new

Climate Hysteria is female
The Genderista (Translator's note: appears to be a personal snarlword of his for the Feminazi establishment or something) already proclaimed long ago that "climate change is male" - a claim that led us to the question whether there is an equivalency between "female professor" and "mental deficiency", if only because only fantastically-inclined Genderista manage to produce a correlation between men, which they naturally and as paragons of group-based misanthropy declare a homogenous group and a natural phenomenon which already existed before there were men on Earth.

But as many a wise (white) person from the Palentinate has said:
Thinking is a matter of luck - for some.

Our assessment that climate hysteria is female, on the other hand, is an empirically supported assessment for which there is evidence:

For one, there is no certain evidence at all that anthropogenic climate change is in the process. As long as Earth has existed, the planet's climate has been changing. Whether humans have recently contributed to climate change to a noteworthy degree is an open question which is open because the existant climate models are junk, the claim that CO2 is a climate killer is a hoax, because it is known that the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change) likes to manipulate their own data and, on top of it, the bilance of climate change as of now, calculated on the basis of a general increase of Earth's temperature by 1 degree Celsius, is a POSITIVE one. Yes: Climate change does not only have negative effects, it also has benefits:

“In my Climate Change Misconceived earlier essay, that explored the dissonance in public understanding of the climate change issue, I contended that based on the best available science and empirical evidence post-industrial climate change (whether it be man-made or natural) apparently has not caused exceptional or accelerating rises in sea levels, has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events and has not caused accelerating global species extinctions. Similarly, whilst heat-related deaths have increased with the warming, cold-related deaths have fallen even more – so net-mortality has improved. Furthermore according to Dr. Indur Goklanky, science analyst for the US Department of the Interior, ‘Carbon dioxide fertilises plants, and emissions from fossil fuels have already had a hugely beneficial effect on crops, increasing yields by at least 10-15%.’ So it has apparently been net-beneficial for agriculture. Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University (after reviewing 14 different studies of the effects of future climate trends) concluded that global warming would likely be economically net-beneficial for the world up to 30C. So with only 10C of warming it certainly appears to have been economically net-beneficial to date. Against all this we have to set the effects of ocean warming and reduced alkalinity that have probably been net-harmful for marine life. Taken as a whole, the positive changes from post-industrial climate change appear to have outweighed the negative changes – and the negative changes (in particular rising sea levels) are apparently currently happening sufficiently slowly for us to adapt to them.”

That there are two sides to everything, not just good and not just bad, that is, of course, an insight which - if it is said in the wrong context - leads to being labeled a right-wing populist or a right-winger or a climate denialist. Regardless of this, common sense and Aristotle already tell us that the truth often lies in the middle, that is, in between good and evil. One exception: The Greens.

But joke aside.

He who, in the face of lacking evidence for anthropogenic climate change, in the face of up-to-now positive benefit of climate change and in the face of manipulations in the records of the IPCC, believes anthropogenic climate change to be proven, not only demonstrates himself a fundamental believer who feels beholden to the new climate-religion (because he prefers to keep distance to rationality), he also demonstrates that he wants to believe in something.

People who want to believe unconditionally and against any empirical evidence have left the ground of normal existence, so they must be classified as either dangerous or as hysterical, the latter especially if they begin to submit their everyday lives to the premise that there is anthropogenic climate change that affects their lives negatively and which, in the worst case, lets their miserable lives end prematurely.

The WHO draws the line with most diagnosis of psychological disorders where "normal everyday funvction" is no longer possible. All the fashionable addictions, from internet addiction to smartphone to gaming addiction, require for their diagnosis a negative effect on the normal proceedings of daily life, e.g. avoidance of the work place or truancy.

And now we have arrived at the FridayForFuture demonstrations, whose participants are making it explicit that they're truants. In the diction of the WHO, this means: They do no longer function normally. The normal proceedings of their lives are impaired by the delusions under which they operate or by a psychological disorder that has taken ahold of them.

In this case, by hysteria.

