Review of Dissenter

Dissenter is a variant form of web-browser that gives the ability to add comments to any website and so, make comments on twitter, wikipedia and I presume facebook.

The idea, is that when you go to a website, the browser displays the page, but it also provide an additional comment section for those with the dissenter browser. And this cn only be seen by those with the dissenter browser. So, unless you install and use the dissenter browser, you have asbolutely no idea what people are saying about a web page.

In practice, whilst I started by commenting on a few web pages which are notoriously dishonest, by far the most pages that people comment about are news sites like the Biased Corp (which long ago blocked any real discussion).


I think you may need to register through gab to be able to use dissenter. More of a problem is that all the big commercial browser are actively trying to block free speech so there are for example problems getting dissenter on a smart phone.

But, it is remarkably easy to use. In practice most comments that appear are about the latest news stories – predominantly in the US, but a substantial minority from the UK and a spattering of foreign languar from Sweden, Denmark and Germany.

For the first few days I did come across the odd racist or anti-semitic comment. But in these days of not only blatant but extremely manipulative censorship, seeing raw opinions free from the hand of censorship was a delight, although I quickly blocked them.

The result has been great. I’ve had one long conversation about the origin of fire (whether it was a drill or striking stones together). And several other quite esoteric discussions. It really does remind me of an old English pub where there would be a lot of men sitting down in a smoke filled haze talking about every subject under the sun without the slightest worry that the place will suddenly be raided by the Femi-stazis.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

End of Marie Claire (A woman’s Magazine)

According to the fossil-fuel funded loss making Guardian:

Marie Claire is just the latest titan of women’s media to fall, following Lucky, More!, The Pool and Lenny Letter.

It goes on to say:

 we are mourning the UK print edition of Marie Claire, which at 31 has had its life cut short by the prolific killer, “social media”. Its other victims include Lucky, More!, Look and InStyle UK

It is an epidemic. Cosmopolitan saw its print circulation drop by a third in the last half of 2018; weeklies Woman and Woman’s Own were down 20% and 19% respectively. Now magazine dropped 43%.

What is perhaps most interesting here, given I’ve oft cited the decline of the press due to social media and the resultant move to extremism and fake news reporting of the remaining runts, is that Marie Claire started 31 years ago. This echoes the wholesale change that occurred at that time at the media was automated. This led to the notorious episode in 1986 when Rupert Murdoch took on the print unions and moved his entire British print works to Wapping in London’s Docklands, computerising the production process. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Enerconics: supply and demand

Following on from the last article: Energy price: the effect on the ratio of tangible/intangible I was chatting to my daughter, and she brought up the issue of supply and demand.

The short of it is that in a totally efficient and free market, that goods should be traded at a price which only reflects the tangible value of the goods. That is to say, that people would have all the information they need to ignore brands and buy the best product at the best price, and producers would be able to supply the best product at the lowest price possible so that consumers would not pay above the tangible value.

This therefore suggests that the reason that prices fluctuate above the “energy” or “tangible” value in a market is due to intangible added value. Or to put that in a slightly different way, a fully efficient & free market will reduce the cost of products so that it reflects only the tangible value – or least energy cost. Thus it follows that a fully efficient & free market intrinsically reduces the energy usage (for creating goods) to a minimum.


The original aim of my theory of “enerconics” was to devise a method of measuring value in an economy which did not involve money, because money has many problems not least of which is inflation,but also many societies in the past did not use money. My innovation was to measure value in terms of energy. This seemed, and I think still is, a good idea, because it would allow very different economies such as those with and without money to be compared. Indeed, it could even allow a natural eco-system to be compared with a human economy.

It also gave an avenue in, to understand how massive changes to energy costs would affect the economy. The problem with traditional economics is that “money” has no intrinsic value, except for what it can buy. So, it doesn’t represent value itself. This means very different amount of money can have the same “value” after a period of inflation. And because raising energy prices will lead to massive inflation, the traditional way of looking at the effect of changing energy costs created a confusing and difficult to interpret model. However, energy does have an intrinsic value, and because much of the economy requires energy to be produced, energy is a fairly universal necessity and therefore potential measure of value in an economy and because the need for energy is fixed over long periods, it is free from the effects of inflation. (the energy used to climb a hill remains constant because it is determined by physics and so, unlike money, energy value doesn’t suffer from arbitrary inflation)

However, I ran into several problems.

  1. What it meant to have different types of energy having different “costs” for the same energy content?
  2. If the entire value of an economy could be expressed in terms of energy, how can the total GDP in an economy be much greater than the total monetary value of energy (+food) being consumed?
  3. How can supply and demand could change the apparent “value” of goods when the energy value was not changing?

