ii) appropriate control and (iii) finding the actual stabilization in an underlying unity of a probable solution. Therefore, to explore this conundrum, a common-sense question must be asked: How does one Govern humans yet serve “the” divine i.e. how are they to be in superposition and effectively function without oppositional friction or intentional/unintentional duplicity? The supposition therefore…it must be reconciled. Consequently, to begin one must ask: Would a guiding principle still retain its divinity in the absence of a "God"? Moreover, if the divinity of the words in religious text were (1) not only documented by humans, but also (2) the divinity of these words were decided to be divine by humans, then if one was to extract a guiding principle from the text - as an agreed principle that exhibits virtue (and divine) - and apply it to life would the principle not still retain its divinity despite the validation given to it i.e. a "God"?

One of the most interesting discussions the author engaged in concerned this very same “thin-ice” subject. The author suggested that: If humans wrote these words down after observing a naturally occurring ethic that was collectively shared, then later decided that these ethics were divine, then the words that are mis-attributed as coming from a "God". However, we can appreciate that we know it was a product of human observation/s that were documented as virtues that encapsulate the ultimate virtuous ideal, then we can discern (i) divinity was a decision about an emergent ethic that was collectively shared and collectively agreed to be divine, and (ii) then later acted out as an axiomatic expression of the ultimate ideal. Moreover, the divinity remains because the source expresses the same emergent ethic as it interacts - and this is without having to observe it beforehand...it is there regardless.

The author continued with: if the words are divine (regardless of the logos) and created and agreed on by humans (the embodiment of the ultimate ideal i.e. a God), then humans can learn to respect the divinity that we exhibit in the words we consider divine. Hence, not needing the logos, as the logos is our highest ideal embodied in a created "God". Therefore, our commitment to our own divinity ensures the principle remains divine. Moreover, not dismissing the divinity, because to do so would only mean that we are dismissing ourselves. Nonetheless, I would say: have you considered the possibility that Virtue and Rationality are from the same source? In some culture’s it is rational to be virtuous, and through virtue the natural flow of the rational nature of the Nature of things become apparent.

And, as a closing statement to one objector, the author also concluded: there must be a beginning, as much as there must be an end. The words did not miraculously come from nowhere, just as much as, we did not come from nowhere. To remain objective, one must remain value-free and develop a chain of logic and reasoning that allows for the source to be revealed. Also, in your final gambit you show that what you are doing is no different to what you say I am doing i.e. "That interpretation is never the objective reality but always a low-resolution image that serves our purpose." So, doesn't this suggest that God is also a low-resolution image that serves your purpose? So, in your opinion: if it is no use to employ logic, documented facts and/or conjecture to ascertain the progenitor then why do you have faith that God exists?

If the world is COMPLEX and CONNECTED, doesn't that complexity and connectedness show that it must have a singular origin? Things cannot be connected if they are independent of each other!!! That means we constructed ourselves in our own image which has no connection to the next...that is reductico ad absurdum. Therefore, you must realise that an origin like the emergent biological ethic e.g. the Lobster Hypothesis, is as much of an origin as suggesting God is the ultimate origin. So, come on, be realistic about this, if there was a beginning, then there must be an end...You and I will cease to be, so, there must be some source of that dead, otherwise there would have been no life.

So, the use of God as an explanation is the over-simplification. Objective reality is the experience that individuals have at the specific moment of an experience, so to suggest that the continuum is something that has no bearing on the momentary, is to suggest that nothing is real. Hence, if an emergent biological ethic that evolved alongside our evolution evidently became the highest ideals humans determined to be divine, then doesn't that suggest that the emergent biological ethic ultimately became what humans considered our divine ideals i.e. only divided by their differing finalities e.g. Rationality and Religion? Then isn't the disagreement one of consensus regarding the individual dissection of the whole? Moreover, given that the emergent biological ethic and the divine ideals exist on the same continuum, or more specifically, Rationality and Religion are borne of the same emergent ethic. So, there can be no death of "God" as "God" is only the highest ideals that humans decided to be seen to be divine. If there is a "God" shaped hole, then it implies that there is a hole in what humans hold to be divine about themselves. Moreover, the divine is always present because it is the ideals humans decided to be divine. So, do not resign yourself to the notion we are at the precipice of an existential threat to our very divinity because we are the ones that did decide the divine, so it is us that can decide what we create as divinity.