In the beginning of the 19th Century, hysterically was exclusively registered and diagnosed as "female hysteria". The explanations for why hysteria mostly affects women were diverse and we do not need to take interest in them as research in the beginning of the 20th Century lead to the diagnosis of "female hysteria" mostly disappearing, The "Studies on Hysteria" conducted by Siegmund Freud together with Josef Breuer in 1895 lead to hysteria being viewed as a syndrome that mostly, but not exclusively, affects women, and even to no longer speaking of "female hysteria", but of hysteria as an anxiety disorder. But this classification fell temporarilly and for various reasons out of favour. The main reason lies in the variable use that the concept of hysteria has experienced over the course of the 20th Century, a use behind which lie neurological, psychophysiological conditions and mass panic in equal measure. In short: The term had become arbitrary and had been dropped for this reason. Accordingly, R. E. Kendall wrote in an essay from the year 2001:

“Contemporary understanding of hysterical behavior has been influenced strongly by the sociological concepts of the ‘sick role’ and ‘illness behavior’ and by learning theory, and attempts to reduce both the attractions of the sick role and influences discouraging healthy behavior now have a central role in management. This conceptual model explains the distribution of hysterical behaviors in populations, including the predominance in young women, and many other clinical observations, but it fails to account either for neurological conversion symptoms or for fugues and other dissociative phenomena.”

Hysterical behaviour, that is, behaviour not appropriate for the situation, is now viewed as learned behaviour that is mostly to be found in girls and young women who try to win attention through a role as a victim they write for themselves.

On this basis, we can explain our headline:

A survey among the participants of FridaysForFuture demonstrations revealed that up to 70% of participants are female. The results is based on about 2000 interviews with participants in nine states and 13 cities. This meager result that was nonetheless financed by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (and which could also have been reached by counting) is the subject of a press release by the Technic University of Chemnitz. The press release not only demonstrates that our headline: "Climate hysteria is female" is empirically supportedk it also shows the mental confusion to which attempting to make oneself servile to the Genderista leads, for as it says in the press release:

"... reports project leader Dr. Piotz Kocyba. More surprising than the age of the domestrators is, for example, the predominance of female she-participants (Translator's note: feminine form) ..."

This can only surprise those who are not familiar with the research on hysterical behaviour, but with people who write about "female participants (Translator's note: see above), one would not really expect that anyways.

Die Klimahysterie ist weiblich

Die Genderista hat schon vor Jahren verkündet, dass der „Klimawandel männlich“ sei – eine Behauptung, die uns veranlasst hat, die Frage zu stellen, ob es eine Äquivalenz zwischen „weiblicher Professor“ und „mentaler Beschränkung“ gibt, schon weil nur phantastisch veranlagte Genderista es schaffen, einen Zusammenhang zwischen Männern, die sie natürlich und in bester Manier der gruppenbezogenen Menschenfeindlichkeit zu einer homogenen Gruppe erklären und einem Naturphänomen, das es schon gab, als es auf der Erde noch keine Männer gab, herzustellen.

Aber, wie hat ein weis(ß)er Pfälzer gesagt: Denke iss Gliggsach – bei manchen.

Dagegen ist unsere Feststellung, dass die Klimahysterie weiblich ist, eine empirisch fundierte Feststellung, die sich belegen lässt:

So gibt es keinerlei gesicherte Befunde, die zeigen, dass sich derzeit ein von Menschen gemachter Klimawandel vollzieht. Seit es die Erde gibt, wandelt sich das Klima des Planeten. Ob Menschen seit kurzem den Klimawandel in nennenswertem Ausmaß mitbefördern, ist eine offene Frage, die deshalb offen ist, weil die vorhandenen Klimamodelle Junk sind, die Behauptung, dass CO2 ein Klimakiller-Molekül sei, ein Hoax ist, weil bekannt ist, dass das IPCC (das Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) gerne die eigenen Daten manipuliert und darüber hinaus die bisherige Bilanz des Klimawandels, berechnet auf der Grundlage von einer generellen Erhöhung der Erdtemperatur um 1 Grad Celsius eine POSITIVE ist. Ja: Klimawandel hat nicht nur Nachteile, er hat auch Vorteile:

“In my Climate Change Misconceived earlier essay, that explored the dissonance in public understanding of the climate change issue, I contended that based on the best available science and empirical evidence post-industrial climate change (whether it be man-made or natural) apparently has not caused exceptional or accelerating rises in sea levels, has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events and has not caused accelerating global species extinctions. Similarly, whilst heat-related deaths have increased with the warming, cold-related deaths have fallen even more – so net-mortality has improved. Furthermore according to Dr. Indur Goklanky, science analyst for the US Department of the Interior, ‘Carbon dioxide fertilises plants, and emissions from fossil fuels have already had a hugely beneficial effect on crops, increasing yields by at least 10-15%.’ So it has apparently been net-beneficial for agriculture. Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University (after reviewing 14 different studies of the effects of future climate trends) concluded that global warming would likely be economically net-beneficial for the world up to 30C. So with only 10C of warming it certainly appears to have been economically net-beneficial to date. Against all this we have to set the effects of ocean warming and reduced alkalinity that have probably been net-harmful for marine life. Taken as a whole, the positive changes from post-industrial climate change appear to have outweighed the negative changes – and the negative changes (in particular rising sea levels) are apparently currently happening sufficiently slowly for us to adapt to them.”