It now appears that by adapting my idea that everything has an energy value, to one where everything “tangible” has an energy value, but that there also exists “intangible” non-energy related value in an economy, I’m now able to begin explaining all the points above.

In a free efficient market, the value of each energy source will reflect the actual value of that energy source to the user. The difference in value is because some require added energy to be input by the user to make them useful. As an extreme example, coal is free in the ground, because anyone could just pick it up. The reason coal costs is because there is energy consumed in mining and distributing it.

Total GDP is much greater than the total energy use, because of the enerconic multiplier … that is that energy value is reused withint an economy.

Now I can also explain that prices can be greater than the tangible value of goods, because there is intangible (non-energy related) value in addition to tangible value (energy costs in production).

And finally the meaning of a “energy price increase” is that it changes the ratio of value between intangibles (like the man-hours) and tangibles (energy-related costs).


I have now taken the idea of energy as being a way to measure value in an economy and found a potential way to explain the key issues that I had found. However, the theory is now more complex.

Posted in Enerconics | Leave a comment

Politicians in Contempt of Democracy

In a democracy, there is only one court that should judge political decisions such as whether a PM was right to prorogue a rat’s nest of treacherous MPs, and that is the court of public opinion.

For three years now treacherous remoaners have been demanding a “people’s vote” and a General Election. But now when Boris offers them a clear choice at a General Election between the Tories that will take us out of the EU, no ifs, no buts, and Corbyns anti-brexit (but pretend they’re not) rats …. suddenly the people’s vote is not an option they want.

Need I say more?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Energy price: the effect on the ratio of tangible/intangible

Introduction: tangible versus intangible

In my last three articles on this subject:

I developed a way to value “fish”, meaning goods which had to be obtained using work in terms of human time. Here fish represents anything which requires a (on average) fixed effort to produce. So, for example, a shell necklace requires a certain effort which whilst it may vary slightly doesn’t change dramatically. In this article I will be using a slightly differing distinction in which I refer to goods that are or are not “tangible goods”. Tangible goods have a value reflecting the energy used in their production, in contrast, intangibles are goods whose value is largely unconnected with the energy use to make them. Continue reading

Posted in Enerconics | Leave a comment

Breaking the law of thermodynamics (energy only moves from hot to cold)

It is commonly cited by those who do not understand thermodynamics that IR energy (which they falsely call heat) can only move from a hot to a cold body.

Life is too short to try to explain why IR energy is not heat, heat is energy that is randomly spread through a defined system. IR energy is electro-magnetic energy in a specific band. The two overlap, but they are not the same …

So, first lets rewrite what we’re disproving in meaningful scientific terms from “heat only flows” to “IR only flows from a hot to a cold” and this is what I will prove is untrue.

Thought Experiment

Imagine two planetoids one hotter than the other. Each orbits a massive body with the same orbital period and the other body is so massive that one planetoid can only see the other for approximately half its orbit. Now imagine that the distance apart is such that in the time the light travels that distance, the planet has move 1/4 of its orbit. Now imagine that planet A, is 1/4 of an orbit ahead of planet B.

As Planet A comes around to the “right” side of its larger body, planet B is still 1/4 of an orbit behind on the “dark” side. But, by the time the light from planet A, planet B is just entering the “light side”. So all the light from A, arrives at B.

But now if we view the light from B. When B enters the “light” side, planet A which is 1/4 cycle ahead. But, by the time the light from B reaches A, planet A is entering the dark side of its larger sibling and as such, during the whole time planet B is emitting light, it arrives when A is blocked.

So, all the light from A heats planet B, but none of the light from B heats planet A. As such irrespective of the temperature IR (heat) energy only goes in one direction, from A->B. So, if A is colder than B, energy moves from cold to hot.

Disproving Heat only flows from hot to cold

Thought experiment: imagine many pairs of objects, one of the pair hotter than the other. We now bring them into contact so slightly that only one atom/molecule of each pair touch.

Statistically, more heat will flow from the hotter of the pair to the cold, but because heat is randomly distributed in a hot object, in some pairs, the atoms that touch will be colder than typical in the hot and warmer than typical in the cold, and therefore heat will flow from the cold to the hot.

How did I break the law? It was simple. Heat is ONLY a statistical property of a group of atoms or interactions, and I imposed a situation where there was only a single interaction. As such it is no longer “heat”, but instead is a form of energy or work. That is because heat is not a description of energy, but instead is a description of the statistics of energy distribution within a system. If it can’t be said to be statistically distributed or “on average this happens”, then the term “heat” is no longer appropriate.

Final Thoughts

Rather than planetoids, it should be possible to get matter which is spinning in some form which is only sensitive to light at certain phases of the spin. As such, it might be possible to align all the molecules and separate them at 1/4 of the spin cycle and offset the spin in each by 1/4 to break the law of thermodynamics.