The main point being made by the author was: the divinity remains because the source expresses the same emergent ethic as we interact - and this is without having to observe it beforehand...it is there regardless. So, why do humans mis-attribute an organically emergent ethic to a "God" when a "God" was only an expression of the axioms we considered ultimately divine? Why? Because we fear to lose that which that has been idealised as an ideal to strive towards. Therefore, we must strive towards a human divinity that we decided was divine to begin with. Moreover, we can attribute the divine to ourselves and religion can now be determined as ‘a personal pursuit that is not the deciding factor in any/all judgement/s for – and/or against – you’.

The reformation of common-sense

The key thing that keeps circling in the authors mind is how ancient philosophy had a compromising subtly and self-restrictive approach to Governing and minimising the impact of Political influence. As an example of the ancient philosophy that the author cognates and ruminates over, an offering from Tao Chia gives this precept glorious insight when thinking about the desire of ‘wanting to contain’:

“Should you want to contain something, you must deliberately let it expand.
Should you want to weaken something, you must deliberately let it grow strong.
Should you want to eliminate something, you must deliberately allow it to flourish.
Should you want to take something away, you must deliberately grant it.
This is called subtle illumination.
Flexibility and yielding overcome adamant coercion.
Fish shouldn't be taken from the depths; the effective tools of the nation shouldn't be shown to other nations.”

Additionally, when the thoughts of the need for Governing enter the phase-space then those in leadership must also contemplate this from Tao Chia: Govern Nations by Normalcy:

“Use straightforwardness for civil government, use surprise for military operations; use non-involvement to take the world.
How do I know this?
The more taboos there are in the world, the poorer the populace is;
the more crafts the people have the more exotic things are produced;
the more laws are promulgated, the greater the number of wrong doers.
Therefore, the leader says, I contrive nothing, and the people are naturally civilised;
I am fond of tranquillity, and the people are naturally upright.
I have nothing to do, and the people are naturally enriched;
I have no desire, and the people are naturally content.”
And, most paramount in this march toward a common-sense need for Governing, this further lesson in rationality and respect in thought toward said Governorship must be tempered by the following Tao-Chia philosophy i.e. To Govern the Human and Serve the Divine:

“To govern the human and serve the divine, nothing compares to frugality.
Only frugality brings early recovery; early recovery means build-up of power.
Build up virtue, and you master all.
When you master all, no one knows your limit.
When no one knows your limit, you can maintain a nation.
When you maintain the matrix of a nation, you can last long.
This is called making the root deep and the basis firm, the Way of long life and eternal vision.”

Therein, with these emblazoned as a list of ideals for the appropriate mentality required for ‘Governing and Political influence’ demands that a leader is as much bound by convention and the contemporary paradoxes that is human civilisation. Moreover, allowing one to be in a superposition of quasi-innoxiousness, whilst simultaneously “sneaking in the backdoor” where power resides comfortably reassured that the lock is securely blocking the way in i.e. this is subtle illumination. And, with every expanding power structure that reaches its maximum capacity and then limits its participants which predicates the less than laudable activities that prevail, the reverberation of repercussion from the absence of appropriate mentality impacts to a degree resonant with collapse, therein, the focus may be best guided by having a “step-with” approach until political influence and impact reaches the threshold of the required capacity for that system and then “step-back” and do the necessary work to a sufficient degree that it does not infringe on the civilisation it Governs. Moreover, making politicians = custodians of a civil duty to serve that which is generally (in this, the author does advocate a democratic majority/consensus) agreed as the directed path. Moreover, a focus on being included and not on the limited parameters of inclusion.