Dass jedes Ding zwei Seiten hat, nicht nur gut und nicht nur schlecht ist, das ist natürlich eine Erkenntnis, die – wenn man sie im falschen Kontext äußert – dazu führt, dass man sich als Rechtspopulist oder Rechter oder Klimaleugner bezeichnet findet. Dessen ungeachtet sagen bereits der gesunde Menschenverstand und Aristoteles, dass die Wahrheit oft in der Mitte liegt, also zwischen gut und böse. Eine Ausnahme: Die Grünen.

Aber Spaß beiseite.

Wer angesichts nicht vorhandener Belege für einen menschengemachten Klimawandel, angesichts bislang positiver Nutzen durch den Klimawandel und angesichts von Manipulationen in den Berichten des IPCC den menschengemachten Klimawandel für bewiesen hält, der zeigt damit nicht nur, dass er ein fundamental Gläubiger ist, der sich der neuen Klima-Religion verbunden fühlt (während er von Rationalität eher Abstand nimmt), er zeigt damit auch, dass er etwas glauben will.

Menschen, die unbedingt und gegen jeden empirischen Beleg glauben wollen, haben den Boden einer normalen Existenz verlassen, so dass man sie entweder als gefährlich oder als hysterisch einordnen muss, Letzteres vor allem dann, wenn sie anfangen, ihr tägliches Leben unter die Prämisse zu stellen, dass es einen menschengemachten Klimawandel gibt, der ihr Leben negativ beeinträchtigen und sie, im schlimmsten Fall, ihr miserables Leben vorzeitig beenden lässt.

Die WHO zieht die Grenze bei den meisten Diagnosen von psychischen Störungen da, wo ein „normales Funktionieren im Alltag“ nicht mehr möglich ist. Die ganzen Mode-Süchte, von der Internet-, über die Smartphone bis zur Spielsucht, erfordern in ihrer Diagnose einen negativen Effekt auf die normalen Verrichtungen des täglichen Lebens, z.B. das Fernbleiben vom Arbeitsplatz oder das Schulschwänzen.

Damit sind wir bei den FridaysForFuture Demonstrationen, deren Teilnehmer explizit machen, dass sie die Schule schwänzen. In der Diktion der WHO bedeutet dies: Sie funktionieren nicht mehr normal. Die normalen Verrichtungen ihres Lebens werden durch eine Wahnvorstellung, unter der sie handeln oder durch eine psychische Störung, die sie im Griff hat, beeinträchtigt.

Im vorliegenden Fall durch Hysterie.

Hysterie wurde bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts ausschliesslich als „weibliche Hysterie“ erfasst und diagnostiziert. Die Erklärungen dafür, dass Hysterie in erster Linie Frauen ereilt, waren vielfältig und müssen uns hier nicht interessieren, denn die Forschung zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts hat dazu geführt, dass die Diagnose „weibliche Hysterie“ weitgehend verschwunden ist. Die 1895 von Sigmund Freud gemeinsam mit Josef Breuer veröffentlichten „Studien über Hysterie“ haben dazu geführt, Hysterie als Krankheitsbild zu betrachten, das zwar mehrheitlich, aber nicht nur Frauen befällt und darüber hinaus nicht mehr von weiblicher Hysterie, sondern von Hysterie als einer Angst-Störung zu sprechen. Auch diese Klassifikation ist zwischenzeitlich und aus vielen Gründen in Ungnade gefallen. Der Hauptgrund findet sich in der variablen Verwendung, die das Konzept „Hysterie“ im Verlauf des 20. Jahrhunderts gefunden hat, eine Verwendung, hinter der sich neurologische, psychophysiologische Bedingungen und Massenpaniken in gleicher Weise finden. Kurz: Der Begriff war beliebig geworden und wurde deshalb fallen gelassen wurde. Entsprechend schreibt R. E. Kendall in einem Beitrag aus dem Jahre 2001:

“Contemporary understanding of hysterical behavior has been influenced strongly by the sociological concepts of the ‘sick role’ and ‘illness behavior’ and by learning theory, and attempts to reduce both the attractions of the sick role and influences discouraging healthy behavior now have a central role in management. This conceptual model explains the distribution of hysterical behaviors in populations, including the predominance in young women, and many other clinical observations, but it fails to account either for neurological conversion symptoms or for fugues and other dissociative phenomena.”