Posted in Energy, Light | Leave a comment

What happened? The revolution cometh!

If there was an agreement for an election, it wasn’t on Monday … or more likely the lying deceptive, dishonest, anti-democrats of Labour reneged.

Scum Politicians

All our politicians are lying scum. Some blatantly lied when they promised to take us out the eUnion, others lied by saying they’re for democracy.

  • Lib Democrat – for democracy, except when to lose.
  • SNP – for the right for self determination to leave the Union, except when it’s the hated English voting to leave the (e)Union.
  • Labour – just lies. They lied about taking us out the EU, and the no-deal blocker was just a “backstop” to stop us leaving if they couldn’t stop it any other way.
  • Tory – only supporting leaving the EU, because they know they will never get to power again as most of their supporters will be voting UKIP/Brexit party.

When the election seemed imminent I joined the Tories, but apparently that was a mistake. They clearly could have talked out the brexit blocker bill, but did not. I had assumed that there must have been a deal which would led to us leaving the neo-Nazi EU, but apparently not.

I’m sick to death waiting for our politicians to fulfil their promise for us to leave the EU. We NEVER should have been in the EU in the first place and we were only in it because of the lies of the politicians and media like the Biased Corp.

To add insult to injury, there is now unequivocal proof (link) that no link between CO2 and climate can be claimed, because the climate models have been proven to miss vital physics and the result is that their actual accuracy is no better than +/-15C in 100 years. There is no credibility to the climate scam which has already cost each of us £1000s and is set to cost each of us tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Politicians are scum!

The Revolution Cometh

Academia has fallen flat on its face, the media have fallen flat on their face and the politicians likewise. Those who once controlled our society, now lack all credibility. It therefore is extremely likely – even inevitable – that new sources of credibility will take over.

That is easy to predict, but what is less easy is the timing and even more difficult the form. At least with the timing we can draw some historical analogies.

Communist revolutions started around 1870, probably reached a peak 1910-50 and then faded. The precursor to this was the introduction in 1830, of the first penny press newspaper. Penny press papers cost about one-sixth the price of other newspapers and appealed to a wider audience.

The response to this falling newspaper price and the growing interest of poorer groups in politics is shown by the fact that in the early 19th century, there were 52 London papers and over 100 other titles. The British government response to the more poorer people getting an interest in politics was that in 1802, and 1815 the tax on newspapers was increased to three pence and then four pence.In retrospect the thinking is clear: newspapers and politics should be the preserve of the rich.

For understandable reasons, because this dramatically increased the price between 1831 and 1835 hundreds of untaxed newspapers made their appearance. And for understandable reasons, the political tone of most of them was fiercely revolutionary.

Today, the larger newspapers would be calling the smaller “fake news”, or even “bloggers” for failing to abide by the (rich) establishment line. Today that same establishment is now reeling at the changes brought about by the internet and is again actively trying to repress the “fiercely revolutionary” tone of the new media. The similarities are obvious.

Karl Marx wrote his in/famous Communist Manifesto in 1848, 15 years after the surge of revolutionary newspapers. This shows that the effect of revolutionary news media can be dramatic within a few decades. However, the first “communist” revolutions did not occur for 20 years and the Russian revolution was 70 years later. This also shows that the effect can be delayed considerably.

In truth, revolutions may be reported as one-off events, but in practice they are the accumulation of small changes which build tension resulting in a few large and sudden changes.

Arguably, in some ways, the internet has had a more profound affect than these early newspapers, totally undermining the previous technology and the establishment who used it to gain control over us. But perhaps being able to afford even one newspaper was far more revolutionary than a media that merely lets us read many alternative sources?

But what is certain, is that the internet will compress the timescale of the next revolution. We are already starting to see the facture lines forming along which it is likely to develop. The fault lines are now active, the only question is how long will it take the the social pressure to grow before there is a catastrophic realignment of thought that necessitates serious action amounting to a revolution.

Brexit is clearly one of those fault lines – the establishment being at fault, and the general populace sick to the teeth with their lies and anti-democratic behaviour. And, unless Brexit is sorted out (in favour of the people), it won’t be long before we start to see the stirrings of revolution in the UK. In retrospect, that fault line started before the internet revolution, but the internet gave the ordinary people their voice by which to force the referendum. But as we have seen, forcing a referendum and leaving the EU are two very different things. Some of the delay has been legitimate, in retrospect, most was not. But the establishment can and does fob off the populace for years before resentment grows and revolutionary thought develops.

The internet has already given us the Arab Spring, Trump and the Brexit vote. In a historical sense, these are only the warm up act.