What is equally interesting are these questions: what are the progenitors of this resonance that emits the echo of repercussion on all else? Are the differing cultural virtues those things that resonate most, or is it the terminal intensity to the attachment of the evident conflicting ideals which best describes why the resonance is most felt? As described earlier: it is the attachment to the misperception in a “God” that defines differing finalities, and – if so - humans are separated only by the finalities that are misperceived as religious scripture that only really attempt to describe that which is most divine about their own divinity. Therefore, is it not better to let ‘a personal pursuit’ remain ‘a personal pursuit’ and not let either influence ethical and/or civil interaction i.e. why disrupt civility for the sake of personal religiosity? Because, if you think all that you are, is all that you believe then you will fail to see the realm of probability. Hence, to Govern is an inside-out processes, not an outside-in tsunami of political domination, driven by, a pursuit of self-interest.

Following this course will eventually show that your entreaty in having dominance over the seas will find love wrecked over the rocks in shallow water as desire attempts to eminently express its passions in every ocean. Moreover, being “one-step away” is the appropriate mentality when regarding frugality of control, limited influence, subtle impact and the necessary degree of leadership and authority over decisions that are previously given consensus from those it resonates most with i.e. those that – by extension - gave it divinity to begin with.

The Great Apenthane

Now comes the time to discuss “The Great Apenthane” and the possibilities that stem from distraction. As an example, the author will use the “CO2 climate change” hoax as one of the distraction techniques that serves the purposes of those that fund political campaigns and the hope for legislative change that benefits the bank balance. Looking firstly at solar panels, there are by-products and chemicals used that are far from “GREEN”. Even though solar panels may be an appealing choice for clean energy, but they harbour their share of toxic chemicals. The toxic chemicals are a problem at the beginning of a solar panel's life -- during its construction -- and at the end of its life when it is disposed of. These two intervals are times when the toxic chemicals can leak into the environment. The toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride (Nguyen 2018).

Additionally, silicon tetrachloride, a by-product of producing crystalline silicon, is highly toxic. The production of crystalline silicon involves a by-product called silicon tetrachloride. Silicon tetrachloride is highly toxic, killing plants and animals (Nguyen 2018). Such environmental pollutants, which harm people, are a major problem for people in China and other countries. Those countries mass-produce “clean energy” solar panels but do not regulate how toxic waste is dumped into the environment. The country’s inhabitants often pay the price. In March 2008, the Washington Post reported that at least one plant in China's Henan province is regularly dumping extremely toxic silicon tetrachloride (a corrosive and toxic waste product of polysilicon manufacturing) on nearby farmland. Silicon tetrachloride makes the soil too acidic for plants, causes severe irritation to living tissues, and is highly toxic when ingested of inhaled.
Mendick and Malnick (2013) state that: A new analysis of government and industry figures shows that wind turbine owners received £1.2billion in the form of a consumer subsidy, paid by a supplement on electricity bills last year. They employed 12,000 people, to produce an effective £100,000 subsidy on each job.

The disclosure is potentially embarrassing for the wind industry, which claims it is an economically dynamic sector that creates jobs. It was described by critics as proof the sector was not economically viable, with one calling it evidence of “soft jobs” that depended on the taxpayer. These subsidies were disclosed in a new analysis of official figures, which showed that:

• The level of support from subsidies in some cases is so high that jobs are effectively supported to the extent of £1.3million each;

• In Scotland, which has 203 onshore wind farms — more than anywhere else in the UK — just 2,235 people are directly employed to work on them despite an annual subsidy of £344million. That works out at £154,000 per job;

• Even if the maximum number of jobs that have been forecast are created, by 2020 the effective subsidy on them would be £80,000 a year.

One source, who owns several wind farms, and did not wish to be named, said: “Anybody trying to justify subsidies based on jobs created is talking nonsense. Wind farms are not labour intensive.” There has been mounting controversy about the value of both onshore and offshore wind farms, with discontent among back-bench Conservative MPs. The industry’s trade body, Renewable UK, has campaigned to promote the method of electricity generation to create jobs. It states on its website that: “We aim to create thousands of jobs across a wide range of business sectors.” It says the industry currently employs 12,000 people and “is set to employ up to 90,000 people by 2020”.

The promise of future jobs is dependent on the building of large-scale wind farms at sea and the construction of factories in Britain to manufacture the turbines, which are currently almost all built abroad. Industry figures show that for the 12 months to the end of February, the latest period for which figures are available, slightly more than £1.2billion was paid through the consumer subsidy — known as the Renewables Obligation. It was introduced by Labour to encourage investment and is added to all energy bills, meaning that besides households, industry and employers also pay, adding to the cost of all goods and services.