Hysterisches, also den Umständen nicht angemessenes Verhalten wird nunmehr als erlerntes Verhalten betrachtet, das sich vornehmlich bei Mädchen und jungen Frauen findet, die versuchen, über eine Opferrolle, die sie sich zuschreiben, Aufmerksamkeit zu gewinnen.

Auf dieser Grundlage können wir nun unsere Überschrift erklären:

Eine Befragung unter Teilnehmern der FridaysForFuture-Demonstrationen, hat ergeben, dass bis zu 70% der Teilnehmer weiblich sind. Das Ergebnis basiert auf rund 2000 Interviews mit Teilnehmern in neun Ländern und 13 Städten. Dieses magere Ergebnis, das nichtsdestotrotz vom Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung finanziert wurde (und das man über Zählen ebenso hätte erhalten können), ist Gegenstand einer Pressemeldung der TU-Chemnitz. Die Pressemeldung zeigt nicht nur, warum unsere Überschrift: „Klimahysterie ist weiblich“ empirisch fundiert ist, sie zeigt auch, zu welcher geistigen Verwirrung der Versuch, sich bei der Genderista anzudienen führt, heißt es doch in der Pressemeldung:

„… berichtet Projektleiter Dr. Piotr Kocyba. Überraschender als das junge Alter der Demonstrantinnen und Demonstranten beispielsweise sei die Dominanz weiblicher Teilnehmerinnen …“.

Überraschen kann das nur, wer nicht mit der Forschung zu hysterischem Verhalten vertraut ist, aber bei Leuten, die von „weiblichen Teilnehmerinnen“ schreiben, ist das auch eher nicht zu erwarten.

Established, Fundamental, Axioms

(As simplified as I can make them, based on the work of Robert-Arthur: Menard, Mary-Elizabeth: Croft and (to some extent Winston Shrout and Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst). Basically it is their work, tweaked a bit by re-writing, and removing 'God' - thereby reducing it to absolute fundamentals)

1) 'Lawful' is what it is all about. 'Lawful' .vs. 'unlawful'. Do not get trapped into discussing 'legal'/'illegal'.

2) In order to empower a representative, you must have the power yourself. You cannot give to anyone something you, yourself do not possess. You cannot give them any more than you, yourself, possess. Consequently you can look at anything any representative does, and say "I must be entitled to do that myself, without - necessarily - empowering someone else to do it for me".

3) In a democracy, 'a majority' does not depend on 'large numbers'. A majority can be as low as ONE. And that ONE must, of itself, (therefore) carry sufficient empowerment to put any motion into practice. (The US Supreme Court has 9 Members. A 5 - 4 majority carries any ruling. That's 'democracy')

4) Consequent to (3) no Government has more power than you do yourself. The powers are equal. The only difference is that your power is inalienable - it can't be taken away from you - whereas a Government can be replaced by some other set of role players. Consequently YOU are 'supreme'.

5) 'Requesting permission' is the act of a child. 'Licencing' is 'begging for permission' and 'submitting to someone else's will'. Adults do not beg permission for something they are lawfully entitled to do, and prepared to take full responsibility for so doing. Anything for which a licence can be granted must, by definition, be fundamentally lawful (otherwise it would be incapable of being licenced), and there is, therefore, absolutely no need for an adult to 'ask such permission'. The act of 'obtaining a licence' is the act of throwing away a fundamental Right, and substituting a (revocable) privilege instead.

6) 'Registration' of anything transfers superior ownership to the entity accepting the registration. Once an item has been registered, you are no longer the OWNER (even though you will still be paying for the item), but instead you become the KEEPER. This includes cars, houses, children (who become 'wards of the state' by virtue of a birth registration), etc. ('regis ...' = handing ownership to The Crown ... which, by the way, is the British Crown in Temple Bar, and NOT Elizabeth II)

7) When parts of the Magna Carta were 'transferred' into Statutes what was actually happening was that fundamental Rights were being transferred into privileges. Thus they were being watered down. Diffused. Being rendered powerless.

8) In all cases you are always being OFFERED A SERVICE - which includes 'benefits' - in the form of privileges. You are always fully entitled to waive such services, and of course you will also be waiving the attendant benefits, as you so choose. Your choice is - ultimately - to either assert your (inalienable) Rights, or accept (revocable) privileges.