The world is now split between two opposing ideologies: Groupthink (aka Socialism) and individualism/ diversity of views.

Every fascist/communist/censorist despot from Hitler (National Socialist) to Mao, from the climate cult to Isis, from Google to Goering, have been at the extreme end on the spectrum of Groupthink. Groupthing is a non-rational viewpoint, that says the group is right irrespective of the evidence or the arguments against it.

Individualism, diversity or views, freedom of expression, are beliefs “common” to those who share nothing in common except a respect for other people and their right to peacefully express their views and an expectation that decisions are made on a rational basis or if not, by majority vote of the population (not the elite).

As such individualism values high quality information sources, whilst groupthink hates them. For the aim of the groupthinkers is to merely indoctrinate the masses to their way of thinking.


The world is heading away from groupthink ideologies like socialism and toward individualism. And, my best guess is that within the next 10 to 50 years, we are likely to see a “earthquake” in politics amounting to a wholesale revolution of our society. Or … it could be that the groupthinkers win … because nothing is certain except that there will be a revolution.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Unravelling the bluff and double-bluff of British Politics

To start the analysis at the end, last night about 1:30am I was sitting in my dressing gown with my first beer, ready for an all night session of cheering on philabusterers in the #HouseOflords reading tweets like this:

It was a most bizarre scene. A lot of people had obviously stayed up to follow the proceedings and to be quite frank almost no one knew what was going on. To give a flavour, they had been going at it hours, when I heard that they had finally finished going through amendments for the preamble. It was clear they could be talking about talking and those on twitter talking about talking about talking for days. I had no idea of the maths, but it looked like we could be watching for days and see the bill talked out. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Groupthink alternatives

This was such a good comment from jdgalt on wuwt

that I decided to grab it for my own use.

We are starting to see plentiful competition with most of these. Instead of Google use DuckDuckGo or even Bing; instead of Youtube use bitchute; instead of reddit use minds; instead of the fake news outlets use blazetv and oann; instead of twitter use gab; instead of Kickstarter use freestartr; instead of patreon use SubscribeStar.

But there are still no good substitutes to enable deplatforming victims to avoid Facebook or google groups (Yahoo is rumored to be just as bad). And what’s worse, upstream services that are much more regulated (Mastercard, Chase Bank, Paypal, Stripe, GoDaddy) are starting to deplatform people too, which threatens the ability of all the alternatives I discussed above to exist. If Trump doesn’t shut that effort down then nobody can. I hope I’m wrong about that.

We also have:

HotScot who gives

Facebook alternative.

Posted in Google, Politics | Leave a comment

7 hours of political drama – I never thought I could think lower of remainers

Yesterday, I watched parliament live for about 7 hours. During that time the government of Boris Johnson explained in great details all it was doing to see Brexit through. How it had made arrangements for drugs, for freight at ports for food, how EU citizens had a simple procedure to get to stay in the country, basically it was all anyone could want from a caring government that had very strong plans to get us through the transition and out of the EU.

And then along came the treacherous remainer MPs who had promised to get us out the EU. And one after one they just blatantly lied. “There will be a major calamnity because  (all?) drugs would be unavailable”, “EU citizens will be kicked out”, etc. ALL BLANTANT LIES. It was clear where the press stories came from … the blatant lies of the remainers.

Then came the big drama.

Bercow, who legally should be impartial (like the Biased Corp) was clearly hell bent on breaking his own rulings to use a war-footing time precedent to allow MPs who had voted to leave with no deal (as that is what they all voted for a few years ago), who had had years to pass legislation to block leaving, years of talk about talks about leaving, now Bercow allowed an emergency procedure for them to block all chances of a brexit deal on the pretence that after years of sitting on their fat arses lying about their intentions, that they now needed to pass emergency legislation to block brexit.

The only reason they had to use emergency procedures is because they had lost!

As we know, Boris lost that vote … as seemed inevitable given the number of traitorous remainers in parliament, … but then came the “elephant trap” as Blair had told his own side: Boris said he would now table a motion for an election.

You’ve got to hand it to Boris. He’s clearly played Corbyn like a muppet. By asking for a perfectly normal procedure of a new queen’s speech he forced the lying Corbyn to get the treacherous Bercow to make-up parliamentary procedures and prove the remainer MPs never had any intention of letting us leave and that “no no deal” and then never voting for a deal, was just their way of stopping us leaving. Then he goes for the killer and perfectly understandable “back me or sack me” motion which is quite normal when a government loses a critical vote, that left Corbyn looking like the utter lying, two-faced, unprincipled, scared-to-fight-an-election twat that he is.

And best of all, it gave Boris the excuse to rid of his party of the worst EU traitors.

Posted in #GE2019 | Leave a comment