According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, a think tank that has criticised the cost of wind farms, it currently adds about £47 to the average household’s cost of living. They say the total subsidy is likely to rise to £6billion by 2020 if the Government meets its target of providing 15 per cent of energy needs from renewable energy. The industry’s projection is that by 2020 it will create up to 75,000 jobs — an effective subsidy of £80,000 a year — but failing to reach that figure will raise the effective subsidy. The foundation claims that the subsidy will cost jobs because businesses will relocate abroad — or close — to save on energy bills. Households will also have less disposable income because more money will go to pay fuel bills.

Among the examples of extremely high subsidies effectively for job creation is Greater Gabbard, a scheme of 140 turbines 12 miles off the Suffolk coast. It received £129million in consumer subsidy in the 12 months to the end of February, double the £65million it received for the electricity it produced. It employs 100 people at its headquarters in Lowestoft, receiving, in effect, £1.3million for every member of staff. Iwan Tukalo, general manager of Greater Gabbard Offshore Wind Limited, which is co-owned by SSE and RWE, said building the farm was a £1.5billion investment in British infrastructure. He added that “as well as supporting significant local employment during the four-year construction period”, 95 per cent of its permanent employees were local people.

The London Array, Britain’s biggest wind farm, with 175 turbines, employs 90 people at its base in Ramsgate, Kent. The array, which is 12 miles offshore, became fully operational in the spring. The foundation predicts its Renewables Obligation subsidy in its first year of full operation will be £160million — effectively £1.77million per job. In Scotland, Fergus Ewing, the devolved government’s energy minister, published figures earlier this year showing that 2,235 jobs were “connected directly to onshore wind”. There are 203 wind farms across Scotland, and the scale of Renewables Obligation support means each post is underwritten by £154,000. Wind farms are controversial not only because of the cost, but also because of claims that the turbines, which can be more than 400ft high, are ruining the countryside. Campaigners have said the planning system remains loaded in favour of developers and that too little of the countryside is protected from their spread.

In 2013 David Cameron signalled that local people would have more say over wind farms in their areas. Developers would have to offer much greater compensation for building them, and planners will be compelled to consider their visual impact and the views of locals. But energy firms will be able to offer incentives, including lower power bills for local people, in return for planning permission, which critics say amount to “bribes”.

Campaigners also warn that turbines do not generate power when the wind is too low or too high, and cannot store it, meaning conventional generation is needed as a backup. Dr John Constable, director of Renewable Energy Foundation, said: “Subsidies can create some soft jobs in the wind power industry but will destroy real jobs and reduce wages in other sectors, in the UK’s case because the subsidies cause higher electricity prices for industrial and commercial consumers. The extravagant subsidy cost per wind power job is an indication of the scale of that problem.”

He added: “Truly productive energy industries — gas, coal, oil, for example — create jobs indirectly by providing cheap energy that allows other businesses to prosper, but the subsidy-dependent renewables sector is a long way from this goal; it’s still much too expensive.” There is even doubt within the wind industry that job creation projections can be met. Renewable UK issued a 64-page report in 2013 urging the Government to “agree a long-term vision” for offshore wind or see jobs created on the Continent. An Energy Bill, currently before Parliament, is the subject of wrangling over prices for renewable energy for the next 20 years. The wind industry says that without price and subsidy guarantees, a “green collar” jobs boom will not materialise. Manufacturers are warning that some planned wind turbine factories are under threat without the price and subsidies guarantees.

And, now on to CO2 and how this molecule has been demonised and taxed alongside the “Green Energy” agenda. CO2 is a gas that leads to global cooling e.g. each ice age experienced on Earth was due to an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere. When CO2 rises into the air – which by the way is atomically heavier that O2 – is diffuses into clouds and cools the planet. This fact has been verified by NASA and many other researchers that are interested in the climate change truth. For example, Thomas F. Malone of the Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change has conclusively shown that Carbon Dioxide & Water Vapor Cool Earth’s Atmosphere. In 2013 A Mexican study affirms a 1951 finding by top American scientists that carbon dioxide (CO2) cannot cause global warming. Applying known scientific values, more eminent scientists are coming forward to confirm that atmospheric CO2 mixes with clouds and water vapor to cause only cooling. As such, the credibility of “consensus science” claims about man-made global warming being caused by rises in CO2 levels are left in serious doubt.