9) The law can give rise to a FICTION, but a fiction cannot give rise to a law. Consequently a legal fiction called THE GOVERNMENT has no power to make LAW. It is, in point of fact, BOUND BY LAW (like everyone else, and including all other legal fictions). PARLIAMENT is another legal fiction entity. Statutes created by Parliament are not, therefore, the LAW. They are 'legislated rules for a society' and ONLY APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF THAT SOCIETY. Join a different society, and you would be bound by a different set of rules. (If this were not the case it would be impossible to become, for example, a Freemason and be bound by the rules of Freemasonry). Statutes are nothing more than the Company Policy of THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, or THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, etc. (See 'society', below)

10) Only a sovereign flesh and blood human being, with a living soul, has a Mind. Only something with a Mind is capable of devising a CLAIM. Legal fictions are soulless, and do not possess a distinct Mind. They cannot, therefore, in LAW, make a CLAIM.

11) Consequent to the foregoing, and since the Judiciary in a court de facto derives all its power from colour-of-law/Statutes, then no court de facto has any power over you as a sovereign human being, IN FACT (although, of course, they don't bother to tell you!). A court de jure is the only kind of court to which you are subject under Common Law, and there are none of those left (unless you insist that the court operates de jure, by demanding a Trial by Jury. But they will attempt to resist that with every fibre in their 'corporate', soulless, 'bodies').

12) YOU, and your fellow countrymen, constitute the entire and total 'wealth' of your country. The resources may be considered as assets, but without you & your fellow countrymen they are worthless. A field must be ploughed, and seeded, before potatoes will grow. Once grown they must be dug up, bagged, and transported before they can do the worthwhile job of sustaining life. Without the efforts of you, and your countrymen, NOTHING can happen, and your country itself is a worthless lump of soil.

13) A Society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. A society makes its own rules, and its Members are duty-bound to follow them. Different societies can exist, having their own unique set of rules. One way of 'choking' the action of a court de facto is to claim membership of a society that only exists in Common Law jurisdiction. The World Freeman Society has been set up precisely for this purpose.

14) Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO, it must comprise the following:

A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract.

B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other party's CONSIDERATION.

C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree.

D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.

Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been followed. (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!). Standing on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating just about every action that may be taken against you. (See No. 16, below)

15. Agreement to pay. Consequent to (14) above, all 'payment demands', that could result in court actions against you, can be stopped by 'conditionally agreeing to pay the sum demanded', subject to proofs that the 4 rules were followed in the first place. (Make sure you send this letter by registered post, heading it 'Notice of Conditional Agreement' and including 'Without Prejudice' in a suitable place). In almost all cases no proofs are possible (because the rules were never followed lawfully). However, by 'agreeing to pay' you have removed all CONTROVERSY. Thus a court action, which is only there to adjudicate on CONTROVERSY, cannot take place. If you receive a Summons, you can write back (registered!) with a copy of your agreement to pay, subject to the proofs being presented. The court will consider that any further action is 'frivolous', i.e. a complete waste of its time, since there is no CONTROVERSY on which it can adjudicate. (The court may even consider whoever applied to the court to be in contempt). (See No. 16, below)

16. "I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn thing! When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours in the first place. You created the 'money' when you signed the Loan or Credit Application. By doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument called 'the money'. They cashed this in(*), and then used that to loan you back your own money. You don't owe a damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an apology at the very least - for applying this confidence trick on you - AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU ALREADY GAVE THEM.

(* Actually they just could have walked away with your cash. But they didn't, because they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they could get you to pay everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on top of that. Thus they had already been paid in full ONCE when they cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it back to you, and reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'. Are you just beginning to feel slightly less sympathetic? If not, I don't know what else to say.

"Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way. Banks are not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held by them 'in trust'). Loan Companies and Credit Card Companies (etc.) have no Deposit Money in the first place! Do they? So how else could they do it, then?)

17. 'Responsibility' .vs. 'Authority'. You can DELEGATE authority, but you can only SHARE responsibility. In other words, if you task (delegate) someone to do something, you still retain the RESPONSIBILITY for getting it done, and for anything that may happen as a result. If, for example, a Police Officer carries out any order, given by a superior, then that Officer is personally responsible for what may occur as a result, and all those up the chain of command are considered accomplices, in LAW.

(That's what the Nuremberg Trials were all about)

Therefore it is important that, if you delegate authority, you delegate to the right individual or group of individuals. You delegate to an individual who will accomplish the task without come-backs. And who you choose is your choice, and your responsibility.

(If this had been pointed out, during the de Menezes trial, INCLUDING THE OBVIOUS BREACH OF COMMON LAW, a lot of Police personnel - up to, and including the Home Secretary & Prime Minister - could easily have ended up behind bars. The so-called 'legal profession' did a thoroughly abysmal job - as normal. A golden opportunity, tossed into the bin of history, by virtue of plain, common or garden, useless waffle. The police were charged under the Health & Safety Act. What utter rubbish! They should have been charged under Common Law)

Veronica: of the Chapman family

(January, 2009)