Professor Nasif Nahle (Monterrey, Mexico) provided a peer-reviewed paper, ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands,’ that uses known and well-established values from the results of experiments performed previously by H. C. Hottel, B. Leckner, M. Lapp, C. B. Ludwig, A. F. Sarofim, et al, showing that the combined effect of overlapping absorption bands of water vapor with CO2 causes a reduction on the total absorptivity of the mixture of those gases in earth’s atmosphere. As such, water vapor and CO2 are proven to combine to cause global cooling, not warming clouds.

Nahle’s paper affirms the long-forgotten findings of the eminent former head of Britain’s Met Office, CEP Brooks, and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) that also revealed that CO2 in the atmosphere could not cause warming. Brooks, Britain’s top climatologist at the time, along with America’s best meteorologists agreed that the idea that CO2 could warm the climate: “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”

Also, James Edward Kamis is a retired professional Geologist with 42 years of experience, a B.S. in Geology from Northern Illinois University (1973), an M.S. in geology from Idaho State University (1977), and a longtime member of AAPG who has always been fascinated by the connection between Geology and Climate. More than 14 years of research/observation have convinced him that the Earth’s Heat Flow Engine, which drives the outer crustal plates, is an important driver of the Earth’s climate as per his Plate Climatology Theory. Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint. It is therefore scientifically impossible to distinguish the difference between volcanic CO2 and human-induced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html). This major problem with the AGW principle has been rationalized away by consensus climate scientists who insist, based supposedly reliable research, that volcanic emissions are minuscule in comparison to human-induced CO2 emissions (Gerlach 1991 - https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/90EO10192).
Terrance Gerlach’s volcanic CO2 calculation was based on just 7 actively erupting land volcanoes and three actively erupting ocean floor hydrothermal vents (seafloor hot geysers).

Utilizing gas emission data from this very limited number of volcanic features, Gerlach estimated that the volume of natural volcanic CO2 emissions is 100 to 150 times less than the volume of man-made CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and therefore of no consequence. To put this calculation process into perspective, the Earth is home to 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 seafloor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents. By sampling just an extremely small percent of these volcanic features it is impossible to imagine that the calculation is correct. Especially knowing that volcanic activity varies greatly from area to area, volcano to volcano, and through time. Utilizing just 0.001 percent (10/901,500) of Earth’s volcanic features to calculate volcanic CO2 emissions does not inspire confidence in the resulting value.

Non-Erupting Volcanoes Can Emit Massive Amounts of CO2 into Earth’s Atmosphere

Recent geological research by the University of Leeds and others proves that non-erupting volcanoes can emit massive amounts of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. The Gerlach calculation and all follow-up calculations utilized volcanic CO2 rates from actively erupting volcanoes. Lost in the numerous recent media articles concerning the argument of when, or if Iceland’s Katla Volcano will erupt is the discovery that this non-erupting subglacial volcano is currently emitting staggering amounts of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere! Researchers from the University of Leeds who studied the Katla Volcano said this. They discovered that Katla volcano in Iceland is a globally important source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) regardless of being previously assumed to be a minor gas emitter. Volcanoes are a key natural source of atmospheric CO2 but estimates of the total global amount of CO2 that volcanoes emit are based on only a small number of active volcanoes. Very few volcanoes which are covered by glacial ice have been measured for gas emissions, probably because they tend to be difficult to access and often do not have obvious degassing vents. Through high‐precision airborne measurements and atmospheric dispersion modelling, we show that Katla, a highly hazardous subglacial volcano which last erupted 100 years ago, is one of the largest volcanic sources of CO2 on Earth, releasing up to 5% of total global volcanic emissions. This is significant in the context of a growing awareness that natural CO2 sources have to be more accurately quantified in climate assessments and we recommend urgent investigations of other subglacial volcanoes worldwide.”

The Number of Volcanoes Emitting CO2 into the Atmosphere at Any One Time

The calculation of the total yearly volume of volcanic CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is based on the presumption that very few volcanoes are erupting at any one time. Scientists from various worldwide volcano research institutions, most notably the United States Geological Survey, have estimated this number to be 20.

This very low number has been challenged by many scientists including those at NASA.
A multinational team led by NASA has initiated a high-resolution satellite CO2 monitoring project (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6360/eaam5782). This project is focused on determining how many geological features are emitting CO2 at any one time. This project may eventually give scientists a better idea of how many land volcanoes are emitting CO2 at any one time. However, it is doubtful the project will properly record ocean CO2 emissions from Earth’s 900,000 deep ocean floor and very difficult to monitor volcanic features. In any case, this project is certainly a step forward towards achieving a better understanding of the climate influence of volcanic CO2 emissions.

The Amount of CO2 and heat infused into Earth’s Oceans by Seafloor Geological Features

About 71% of Earth’s surface is covered by oceans making it a water, not land, planet. For many years now, scientists have contended that the nearly one million geological features present in these vast ocean regions have played a minimal role in heating and chemically charging ocean seawater. Instead of contending that man-made atmospheric CO2 was the root cause of changes to our oceans. Recent research has proven that the contentions of these scientists are far from 100% proven. To the contrary, it has become clear that geological heat flow and chemically charged heated fluid flow into our oceans is far more influential than previously thought and possibly the root cause of changes to our oceans.

One example is that geological features are warming Earth’s oceans and causing El Nino’s and La Nina’s (see here, here, and here). Warmed seawater is not capable of holding as much CO2 as cold water. So, the geologically warming of seawater indirectly leads to a large amount of CO2 being released from oceans and emitted into the atmosphere. Recent research shows that seafloor geological features also directly emit large amounts of CO2 into our oceans and atmosphere. In summary, the volume of volcanic CO2 being emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere has not been accurately assessed. Numerous research studies and articles conducted/written by qualified scientists concur with this contention (see here, here, and here). In a geological timeframe, Earth has gone through many periods of increased volcanism. These volcanic periods resulted in; major plant and animal extinction events, the end of glacial eras and the dramatic alteration of Earth’s climate.

All indications are that Earth is currently experiencing another period of strong volcanic activity which is acting to infuse CO2 into our atmosphere thereby challenging the validity of the global warming theory. Clearly, it is time to put on hold all environmental action plans based on the cornerstone AGW principle of the global warming theory until additional geological CO2 emission research is conducted. there are 600 active volcanoes on this planet that spew out more CO2 in one day than all the co2 in the history of the industrial age i.e. Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day." Now times that by 600, 20 of which are always spewing it out i.e. they do not stop spewing it out daily.

Also, in September 2012 was a record-setting month for both of Earth’s poles, but for different reasons: sea ice in the Arctic fell to a record low minimum extent after a summer of melting, while Antarctic sea ice froze to a record high extent during the South Pole winter. Despite warmer air, the climate of rest of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet remains colder than the Peninsula, so the rise in temperatures has not led to much summertime melting. Antarctic sea ice coverage is larger than the Arctic’s in winter, but smaller in the summer. Total Antarctic sea ice peaks in September—the end of Southern Hemisphere winter—historically rising to an extent of roughly 17-20 million square kilometres (about 6.6-7.7 million square miles). Ice extent reaches its minimum in February, when it dips to roughly 3-4 million square kilometres (about 1.2-1.5 million square miles).

Arctic sea ice extent as of September 16, 2013 was 5.10 million square kilometres (2.00 million square miles). This is substantially more ice than observed on the same date last year, yet sea ice extent remains quite low compared to the long-term 1981 to 2010 average. As is typical for this time of year, winds or currents can compact or spread apart the ice, resulting in small daily fluctuations of the ice cover. During the first two weeks of September 2013, sea ice extent continued to decline in the East Siberian, Laptev, and Kara seas while staying essentially constant in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas since the beginning of September. The Northwest Passage has seen more extensive ice this summer since 2007 and is not open. On the Eurasian side of the Arctic, the Northern Sea Route appears to have opened-up briefly in September.

And, this is without factoring in tech-tonic plate movement, land mass and surface area determine global thermal steams, how warmth is carried in the North Atlantic stream or the expansion of the Sun from a Yellow Dwarf Star to a Red Dwarf Star and/or solar minimum's and solar maximum's...there is a lot more than just co2 to consider here.

So, climate change is another in a long line of distractions. The goal was tax carbon and promote electric cars (which need to be charged for 8hrs to get 279 miles running time), solar panels on homes (which is only 20% efficient depending on South facing properties and have toxic by-products during and after production) and wind/solar farms which assist in the monopolising of the FREE-ENERGY industry i.e. climate change is not a myth, but a natural product of the Earth going through time, with all the changes that we have no control over, and never will, determining how things will eventuate. This does not discount, however, the affects from solar minimums, solar maximums, Antarctic and Artic ice caps, the North Atlantic Gulf stream, tech-tonic plate movement i.e. continental drift, the Sun's expansion from a Yellow Dwarf to a Red Dwarf and blue-green algae and oxygen. Here are some more interesting facts about the Planet that others say is a growing issue i.e. the forests and oxygen i.e.

The argument about the rain forest and it being the lungs of the world is non-sense. Blue-Green algae produces more oxygen than all the forests combined.

Fact 1 www.sciencetimes.com/articles/6407/20150516/nasa... Between 70 and 80 percent of the oxygen on our planet is generated by photosynthetic algae and cyanobacteria. Algae contain light-absorbing chloroplasts and produce oxygen through photosynthesis.

Fact 2 www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism Also, algae produce about 330 billion tons of oxygen each year. Phytoplankton are tiny microscopic plants - algae - that form the base of the marine food chain. Phytoplankton is most abundant in colder waters where there is an abundance of nutrients

Fact 3 answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=... Best Answer: 75% of our breaths come from oxygen produced by marine algae. 20% from tropical rainforests. 5% all other sources. Cyanobacteria originally made most the oxygen, but large seaweeds and giant kelp produce the most now.

Blue-Green algae = 70 - 80% or 333.6 billion tonnes of oxygen (this is also the best way of terra-forming any planet if you ask me - someone should pass that over to Elon) Forests = 20% or 66.6 billion tonnes of oxygen

So, just looking at the evidence presented above, one can see that the “Green Energy” industry is more about price fixing, subsidies, guilt tripping and fear mongering individuals about CO2 emissions from fossil fuels that the wealthy oil and coal owners have sold you over the last 100+ years. Ironically, CO2 is produced by each human exhaling and – more disturbingly - if CO2 drops below 150ppm in the atmosphere then all plant life dies i.e. plants need CO2 to photosynthesis (this is why controlled environment gardeners fill the greenhouse they are growing in with more CO2 to promote growth), then animals die, then we die i.e. we, who are incidentally, carbon-based life forms e.g. bones are made of calcium CARBONATE.

The Goldilocks Law

Therefore, the real question is:

If the Earth is a self-correcting system, with each system contributing to the survival and recovery of each, then shouldn't the self-correcting mechanisms that exist on Earth be preserved and protected under a "Goldilocks Law" that not only ensures the Earth can keep self-correcting, but also so we can ensure a future for everyone else to come?

This Goldilocks Law" must also include a symbiote clause that states;
Any organism/plant that has a symbiotic relationship with another organism/plant then this is protected and preserved under the "Goldilocks Law"

There are many examples of symbiotic relationships on this Planet e.g. our relationship with CO2 and the importance for human, plant and animal growth and planetary sustainability, but this is at least one to start the drive for a "Goldilocks Law". So, there is a lot we can do, but there are also natural influences that we have no control over e.g. solar minimum/solar maximum. So, it is about remembering that we are mammal's - and as such - we need to maintain a dynamic equilibrium with the Earth and do our best to live symbiotically.

Conclusion

As the author has laid out, the difficulties and challenges that are evident in the current political climate has shown to be ineffective, inefficient and determined by self-interest, directed paths and dogmatism with each generation having to try to ice-skate uphill whilst politicians enjoy the fraternal safety blanket of privilege. With most – if not all – decisions being made to serve the interest of those that fund change and those needing change having to pick through the debris to seek the scraps of opportunity to survive. Politics must change, and that change, needs to be generative and free from political egocentricity.